Why the Continued Interest in Bigfoot on This Forum

[ScannerHead]

It wouldn't be me out there looking for Bigfoot snow tracks. It would be the few people who think the creature exists. ...

Each passing winter produces powerful evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

Either I mis-read it or mis-understood it, but I thot in one of these bigfoot threads here, you mentioned being a bf researcher. If thats the case, why do you research something you don't believe in. Or am I missing something?

 

[WGBH]

Either I mis-read it or mis-understood it, but I thot in one of these bigfoot threads here, you mentioned being a bf researcher. If thats the case, why do you research something you don't believe in. Or am I missing something?

You are missing something. He is not a Bigfoot investigator. But there are skeptical people who investigate.

 

[William Parcher]

Or am I missing something?

Bigfoot believers (and eyewitness claimants) often call themselves Bigfoot Researchers. It is almost exclusively used to denote the study of an actual living species, but one which is cryptic and not yet confirmed to exist by scientific convention. I would say that the designation is misleading or premature because such an animal does not exist. I feel it is misleading because it grants a credibility and sophistication that is unwarranted even at its most fundamental level. By the same token, you can't be a Mermaid Researcher because they don't exist. You can however research the folktale, folklore, intrigue and cultural significance of mermaids. Importantly, that kind of research puts nobody on boats or beaches collecting scats for DNA analysis.

I use it as a satire of the believers' use of it. As you noted, it doesn't make sense for a strong skeptic (denialist) to call themselves a Bigfoot researcher. But that's my point... it doesn't make sense for anyone to call themselves that. I'd be more agreeable with terms like "Bigfoot Seeker" and "Critic of Bigfoot Seekers"... but maybe the better categories are the ones already used. These are Believer and Skeptic. It's good enough though it usually begs for more clarification. This is why I sometimes look into the claims of specific "Bigfooters" and ask blunt questions of them. I get confused too because you will have people who say they saw a Bigfoot but then also call themselves a skeptic. I mostly am curious about how and why they rationalize their own beliefs.

If you simply want to know why I spend time with a topic subject which I think is false... it's because I am crazy. I wrote about it in my signature and occasionally in posts.

 

[William Parcher]

You are missing something. He is not a Bigfoot investigator. But there are skeptical people who investigate.

You posted while I was making my post.

I don't think I've ever called myself a Bigfoot Investigator. I think I've only said Bigfoot Researcher. I even think I said it directly to you in the "Anybody seen one?" thread. I recall that you approved of my own use of that term for myself.

Anyway...no.... I do not go out into the woods poking around for Bigfoot. What I do is research and investigate from an "armchair" position. This has brought great dividends concerning the Georgia Hoax, the Michigan Recording Project, the PGF, the Minnesota Trailcam Hoax, etc.

It seems that this kind of investigation/research is FAR MORE productive than going out to look for Bigfoot. We seem to have ZERO evidence that shows that Bigfoot really does exist.

 

[manofthesea]

eyewitness claimants) often call themselves Bigfoot Researchers.

Can you provide one example?

 

[William Parcher]

LOL

 

[William Parcher]

Why the continued interest of BFF-banned Bigfooters of plugging away here at JREF? Or, is 291 a lucky or unlucky number?

 

[WGBH]

You posted while I was making my post.

I don't think I've ever called myself a Bigfoot Investigator. I think I've only said Bigfoot Researcher. I even think I said it directly to you in the "Anybody seen one?" thread. I recall that you approved of my own use of that term for myself.

Anyway...no.... I do not go out into the woods poking around for Bigfoot. What I do is research and investigate from an "armchair" position. This has brought great dividends concerning the Georgia Hoax, the Michigan Recording Project, the PGF, the Minnesota Trailcam Hoax, etc.

It seems that this kind of investigation/research is FAR MORE productive than going out to look for Bigfoot. We seem to have ZERO evidence that shows that Bigfoot really does exist.

There really is no such thing as a Bigfoot researcher. You cannot research a species that you cannot even locate. I get caught using researcher by habit but I prefer investigator. No big deal though.

It is far more easy for a skeptic to armchair research. All that needs to be done is sit and nit pick and find flaws. Not hard at all.

 

[WGBH]

LOL

I was banned more then once. that is not my real total postings. I plug away on many forums this is only one.

 

[RayG]

Can you provide one example?

You're kidding, right?

