How Has This Forum Affected Your Belief In Bf?

[BobZenor]

When I joined the old BFF many years ago, I didn't think it was at all likely that BF could exist anywhere outside the PNW. Some people's stories made me much less skeptical about that possibility but I am definitely still very skeptical about most areas. I am not much influenced by skeptical arguments that the wide distribution of reports makes it less likely for them to exist. I understand the logic but I am far more strongly influenced by my personal experience. I am actually painfully skeptical of almost everything in the world and that includes my own experience. The skeptical cynic in me wants to deny even my own experience but I just can't logically do it.

Edited July 4, 2011 by BobZenor

[kitakaze]

I get to take an Alaskan vacation and enjoy a nice prime rib with Huntster! How could I possibly not want bigfoot to be real when the stakes are . . . steaks?

Can't get much better than that, but don't count out some juicy black bandit, bacon, jalapenos, and teriyaki...

The "So good you'll want to slap your mother-in-law" Recipe

Ingredients

16 pieces of crow breast meat (no bones) (8 crows)

16 pieces of jalapeno peppers (or banana peppers)

16 strips of bacon

1 1/2 cups of Teriyaki sauce

Preparation

Place breast meat in a covered bowl with the Teriyaki sauce over night.

Cook the breasts in boiling water for about five minutes. Cut up fresh

jalapeno peppers into circles (or use the store bought kind that come in

jars). Place one jalapeno pepper in the center of each breast and wrap with

bacon. Secure the bacon with a round toothpick. Cook on the grill until

bacon is crisp (not burned). Flip the breasts constantly to avoid the fat

catching on fire. Use banana peppers for people that don't like their food

quite so hot.

Serves four adults

[Guest]

WTB1, Mulder will simply tell you that thousands of people have not reported seeing unicorns. I think a more relevant analogy for a social construct in Mulder's case would be reports of alien abduction, which IIRC, he is skeptical of.

You are correct in that I think the evidence for abductions is far less developed, and the theoretical assumptions and underpinnings as to science that would permit such is nowhere near as well developed either. Of the two phenomena, abductions have the weaker case at this point in time.

Returning specifically to BF, there is no logical, scientific reason why BF cannot exist. It requires no radical reinterpretations of natural law (or arguing around said law) to exist. The evidence FOR BF, both anecdotal and physical is much greater in quantity and quality than that for abductions (or unicorns, for that matter).

[Guest BIG WHITE BUFFALO]

there have been so many consistent bigfoot sightings over the centuries that there has to be a race of these unknown creatures exsist.go by the numbers! these things were seen by native americans long before anybody else explored here!cultures all over the world have reported them just as long too.there is something out there and it is smart enough to stay away from people because it detects and knows we will start killing them like we do everything else we don't understand!

[Guest]

How Has This Forum Affected Your Belief In Bf?

It hasn't affected me in any way, in fact I still do not believe. I am still undecided after all these years here and at the old BFF.

[kitakaze]

You are correct in that I think the evidence for abductions is far less developed, and the theoretical assumptions and underpinnings as to science that would permit such is nowhere near as well developed either. Of the two phenomena, abductions have the weaker case at this point in time.

Returning specifically to BF, there is no logical, scientific reason why BF cannot exist. It requires no radical reinterpretations of natural law (or arguing around said law) to exist. The evidence FOR BF, both anecdotal and physical is much greater in quantity and quality than that for abductions (or unicorns, for that matter).

I'll leave aside a debate of the comparison between the claims of Bigfoot existing and people being yoinked by aliens as it would only derail the discussion, but I agree with you about the part I bolded in your post. When people try and come up with reason why Bigfoot as an animal could not physically exist, it just has nothing to do with science and as much to do with wishful thinking as the bogus science from the other end.

I think where the rewriting of biology books comes in is when you try and make the case for how a breeding population of huge mammals can escape scientific description whilst living across the entire North American continent.

