So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[Guest Forbig]

Oy vey, another "let's label the skeptics and subtly insinuate that they have mental issues or they wouldn't be here" thread? What is this, the fifth on the BFF 2.0?

I am very interested in bigfoot and have been since I was a boy.

I would love for bigfoot to be real.

Based on my examination of the evidence, I am unconvinced that such creatures exist.

You can call me a skeptic, a scoftic, a denialist or whatever else floats your boat.

And you're my favorite one!

I might even stop posting if you left because it would be too boring.

[Guest]

The dictionary definitions should begin soon.....................those are always exciting!

[Guest HairyGreek]

Saskeptic -

I always thought you a skeptic only until that recent post when you said that a Sasquatch doesn't exist.(http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/8937-where-are-the-wildlife-biologist/ #7)

That doesn't seem skeptical at all. It sounds like you have made up your mind. I don't get why you are here since you believe that; regardless of how happy you would be if it were true.

I am not questioning your sanity in the least. I am simply trying to understand without you attacking me what you are doing here. Help me understand the logic. you seem so open minded and helpful in some posts and then in the next, you are chewing up and spitting out the whole idea. Then when someone calls you out on it, you seem to backpeddle into a sort of "well, I could be convinced" stance. I am just missing something I suppose.

I think some of your posts are very thoughtful and helpful regarding a scientific perspective and I know a great deal of people agree with that sentiment. I just don't understand the exercise in futility if you don't think there is anything out there. I am sorry if it bothers you that I don't get it.

[Bonehead74]

The dictionary definitions should begin soon.....................those are always exciting!

I know! After all, why would we want to define our terms while trying to have a logical debate? That's just crazy talk!

Edited September 22, 2011 by Bonehead74

[Guest Forbig]

Saskeptic -

I always thought you a skeptic only until that recent post when you said that a Sasquatch doesn't exist.(http://bigfootforums...life-biologist/ #7)

That doesn't seem skeptical at all. It sounds like you have made up your mind. I don't get why you are here since you believe that; regardless of how happy you would be if it were true.

I am not questioning your sanity in the least. I am simply trying to understand without you attacking me what you are doing here. Help me understand the logic. you seem so open minded and helpful in some posts and then in the next, you are chewing up and spitting out the whole idea. Then when someone calls you out on it, you seem to backpeddle into a sort of "well, I could be convinced" stance. I am just missing something I suppose.

I think some of your posts are very thoughtful and helpful regarding a scientific perspective and I know a great deal of people agree with that sentiment. I just don't understand the exercise in futility if you don't think there is anything out there. I am sorry if it bothers you that I don't get it.

We like messin with Sasquatch and he (they) likes messin with Sasquatch believers. I like debating with the non believers but I don't understand their interest either but I'm glad to have most of them around. I know if someday I don't believe that Sasquatch are possible you won't see me here.

[Guest]

I love to hear that Saskeptic would love that bigfoot is real !

[Guest]

My impression is that most of the sceptics / “deniers†who post on BFF, echo Saskeptic’s words in this thread: they would love to be proved wrong on the matter – they would find it fascinating and wonderful for bigfoot to be revealed as a long hidden and undocumented species whose existence had at last been found out – but they consider, regretfully, that the data to hand, indicate that the chance of that coming about is vanishingly small.

In my perception, almost all the “deniers†who stick around on BFF, do so in a spirit of friendliness to the whole issue; and, again as Saskeptic says, because it interests them. I see very little sign on this board, of angrily, negatively hostile debunkers of the notion of bigfoot’s existence; in other places on the Internet, yes, but hardly at all here.

[Guest]

Since I look at "Skeptic" or rather skepticism as something that someone exhibits, or how they perceive certain situations, I have tried to get out the habit of calling those who dont believe in Bigfoot "skeptics". It is a state of mind, and shouldnt be used to describe the entire person.

As far as our need to apply a definition to the various folks who frequent this forum, I would categorize the different types in the following way: (from one extreme to another)

*Please keep in mind, these are my opinion, and as such are the way I see/interpret the various members.

It shouldnt, but is not intended to offend anyone by putting a label on them. It's just some observations I've noted in my time here.

#1) "The hard nosed non-believer"

#2) "The fence sitter"

#3) "The skeptical proponent"

#4) "The passionate believer"

#5) "The shadow chasers"

#1 This type doesnt believe at all, and nothing you can say, no matter how compelling, will change their mind. Many in the HNNB crew seem to enjoy spending much of their time here arguing against existence, and most likely have scar covered tongues- from the many times they have to bite them, in order to resist flaming #4 and #5 for their "kooky" beliefs.

#2 Are really unsure either way, neither believing, nor completely doubting existence. They are capable of engaging in normal conversations with other #2's, #3's and #4's- but have difficulty accepting the extreme stance of #1's and #5's.

#3 Are believers. A few may have even had an encounter of some sort, or believe they've had an encounter. Other's believe because of various forms of evidence they've seen, heard, or through credible sounding encounter/sighting reports. They figure a portion of them are probably made up, but do not believe that with the vast number of reports- that they all can be false.

They are however still skeptical when it comes to some/most photographic, video, audio, and other assorted evidence brought forth. They are still able to remain objective, and will give most people with a sighting report or evidence the benefit of the doubt, but will look and listen with skeptical eyes and ears.