Surely you've heard of some of the following bigfoot organizations:

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO);
The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservatory (TBRC);
The Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization (GCBRO);
The Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers (AIBR);
The Bigfoot Research Network;
The Virginia Bigfoot Research Organization;
The British Center for Bigfoot Research;
Kiamichi Bigfoot Research;
The Ohio / Pennsylvania Bigfoot Research Group;
Alabama Bigfoot Research;
The Reclusive Forest Primate Research Project;
The San Antonio Texas Bigfoot Research Group;
The Sasquatch Bigfoot Research Unit (SBRU);
The Northern Minnesota Bigfoot Research Team;
The Southeastern Bigfoot Research Organization;

And, although the North America Bigfoot Search (NABS) organization doesn't use the word 'research' in their title, they DO claim to be "the most professional Bigfoot research organization in the world."

RayG

 

[WGBH]

I may be mistaken, but he may have been asking for eyewitnesses who claim to be researchers.

 

[GT/CS]

I may be mistaken, but he may have been asking for eyewitnesses who claim to be researchers.

Ray's post applies.

 

[William Parcher]

I may be mistaken, but he may have been asking for eyewitnesses who claim to be researchers.

Right, and that's why I LOL'd. MOTS is always good for incoherent trolling of the Bigfoot threads. Of course there are people who call themselves BF Researchers (you even did it), and of course a percentage of those people claim to have seen Bigfoot. It only makes sense. But MOTS has just got to ask the question.

I decided to Google the exact phrase "I'm a Bigfoot Researcher" and came up with DonDon (aka doncrappie). Poor fella is having to sell his nightvision goggles.

Bigfoot Discussions

Bigfoot Encounter: Yes

Texas Fishing Forum

I'm a BIGFOOT researcher. LOL Sure hate to lose my favorite piece of equipment but times are hard right now.

 

[WGBH]

That brings up a question. What is the percentage of investigators who claim to have had a sighting on a expedition? That disqualifies me because my sighting was well before I got involved. I can say that out of about 15 in my organization,there are 5 members that have had sightings but only 1 that occurred during a actual expedition. This is only based on my general knowledge of the members.

 

[clayflingythingy]

I wonder how many expeditions

1) have a bloke in a suit make an appearance?

2) arrange some rock throwing and tree knocking?

3) have a liar who claims he saw a BF?

4) have a member who has a Walter Mitty-like fantasy and hallucinates BF?

 

[William Parcher]

There really is no such thing as a Bigfoot researcher. You cannot research a species that you cannot even locate.

It's really no wonder that you got banned from the BFF.

It is far more easy for a skeptic to armchair research. All that needs to be done is sit and nit pick and find flaws. Not hard at all.

I'm not sure if you understand that the reverse is true. Bigfoot believers and promoters can easily sit in the armchair and prop up Bigfoot and other believers.

What do you mean by "far more easy for a skeptic"? I think it's pretty easy for a person to say they saw Bigfoot by fabricating an encounter event story.

 

[Vortigern99]

Also, critical thinking does not come "easily" to many people, but is a skill that requires training and persistence to master. Applying critical thought processes and the techniques of skepticism to reports, photos and other purported evidence of paranormal claims, including bigfoot, is not "easy", as WGBH would have it.

I might as well claim that it's easy to make an excursion into the woods looking for signs of an animal that probably does not exist. I for one find camping quite relaxing.

 

[WGBH]

It's really no wonder that you got banned from the BFF.

I'm not sure if you understand that the reverse is true. Bigfoot believers and promoters can easily sit in the armchair and prop up Bigfoot and other believers.

What do you mean by "far more easy for a skeptic"? I think it's pretty easy for a person to say they saw Bigfoot by fabricating an encounter event story.

You really want to know about why I was banned from the BFF huh? OK go to the thread that WP linked below.

I am not sure YOU understand what I was saying about armchair or internet "researchers". It can be very valuable for believers or skeptics. But on either side of the coin it is much more simple then the field research.

 

[William Parcher]

John, don't do this here. Just say no. Please.

We have a thread for Bigfootery Bickering and Infighting.

 

[WGBH]

John, don't do this here. Just say no. Please.

We have a thread for Bigfootery Bickering and Infighting.

Ok, but you kept bringing up my BFF Banning and when I tell you what happened you complain? Moved it to that thread.