• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot from a different perspective.

cloudshipsrule

Graduate Poster
C
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
1,170
Personally I don't care if bigfoot exists or not. In my opinion, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I have seen, I do not believe a bigfoot creature exists. That aside:

Why is it important for some people to continue to believe there is a bigfoot out there? Does it make people feel better believing there is an innocent creature out there, still untouched by human's impact on the planet?

What is the psychology behind wanting to believe in something that probably isn't true or that really doesn't have any SOLID evidence to back it up?

When I was a kid I enjoyed believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny, and as I grew older and found out the truth I wasn't heart-broken. I didn't want to hold on to my beliefs as a comfort.

I suppose being a believer in bigfoot is similar to the beliefs held by someone who is a budding astronomer. An amateur astronomer has a fascination of the unknowns of space. "What might be out there that we haven't seen yet?" "Will I be the first to find it?"

Bigfooteans may be in the same category. Bigfoot is an unknown to them, A mystery. Maybe it's the mystery of it all that intrigues them and not really whether or not bigfoot actually exists?

I know there are a lot of questions in this thread. They don't need to be answered. Just trying to start conversation on the workings of the mind of a bigfoot believer....
 
I'm certainly not a bigfootean, but I think it's all about the "what if" factor. True believers hold on to their beliefs because if true they would be some of the very few vindicated. A bit like global warming sceptics I guess.
 
It's wishful thinking I suppose. If it were true then maybe there is magic in the world, something beyond the facts that we all know? It's not true, and deep down somewhere we all know it, but in some people it festers away and becomes a need, an obsession.

What is the accepted collective term for Big Foot bleevers then? Bigfooteans? Yetties? Nutters?
 
Bigfooter is a common name and is generally acceptable by both skeptics and believers (Bigfooters). Footer is a derivative of that name.

But when describing themselves, many believers will choose to use the name Bigfoot Researcher.

Pattycake is a name I invented that specifically denotes one who is convinced that the Patterson-Gimlin Film shows a real Bigfoot. Not all Bigfooters are Pattycakes, but obviously all Pattycakes are Bigfooters.

Non-believers are simply called Skeptics, Scoftics, or sometimes Denialists.
 
Last edited:
I find Bigfoot Researcher a little pretentious, Bigfoot Searcher would be a little nearer the mark since there's nothing to research until you find the bloody things. Leading on from that I'm going to guess that some of these 'researchers' have already come up with latin names and sub-species for the object of their affection?
 
Self-proclaimed "Bigfoot Researchers" would argue against your suggestion that there is nothing to research. They research the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the texts and various medias on Bigfoot, and the proposed secondary evidence itself (casts, films/videos, broken trees, etc).

Bigfoot Searcher or Seeker would seem to be appropriate for many, but not all. Many strong believers don't (or can't) go looking for Bigfoot. Some of these are comfortable calling themselves Armchair Bigfoot Researchers.

Some have had some fun speculating (or predicting) what the scientific name for Bigfoot should be. Some want to give it a name right now, and other talk about a name after a formal scientific description (body in a lab). A few want it named after Grover Krantz.
 
Kenny 10 Bellys said:
I find Bigfoot Researcher a little pretentious, Bigfoot Searcher would be a little nearer the mark since there's nothing to research until you find the bloody things. Leading on from that I'm going to guess that some of these 'researchers' have already come up with latin names and sub-species for the object of their affection?
Click to expand...


Yep, they've got that covered already. One of them came up with the idea that Bigfoot is a remnant of Gigantopithecus, which actually existed up until about 100,000 years ago. That was used as the basis for the petition to protect Bigfoot as an endangered species:

The discovery of a species that was formally[sic] though[sic] to be extinct, scientifically classified as Gigantopithecus and now commonly referred to as Bigfoot.

http://www.petitiononline.com/sylvanic/petition.html
Click to expand...
 
Kenny 10 Bellys said:
I find Bigfoot Researcher a little pretentious, Bigfoot Searcher would be a little nearer the mark since there's nothing to research until you find the bloody things. Leading on from that I'm going to guess that some of these 'researchers' have already come up with latin names and sub-species for the object of their affection?
Click to expand...
Well, based on alleged eyewitnesses' descriptions a certain bigfoot investigator, researcher, etc. claims there are 9 or 12 species or subspecies of unknown North American primates.

You should add to this the alleged hominids from other continents (mapinguari, almas, yeti, woodwose, Johor bigfoot, etc.)...
 
Gaze upon the Elksquatch, my fellow sapien dreamfolk, as it hangs above the firmament amidst the ether. It calls to you...

735wendigo.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom