125 replies to this topic

[orangepeaceful79]

evancj, on 24 March 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Inversely 60% of Americans do not believe in bigfoot. So at least over half of us paid attention to school courses that taught critical thinking and problem solving skills.

I wonder how these numbers correlate with deeply religious folks (creationists) whom are taught not to question their religious doctrine, or the pseudo scientific drivel they preach? You know the sheep whom follow blindly and believe what they are told to believe despite the facts.

Could we also infer from this study that all men whom believe in bigfoot are democrats and nearly all women whom believe in bigfoot are republicans? That seems very odd to me for some reason.

Perhaps we should start our own poll to see how closely our results would align to this one.          



Probably a bit of all of them. I think we are dealing mostly with folks whom get their biological science education from church/the bible and people like Matt Moneytaker.

I do think there is something to this bigfoot phenomena...but I do not think it is bigfoot.

I think that when trying to disaggregate data samples like this it may be helpful to know the makeup of the sample to a degree, but unhelpful to cast about with stereotypes of one group or another.  

Not all religious people are bible-thumping, chicken-swinging fundamentalists.  Within every possible subgroup of the population that you could possibly think of, there is going to be a spectrum of folks ranging from one extreme to the other.  

I think that it is probably also to unwise to characterize all bigfoot believers as people whom the public school system has failed.  Some of the most staunch supporters are educated, intelligent, and are able to problem-solve and articulate their positions. They just happen to hold different views.  

As a skeptic, it is frustrating to see what I think is the truth about this phenomenon and not be able to convince a believer to change their mind - but we must all agree in this debate that all of us have a right to our opinions on the topic, and to not be lumped into this group or that group simply because of our belief.  

I am always astounded on this site to see someone who I tend to align with in this forum go into another forum on another topic and express opinions which might be completely and utterly opposed to mine in a different subject.  

When talking about groups of people in general it is always wise to avoid painting with a broad brush.  Its our differences and diversity that make this interesting.  

Edited by orangepeaceful79, 24 March 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[QuiteContrary]

orangepeaceful79, on 24 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

I think that when trying to disaggregate data samples like this it may be helpful to know the makeup of the sample to a degree, but unhelpful to cast about with stereotypes of one group or another.  

Not all religious people are bible-thumping, chicken-swinging fundamentalists.  Within every possible subgroup of the population that you could possibly think of, there is going to be a spectrum of folks ranging from one extreme to the other.  

I think that it is probably also to unwise to characterize all bigfoot believers as people whom the public school system has failed.  Some of the most staunch supporters are educated, intelligent, and are able to problem-solve and articulate their positions. They just happen to hold different views.  

As a skeptic, it is frustrating to see what I think is the truth about this phenomenon and not be able to convince a believer to change their mind - but we must all agree in this debate that all of us have a right to our opinions on the topic, and to not be lumped into this group or that group simply because of our belief.  

I am always astounded on this site to see someone who I tend to align with in this forum go into another forum on another topic and express opinions which might be completely and utterly opposed to mine in a different subject.  

When talking about groups of people in general it is always wise to avoid painting with a broad brush.  Its our differences and diversity that make this interesting.  

I agree. There are so many people and so much diversity, I think it is hard to stereotype anyone, let alone a large population. No one fits perfectly into any one preconceived mold. Even if they label themselves. IMO

[QuiteContrary]

orangepeaceful79, on 24 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

I think that when trying to disaggregate data samples like this it may be helpful to know the makeup of the sample to a degree, but unhelpful to cast about with stereotypes of one group or another.  

Not all religious people are bible-thumping, chicken-swinging fundamentalists.  Within every possible subgroup of the population that you could possibly think of, there is going to be a spectrum of folks ranging from one extreme to the other.  

I think that it is probably also to unwise to characterize all bigfoot believers as people whom the public school system has failed.  Some of the most staunch supporters are educated, intelligent, and are able to problem-solve and articulate their positions. They just happen to hold different views.  

As a skeptic, it is frustrating to see what I think is the truth about this phenomenon and not be able to convince a believer to change their mind - but we must all agree in this debate that all of us have a right to our opinions on the topic, and to not be lumped into this group or that group simply because of our belief.  

I am always astounded on this site to see someone who I tend to align with in this forum go into another forum on another topic and express opinions which might be completely and utterly opposed to mine in a different subject.  

When talking about groups of people in general it is always wise to avoid painting with a broad brush.  Its our differences and diversity that make this interesting.  