#4 These are folks who for the most part are the polar opposite of #1's. They believe with all their being that these large hairy creatures are hiding out in the mountains and forests of North America. Many/most of them have had some kind of encounter. Some have had multiple encounters or claim cohabitation of an area containing either individual or group clusters of Bigfoot(s). These people, especially ones having seen a Bigfoot, bristle when dealing with #1's , and dont like being told what they've seen with their own eyes doesnt exist.

#5 The shadow chaser, simply put, is the person that continually defies reason. If he/she walks in the woods, every bent over sapling, every pile of sticks, and every noise is attributed to Bigfoot. Even though the shadow chaser might live in a suburban area- his/her backyard is the local epicenter for Bigfoot activity. When viewing blobsquatch photo's the shadow chaser will pronounce that the anomaly that everyone else see's in the photo, decreasing the chance that its real, is actually a baby sasquatch clinging to its mother. In fact, shadow chaser's dont even need a blobsquatch, as they will often produce photo's with red circles or squares- highlighting various naturally occurring objects, which are of course declared to be Bigfoot. Shadow Chasers are often incredulous that other's cant see what they see, and are the bane of #1's forum experience. They make it difficult for #'s 2,3,&4 to have a serious conversation discussing the merits of any single piece of evidence, since its automatically 100% undeniably Bigfoot.

I hope that what i've offered here will help those who cant put their finger on how to describe the members they interact with on a daily basis.

I myself am a #3 / Skeptical proponent.

Art

[Guest]

Interesting Art.

I’d put it even more simply, like this:

Believer – does not question

Skeptic – questions

Non-believer – does not question

I think most people on this board are skeptics, even if they won’t admit it.

[MagniAesir]

Wow another thread on why skeptics are here.

I guess putting up one of these threads seemingly at least once a month is better than using the search function and bringing up one of the old threads (assuming that not all of them end up locked).

I am a skeptic and have answered this question at least a half dozen times before

[Guest Forbig]

Interesting Art.

I’d put it even more simply, like this:

Believer – does not question

Skeptic – questions

Non-believer – does not question

I think most people on this board are skeptics, even if they won’t admit it.

You're right I'm a skeptic to a certain point too but some are negative on every post like Dr. Doom you know the bullying type?

[Guest]

I was wondering when post #25 would arrive! When a person wants to post something and oh darn I didn't do a search and I am now subject to sarctastic but expected responses. Get over it. The line forms to the left.

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

Back on the old version of this forum I was a skeptic that was on the "I believe" side of the fence. I wasn't very far from the fence, but I did think the chances were good that the big guy (and gal) existed. One of the reasons was I didn't hear alternate explanations for things like dermal ridges and the Skookum cast and whatever. It was here that I learned a few things, and what ultimately made me climb back over the fence to the "I don't think so" side wasn't snarky comments by "scofftics" or reasoned arguments by the non-believing skeptics. Part of it was the wide-eyed, every-shadow-and-blobsquatch-is-a-bigfoot crowd. I also came to a few conclusions of my own after I learned a few things about some of the top investigators - I didn't doubt their sincerity or honesty, just felt their basis for belief had been tainted and that's all I intend to elaborate on that.

But honestly the last straw was the Georgia boys (which I knew would amount to nothing but still it burns your hide for crap like that to get any press)topped off with the Michigan Recording Project debacle. I'd had enough. I thought it likely BF has been a hoax at the worst, mis-identification at the best, and more likely a mixture of both all these years.

So why am I here if I'm not a believer? Well, I only drop in from time to time - I have no interest in changing anyone's mind or calling anyone a liar. I only came back to see what was being said about a local episode, and signed back up to add my 2 pennies.

And like a lot of people here, I would love to be proven wrong. I've had an interest in BF since a kid, and even if I don't believe the creature is real that doesn't mean I still don't love the mythology of the whole thing. The idea of the monster-in-the-forest is still a kick.

I may not be what is described as a skeptic in the initial post, but I consider myself one. But I'm rooting for you guys. I truly am, and would dearly love to eat some crow. So far, don't see that happening.

[Guest]

Great replies so far today folks, I hope we can discuss sharing crow recipes soon if the project to end all projects follows thru soon to global acceptance finally before we all die off of interest or physically.. BTW, here in the Texas it finally cooled off and I will be out every weekend for the next several weeks back at it! The hottest and driest summer on record is over!

Edited September 22, 2011 by GEARMAN

[Guest BlurryMonster]

I wouldn't say I'm "obsessed" with bigfoot, but I certainly find the subject very interesting. Part of that is because I've lived in the PNW all my life and I grew up being a pretty staunch believer (until only a few years ago); in fact, I still like the idea of bigfoot existing and would be incredibly excited if someone actually found one. Another reason it's interesting is because I've always loved folklore, and bigfoot is a really great piece of modern folklore, great enough that many believe it's real.

The reason I stopped believing is because I couldn't make excuses for the improbability of bigfoot existing and us not knowing about it anymore. I also started studying anthropology, and the more I learned about people, our ancestors, and other primates, the more outlandish claims about bigfoot seemed. After a while, the evidence and hypotheses stopped being convincing and I just accepted that bigfoot probably doesn't exist. I know that nothing I say to a believer will change their minds (which is why I kind of stopped posting a few months ago), and I think that's kind of unfortunate, but it's better than arguing against a brick wall (something believers would probably say about skeptics). Overall, just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I can't find it interesting; I'm fascinated by lots of things I don't believe in, bigfoot is just one of them.

Edited September 22, 2011 by BlurryMonster