Why the Continued Interest in Bigfoot on This Forum

[GT/CS]

We all hang around waiting for another Creekfreak. We've had some half-hearted wannabes show up but Creek, like Patty, may have been the last of his kind.

 

[Apology]

We all hang around waiting for another Creekfreak. We've had some half-hearted wannabes show up but Creek, like Patty, may have been the last of his kind.

I miss Creekfreak, and his purloined cans of Cowboy Bob's Baked Beans

 

[ElectricVoodoo]

I am not looking for proof and I have no control over the number of responses. The number of responses and their content are what they are.

I couldn't quote your whole post, but no need. My only real curiosity is why you feel the subject of Bigfoot should not continue on the JREF. Is that the case?

 

[kitakaze]

I couldn't quote your whole post, but no need. My only real curiosity is why you feel the subject of Bigfoot should not continue on the JREF. Is that the case?

Here's how you multiquote from a single post where the person responding to you hasn't multi-quoted and instead has put their responses to you within a single quote of your post...

If sufficiently recent enough, you can just hit the quote button on that post of theirs, remove the little bit of text that does show (their last comment). Back into those quote brackets copypasta the first comment by scrolling down and right-click copying it from the post displayed below. Then simply copypasta the proceeding comments up to the post you are composing and wrap them in quote tages by highlighting the text and clicking the quote feature which is the text box looking button to the right of the mountains and sun image function button. If the post is too old to scroll down, then simply open two windows.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I couldn't quote your whole post, but no need. My only real curiosity is why you feel the subject of Bigfoot should not continue on the JREF. Is that the case?

I think my OP was pretty clear, but maybe not. I never said Bigfoot should not be discussed in this forum. I was asking why it is discussed ad nauseum on JREF. Particularly since the likelihood of Bigfoot existing is infinitesimal.

 

[ElectricVoodoo]

Here's how you multiquote from a single post where the person responding to you hasn't multi-quoted and instead has put their responses to you within a single quote of your post...

If sufficiently recent enough, you can just hit the quote button on that post of theirs, remove the little bit of text that does show (their last comment). Back into those quote brackets copypasta the first comment by scrolling down and right-click copying it from the post displayed below. Then simply copypasta the proceeding comments up to the post you are composing and wrap them in quote tages by highlighting the text and clicking the quote feature which is the text box looking button to the right of the mountains and sun image function button. If the post is too old to scroll down, then simply open two windows.

Hope that clears it up.

Yes it does, thank you kk.

 

[ElectricVoodoo]

I think my OP was pretty clear, but maybe not.

The post was clear enough, I just don't see any single answer/response that will satisfy your query.

I never said Bigfoot should not be discussed in this forum. I was asking why it is discussed ad nauseum on JREF.

That doesn't appear to be the mindset of a lot of people and for that I can only speak for myself. Observation would indicate people trying to use modern technology to dissect the old (for new answers) as a reason it continues (the Munns Report is the example I'm referring to). Others have related their alleged experience with a Bigfoot. Two examples aren't going to answer your original post either, but no one can argue that despite the probability of its existence is extremely low it is a topic that some find interesting (in some cases captivating).

Particularly since the likelihood of Bigfoot existing is infinitesimal.

I wouldn't peg it at infinitesimal, but definitely low.

Do you believe you'll find a definitive answer to your original post? (that is not rhetorical)
From personal observation it seems that a number of JREF members are/were members of Bigfoot-only forums but find/found the JREF to be a more conducive environment in which to discuss the subject.

 

[kitakaze]

I think my OP was pretty clear, but maybe not. I never said Bigfoot should not be discussed in this forum. I was asking why it is discussed ad nauseum on JREF. Particularly since the likelihood of Bigfoot existing is infinitesimal.

Why is 9/11 discussed ad nauseum? It all depends what makes you nauseous, right? We have one of these threads about every two or three months where somebody is like, "why?" Everytime the resolution is the same - "Because some topics are more popular". You and I might find Bigfoot being real to be very ridiculous but there are many who passionately argue otherwise. You know, just like the idea that the American government directly caused or complicitly allowed thousands of its own citizens to be killed in its largest city, and one of its most important institutions destroyed.

That to me is ludicrous and yet I will actually sit there in front of people who will start waving their hands and banging the table while saying otherwise. There's no shortage of people like that that talk about this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERdW5IiWHGA

 

[Dr. Galen]

Particularly since the likelihood of Bigfoot existing is infinitesimal.

So you're saying there's still a chance.