I agree. I do not think it is possible to stereotype anyone into one specific mold. Hollywood makes its money on it, politics bet on it, the media loves it, but it isn't that easy in the real world.

Even if we label ourselves. My definition of said stereotype would have to fit your definition.

And there are just too many people and too much diversity.

I meet people that defy a particular sterotype all the time.

Also, Meldrum is a scientist and a professor. And he has a team of scientists that have accompanied him looking for bf.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 24 March 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[White Unicorn]

We don't know unless we uncover dna proof from this species to know what they really are or are not. I'm sure what ever species is out is as varied as the apes, that is the ones that aren't just hoaxes. There are many mythical creatures or exict creatures that have been found. A certain species of gorilla was once considered a mythical tribe of hairy men until the scientists found a group of them and placed them in captivity. Likewise, Big Foot, Yeti or whatever you call them have been going through the same process in many different places worldwide. Until they are proven many people put out crap to make money off of the legends which they create or exagerate. That doesn't really help scientific research does it? It only gets the real cases laughed at when they prove a hoax. Serious research would not be a very encouraging job to do. The sad truth is the serious researchers or some hunter might have to kill one not to get laughed at.

[Zarifa]

To those who question the lack of evidence in bones and bodies,as one who spends a lot of time in these woods I can assure you that one can spot many deer and elk, and find relatively few remains. One can also be surrounded by these animals, and never see them. Take your poll among those who are in a position to judge the environment. Also consider that other animals may not be as stupid as you think, and are perfectly able to avoid contact with humans if they so choose, and they usually do. My coworker and I reported a wolverine sighting once, which was met with disbelief because they are rare. It was only after someone else reported one nearby that our sighting given credence. How many of you have seen a wolverine in the wild?

[QuiteContrary]

White Unicorn, on 24 March 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

We don't know unless we uncover dna proof from this species to know what they really are or are not. I'm sure what ever species is out is as varied as the apes, that is the ones that aren't just hoaxes. There are many mythical creatures or exict creatures that have been found. A certain species of gorilla was once considered a mythical tribe of hairy men until the scientists found a group of them and placed them in captivity. Likewise, Big Foot, Yeti or whatever you call them have been going through the same process in many different places worldwide. Until they are proven many people put out crap to make money off of the legends which they create or exagerate. That doesn't really help scientific research does it? It only gets the real cases laughed at when they prove a hoax. Serious research would not be a very encouraging job to do. The sad truth is the serious researchers or some hunter might have to kill one not to get laughed at.

I believe along with accounts from native peoples, physical evidence -bones- of these illusive gorillas may have been found before the apes themselves were evidenced by some white people. But I could be wrong.
We have no huge bigfoot skulls to spur some of us on, or the scientific community either, it appears.

[QuiteContrary]

Zarifa, on 24 March 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

To those who question the lack of evidence in bones and bodies,as one who spends a lot of time in these woods I can assure you that one can spot many deer and elk, and find relatively few remains. One can also be surrounded by these animals, and never see them. Take your poll among those who are in a position to judge the environment. Also consider that other animals may not be as stupid as you think, and are perfectly able to avoid contact with humans if they so choose, and they usually do. My coworker and I reported a wolverine sighting once, which was met with disbelief because they are rare. It was only after someone else reported one nearby that our sighting given credence. How many of you have seen a wolverine in the wild?

Wolverine tracks, dens, scat, kills, thousands of photos can be found. Plus a wolverine isn't the size of a small elephant. If I stepped in bf's scat I'd notice. If I had 16" tracks before me, I'd notice.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 24 March 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Sakari]

Zarifa, on 24 March 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

To those who question the lack of evidence in bones and bodies,as one who spends a lot of time in these woods I can assure you that one can spot many deer and elk, and find relatively few remains. One can also be surrounded by these animals, and never see them. Take your poll among those who are in a position to judge the environment. Also consider that other animals may not be as stupid as you think, and are perfectly able to avoid contact with humans if they so choose, and they usually do. My coworker and I reported a wolverine sighting once, which was met with disbelief because they are rare. It was only after someone else reported one nearby that our sighting given credence. How many of you have seen a wolverine in the wild?

I hunt, and I live where there are a lot of hunters, probably 7 out of 10 people here at the least hunt, and know the out doors......Not sure how many people I know well, or enough to say, but let's go low and say 25.....None of them believe a large primate could be alive today, and not have been found out to exist.....Bones, bodies, etc.