Edited July 5, 2011 by kitakaze

[Guest]

I originally joined the old BFF in September of 2004 because another forum member who had also recently joined claimed to have an encounter with bigfoot about 35 miles from where I live and I wanted to check out the scene of the sighting. That was the first report I'd personally investigated since Feb 1994. I was very skeptical of bigfoot's existence long before I joined the old BFF based on my own experiences. That wasn't always the case, and at one time I believed that bigfoot was probably real, and was obsessed with finding some evidence that would convince myself that bigfoot was indeed real. I never found it, but I did find lots of reason to doubt the evidence was as good as the "experts" that wrote about bigfoot seemed to think it was. I can't say I'm any less skeptical than I was. Decades pass, bigfoot still isn't discovered, it becomes even less likely to me that it could be real.

Bigfoot is and has been an enigma for me. I still find myself wanting to believe something is out there. I honestly wish that I'd never gotten interested in all things bigfoot. No matter how skeptical one is of bigfoot's existence, you can never really "know" if something does not exist.

I'd love to log in someday and see some very convincing evidence that supports the existence of bigfoot.

I do think this forum is a very good thing. Back in the 1980's it was damned near impossible to even find anyone else that had an active interest in bigfoot that was close enough to talk with occasionally so that your phone bill wouldn't bankrupt you.

[Guest Bucket]

I've always believed in bigfoot, but I'm so frustrated that after all this time there still isn't any conclusive proof. Still, it's good to know there are so many people searching, many someday one of us will get lucky.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

When I first started reading this forum, about a year ago, I was a highly hopeful "semi-believer"....I thought that of all the cryptids, BF was the most likely to be a real animal, and I found the Patterson film very compelling...I was eager to see more evidence and learn more about the state of current research....

Now, many months later, I find that I am almost 100% skeptic...and what caused this change in thinking was NOT the skeptics on the board, but the hard-core believers...while I might be able to entertain the idea of a small population of ape-like animals living in the deep forests of the PNW, I cannot bring myself to believe that there is a huge population in virtually every State of the Union, peeking in windows, strolling through people's back yards, or having a cigarette behind the garage...And it seems to be the "hard cores" that bring the bulk of the "evidence'..in fact,there doesn't seem to be ANY hard scientific evidence for the existence of a relict population of great apes in North America, just the anecdotal evidence of the more fanatic believers, who see BF EVERYWHERE....and therefore relegate it to "nowhere" in my book...

So what about others on the forum? Has being a member changed your opinions on BF, and if so, in what direction? Are you a firmer believer, or a more hardened skeptic, since participating? Thanks...

I've been 'following' this forum for some time now and kept resisting the urge to interject my 'skepticism' but got bored tonight and figured I'd weigh in.

In short, I echo all that you said. Reading what the hard-core 'bleevers' claim is iron-clad proof of Bigfoot's existence leaves me gasping in disbelief if not disgust. I know that's inflammatory but I guess what I'm trying to say is that when people make false declarations to support their beliefs vs. declarations of facts -i.e. "We shouldn't expect to find any fossils of Bigfoot because hardly any animal is ever fossilized...especially in the forests of the PNW"- it just says to me that people are grasping at straws.

So...I was a 'skeptic' before I began tracking this forum and if anything, I'm even more skeptic than before since all I see are the same old illogical arguments and canards backed with false claims about scientific matters.

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest]

what I'm trying to say is that when people make false declarations to support their beliefs vs. declarations of facts -i.e. "We shouldn't expect to find any fossils of Bigfoot because hardly any animal is ever fossilized...especially in the forests of the PNW"- it just says to me that people are grasping at straws.

Exactly what part of that do you have a problem with? It is a fact that a very, VERY small percentage (<5%) of primates are actually represented in the fossil record by actual discovered fossils. If it wasn't for the discovery of one jawbone and a few teeth, we would have never known of the existence of the largest primate ever known to have lived, and it lived side-by-side with humans for thousands of years! This is true whether you choose to believe it or not.

That being said, I could certainly understand your frustration with someone trying to use this as "proof" of BF's existence. All this means is that the absence of fossils does not DISPROVE his existence; it does absolutely nothing to support the idea.

However, it is certainly conceivable that Bigfoot could exist even though he is not represented in the fossil record.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

Exactly what part of that do you have a problem with? It is a fact that a very, VERY small percentage (<5%) of primates are actually represented in the fossil record by actual discovered fossils. If it wasn't for the discovery of one jawbone and a few teeth, we would have never known of the existence of the largest primate ever known to have lived, and it lived side-by-side with humans for thousands of years! This is true whether you choose to believe it or not.