In all seriousness, for me the whole phenomenon, real or imagined, is endlessly fascinating. In the most likely reality that they do not exist- what the heck are the (whatever proportion they constitute) seemingly honest and convinced "eye-witnesses" experiencing? Are there really that many hallucinators/attention seekers/bipedal bears/people in costumes/stumps/shadows etc. to regularly fool cops, doctors, hunters and so many others- even sober in broad daylight? Isn't that amazing in and of itself? Who is faking all these tracks, some in the middle of nowhere, and some fooling learned experts? How did a cowboy create such an intriguing movie that if nothing else has stood the test of time and captured the imagination of millions? How is a failed lawyer making a living running a successful bigfoot ecotourism business without bigfoots? It's all totally bizarre, whatever is happening, no matter how you look at it.

And then there is that infinitesimal chance.....

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

In all seriousness, for me the whole phenomenon, real or imagined, is endlessly fascinating. In the most likely reality that they do not exist- what the heck are the (whatever proportion they constitute) seemingly honest and convinced "eye-witnesses" experiencing? Are there really that many hallucinators/attention seekers/bipedal bears/people in costumes/stumps/shadows etc. to regularly fool cops, doctors, hunters and so many others- even sober in broad daylight? Isn't that amazing in and of itself? Who is faking all these tracks, some in the middle of nowhere, and some fooling learned experts? How did a cowboy create such an intriguing movie that if nothing else has stood the test of time and captured the imagination of millions? How is a failed lawyer making a living running a successful bigfoot ecotourism business without bigfoots? It's all totally bizarre, whatever is happening, no matter how you look at it.

I'm glad that you're looking through the older threads, because the answers to the above questions are given there.

 

[kitakaze]

So you're saying there's still a chance.

[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cQb2tKyozEQ/SZYb_wfCxqI/AAAAAAAAA3k/cH6BsdLZkFQ/s400/a_chance.jpeg[/qimg]

That's a good one, I like that.

In all seriousness, for me the whole phenomenon, real or imagined, is endlessly fascinating. In the most likely reality that they do not exist- what the heck are the (whatever proportion they constitute) seemingly honest and convinced "eye-witnesses" experiencing?

I think it's all just lies, fantasies, over-active imaginations, misidentifications, and distorted perceptions.

Are there really that many hallucinators/attention seekers/bipedal bears/people in costumes/stumps/shadows etc. to regularly fool cops, doctors, hunters and so many others- even sober in broad daylight? Isn't that amazing in and of itself?

How many sightings do you know are claimed this year? Forget something typed up on a computer screen of a Bigfoot enthusiast group, but how many people are you sure claimed to see Bigfoot this year. When you say cops, doctors, and hunters, I think of the Georgia hoax, Dr. Baddour and the zoobies, and people like John Cartwright. Remember the cop from New York who thought he saw Bigfoot?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9la_ZmntvSg

What do you think is the most credible sighting and the who is the most credible witness?

Who is faking all these tracks, some in the middle of nowhere, and some fooling learned experts?

Why is it that Meldrum doesn't even realize that a Bigfoot with a mid-tarsal break wouldn't be able to walk effectively, let alone run, but a practicing podiatrist does?:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Bigfoot_Quest/va/2008/08/13/bigfoot-quest

How did a cowboy create such an intriguing movie that if nothing else has stood the test of time and captured the imagination of millions?

I wouldn't say millions at all. I'd say thousands. Most people just think of it as a bit of hokey pop culture. I would venture to say that the cowboy who was also an artist, inventor, and huckster used some off the money he swindled to pay people more talented than he was to help him make a Bigfoot costume. He was pretty desperate and the entire encounter plays out nearly verbatim with the Willaim Roe story featured in his book the year before. A ladyfoot makes sense when you're Patterson who thinks male Bigfoots are giants and the best guy you have on hand is Bob Heironimus.

How is a failed lawyer making a living running a successful bigfoot ecotourism business without bigfoots?

Millionaire Wally Hersom, a flare for BS, pinecones, rocks, darkness, trusted and payed friends, and really excitable footers.

It's all totally bizarre, whatever is happening, no matter how you look at it.

It does get pretty bizarre and yet it reflects some of the basic tendencies of humans.

And then there is that infinitesimal chance.....

I think Lloyd had a better shot with Mary than Bigfoot being real...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULSszbA-Ek

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

He was pretty desperate and the entire encounter plays out nearly verbatim with the Willaim Roes story featured in his book the year before.

Personally, I think the suspected rationale for Patterson making the film is quite similar to the motivation for the main character of "Breaking Bad."

 

[WGBH]

When you say cops, doctors, and hunters, I think of the Georgia hoax,Dr. Baddour and the zoobies, and people like John Cartwright.

Kit,

I would prefer you did not include my name in the same sentence with hoaxers.

Thanks

 

[Jungle Jim]

The post was clear enough, I just don't see any single answer/response that will satisfy your query.

Do you believe you'll find a definitive answer to your original post? (that is not rhetorical) There is no correct, single or definitive answer to my original question. Nor did I expect one. This was not a scientific inquiry. I was interested in hearing people's reasoning for their continued involvement in a subject that, for skeptics, is pretty much a closed case. I am pleased by the number of responses. I thank you all for participating.

From personal observation it seems that a number of JREF members are/were members of Bigfoot-only forums but find/found the JREF to be a more conducive environment in which to discuss the subject. This is an interesting statement. Why do you think the JREF is more conducive to discussing Bigfootery than a straight up Bigfoot forum?

..

 

[kitakaze]

Kit,

I would prefer you did not include my name in the same sentence with hoaxers.

Thanks

I do not mean to imply that you are a hoaxer, simply that it is not difficult to explain your experience without an actual giant wood ape existing in North America. You may think it's difficult but for people like myself who are familiar with the details (such as 27 years ago, being disoriented, very groggy, and nauseous), it's not a hard thing to find plausible explanations that fit with science and reality. You may not like having your name next to the Georgia boys or the zoobies but that is where it belongs in the context of what I am responding to Dr. Galen about regarding alleged witnesses. You, I would say fall under the mistaken category rather than the hoaxer category but the main point is that in either case, Bigfoot is/was extremely implausible.

 

[kitakaze]

There is no correct, single or definitive answer to my original question. Nor did I expect one. This was not a scientific inquiry. I was interested in hearing people's reasoning for their continued involvement in a subject that, for skeptics, is pretty much a closed case. I am pleased by the number of responses. I thank you all for participating.

JJ, can you please do us a favour and use the same advice on multi-quoting that I put out for ColMD? As you can see, he got it right away and it's not really a hard thing. You manner of responding makes it difficult for the reader to discern who is saying what to whom as well as making it time consuming to properly return response.

This is an interesting statement. Why do you think the JREF is more conducive to discussing Bigfootery than a straight up Bigfoot forum?

I can answer that for you quite easily. I find the JREF far more conducive to discussing Bigfootery because it doesn't censor people, delete civil and on-topic posts, and ban people of opposing views simply because they can articulate their views effectively in debate with the people who run the forum.

That is exactly what happened when I was thrown out from the Search For Bigfoot forum. I was suspended after questioning the competence of a person who was not a member of the forum who posted on youtube a video of a porcupine which he fled from believing it to be Bigfoot. I was given a warning for "negativity and potshots". I was told I was responsible for derailing a thread devoted to the cast collection of an admitted hoaxer when I was discussing the fact that he was a hoaxer and the cast collection would represent 26 individual Bigfoots from that person's area alone. This is on top of the fact that Bigfoot enthusiasts before me were discussing the fact the the man was an admitted hoaxer.

I was then banned against their own protocol. At least two members here (WGBH and mikeyx) are administrators there who refused to be a part of the decision to do so. I am not a troll, nasty person, or interested in anything other than civil, constructive debate. I have had every request to show me my insulting posts ignored or denied. I knew the irrational, emotional, and cultish groupie behaviour of the owner of the website so I ensured that I was polite, complimentary where appropriate, and respectful of people's efforts searching for Bigfoot. Most importantly I saved my posts and the responses to them to safeguard any false accusations about my participation there. After my banning the owner hid their general discussion section and research section from public view.

Yeah, I'll take the world's largest online community of critical thinkers and skeptics anyday over that ridiculous behaviour.

 

[WGBH]

I do not mean to imply that you are a hoaxer, simply that it is not difficult to explain your experience without an actual giant wood ape existing in North America. You may think it's difficult but for people like myself who are familiar with the details (such as 27 years ago, being disoriented, very groggy, and nauseous), it's not a hard thing to find plausible explanations that fit with science and reality. You may not like having your name next to the Georgia boys or the zoobies but that is where it belongs in the context of what I am responding to Dr. Galen about regarding alleged witnesses. You, I would say fall under the mistaken category rather than the hoaxer category but the main point is that in either case, Bigfoot is/was extremely implausible.

In your opinion...

 

[mikeyx]

Kit,

I would prefer you did not include my name in the same sentence with hoaxers.

Thanks

That could easily be taken as a large insult Kit, maybe you should clarify.

 

[Drewbot]

In your opinion...

Not really... most people consider Bigfoot a myth. Bigfootry is laughed at, and mocked throughout mainstream America.

 

[ElectricVoodoo]

There is no correct, single or definitive answer to my original question. Nor did I expect one. This was not a scientific inquiry. I was interested in hearing people's reasoning for their continued involvement in a subject that, for skeptics, is pretty much a closed case. I am pleased by the number of responses. I thank you all for participating.

I hope you found what you were looking for. There are some informative posts above me, I expect you to find even more varied answers as you ask more people/more people reply.

This is an interesting statement. Why do you think the JREF is more conducive to discussing Bigfootery than a straight up Bigfoot forum?

KK's response to your question is worth looking at as it's both a personal answer and it pretty much sums up what other members have conveyed (that I have personally seen).