If you're referring to Gigantopithecus, that's a red herring. The 'discovery' of Giganto fossils is really more about the RECOGNITION of Giganto fossil bones. And to date a few thousand fossils (including individual teeth and several jawbones) have been identified. The youngest of those is around 100K. The conditions under which they were originally 'discovered' were somewhat 'extreme' and it's likely that many times more were lost to the pharmaceutical trade in China. That's not really an issue here in America and if Bigfoot was here during Pleistocene to modern times (since the last 12,000 to 14,000 years), it's practically unfathomable that there is NO TRACE of it -not even a single tooth- in any of the MANY rich fossil deposits.

You talk about the paucity of primate species being represented in the fossil record. Talk about this: name a single other species of extant North American 'large' animal (10 lbs plus) that is NOT represented in the North American fossil record (to include sub-fossils/semi-fossilized remains).

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest]

If you're referring to Gigantopithecus, that's a red herring. The 'discovery' of Giganto fossils is really more about the RECOGNITION of Giganto fossil bones. And to date a few thousand fossils (including individual teeth and several jawbones) have been identified. The youngest of those is around 100K. The conditions under which they were originally 'discovered' were somewhat 'extreme' and it's likely that many times more were lost to the pharmaceutical trade in China. That's not really an issue here in America and if Bigfoot was here during Pleistocene to modern times (since the last 12,000 to 14,000 years), it's practically unfathomable that there is NO TRACE of it -not even a single tooth- in any of the MANY rich fossil deposits.

You talk about the paucity of primate species being represented in the fossil record. Talk about this: name a single other species of extant North American 'large' animal (10 lbs plus) that is NOT represented in the North American fossil record (to include sub-fossils/semi-fossilized remains).

I cannot, but that's because I do not know how to find that information. Is your position that every animal known to have lived is represented in the fossil record? If that is too broad, how about just every primate? Or even just every hominid?

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

However, it is certainly conceivable that Bigfoot could exist even though he is not represented in the fossil record.

It's also "conceivable" and more likely that all of the reports are mis-identificationa, hoaxes, and so forth. The degree of "conceivability" correlates to the degree of "want to believability" of the bleever. For others, it's so unlikely that it more than 'cancels out' the likelihood represented by the credibility bleevers give to the canard of "All of those reports must mean that Bigfoot exists!"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Fossils are so common as to not even be in the realm of 'extraordinary'...and yet there's not even a single, mundane Bigfoot tooth to show for the tens of thousands (at least) of Bigfoot which have supposedly roamed this continent for thousands if not tens of thousands of years. "Conceivable" -? Maybe. Likely? Not at all.

Edited July 11, 2011 by BIGFOOT BBQ

[Guest]

It's also "conceivable" and more likely that all of the reports are mis-identificationa, hoaxes, and so forth. The degree of "conceivability" correlates to the degree of "want to believability" of the bleever. For others, it's so unlikely that it more than 'cancels out' the likelihood represented by the credibility bleevers give to the canard of "All of those reports must mean that Bigfoot exists!"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Fossils are so common as to not even be in the realm of 'extraordinary'...and yet there's not even a single, mundane Bigfoot tooth to show for the tens of thousands (at least) of Bigfoot which have supposedly roamed this continent for thousands if not tens of thousands of years. "Conceivable" -? Maybe. Likely? Not at all.

Once again, I don't think anyone is claiming that this proves his existence, only that it doesn't disprove it.

[Guest BIGFOOT BBQ]

I cannot, but that's because I do not know how to find that information. Is your position that every animal known to have lived is represented in the fossil record? If that is too broad, how about just every primate? Or even just every hominid?

"My position" is that every 'large' if not every animal known to exist in North America today is represented in the fossil record, or at least through a closely related subspecies. We have fossils of tiny rodents and tiny fish due to environs that are conducive to fossilization process. The idea that a huge animal would be absent from the same deposits that give us tiny field mice all the way up to huge mammoths and everything in between -including cave deposits, river bed deposits, tar pits, etc.- is rather absurd if one considers it objectively.