I used to go out in Nevada after the rut to get antlers ( dropped antlers ), they were easy to find, and abundent....Found them also while Chukar hunting all the time.


I have never seen a Wolverine in the wild, but I am not so sure I have ever lived where they are KNOWN to have a population....I have seen pictures in educational books, and I have seen them on TV ( educational shows ), and I have seen them in Zoo's, and in wild animal parks.

[orangepeaceful79]

Since this thread started out with an infographic on bigfoot belief.  I'd like to ask a non-threatening, non-loaded, and non-skeptical question of the believers.  What is it about Bigfoot and all the surrounding lore that fundamentally drives your belief?  I was a believer once and looking back I can chock my beliefs up to:

1) a personality that has a mild distrust of authority so cryptids and the manner in which believing in them sort of bucks the system appealed to me at that level.

2) crytpids are exciting, magical almost.

3) The information I had at the time was all I knew.

But seriously, what is it that makes you believe?  Personal experiences? The whole "what if" mindset?

[Zarifa]

On the question of scat, they may bury it, especially if they are intelligent enough to avoid us. On the question of sizable animals, bears and especially cougars tend to be rarely seen. On the question of why one would believe, it is based on the personal witness of evidence, as well as on the faith in the reports of credible others, who have often presented tangible evidence. On the subject of aliens, what is the hubris of mankind that allows people to discount the experiences of others, based on their own lack of experience?

Edited by Zarifa, 24 March 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[booNyzarC]

msmike1, on 24 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Yeah, I saw that as well on Ancient Aliens. WOW! is really all I can say. I sat in front of the TV with a confused look on my face for the entire show. I really could not believe that grown, educated people could come up with some of the crap that was spewing from their mouths. Of course whats his name with the funny hair thought everything was an alien, but the rest were coming up with some off the wall stuff. Bigfoot was actually a race of workers created by aliens with human dna to mine precious metals from the earth. They move about through an intricate maze of cave systems under the earth. This is why we don't see them very often. It was interesting to say the least.

Mike

I knew that there was a reason I intentionally avoided watching this series after a while...  but damned if I don't have some kind of morbid curiosity which is compelling me to pull this up on YouTube and subject myself to the nonsense right now...

[BMan375032]

I believed in Bigfoot until that show came on with the BFRO and the term Squatch.

[evancj]

orangepeaceful79, on 24 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

I think that when trying to disaggregate data samples like this it may be helpful to know the makeup of the sample to a degree, but unhelpful to cast about with stereotypes of one group or another.

I don't think I said anything even close to being controversial, but please do elaborate. I always enjoy being harassed for no particular reason by the political & social correctness Nazis.

orangepeaceful79, on 24 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Not all religious people are bible-thumping, chicken-swinging fundamentalists.  

Please show me where I said all religious people are as you described above. Could it be you are stereotyping me as a religious bigot merely because I asked the question?

orangepeaceful79, on 24 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Within every possible subgroup of the population that you could possibly think of, there is going to be a spectrum of folks ranging from one extreme to the other.  

A truly remarkable insight into our social structure, and one that I am aware of, believe it or not. Since you are aware that there are outliers in every group then you should also be aware that being politically and socially correct 100% of the time makes it impossible to say anything about anything with out offending someone.

I for one will not allow you or anyone to tell me what is and is not acceptable phraseology especially when it come to commenting on something as inconsequential as the existence of a mythical ape. I also believe that those people whom are so easily offended should take responsibility for their own pain, anger and resentment. That is their burden to bear not mine, and I will not give up my freedom of speech to placate you or them. As long as I am within this forums guidelines (which I am) I will say what is on my mind, just as you do.        
  

orangepeaceful79, on 24 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

I think that it is probably also to unwise to characterize all bigfoot believers as people whom the public school system has failed.  Some of the most staunch supporters are educated, intelligent, and are able to problem-solve and articulate their positions. They just happen to hold different views.

Again show me where I made such an inclusive blanket statement.

If you stick around long enough you will notice that "MANY" (note I said "many", not all) believers outright reject, misrepresent, mistrust, or fear, science. If I'm not mistaken you yourself have had much to say on this subject, so why come after me when I mentioned it?
  

orangepeaceful79, on 24 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

As a skeptic, it is frustrating to see what I think is the truth about this phenomenon and not be able to convince a believer to change their mind - but we must all agree in this debate that all of us have a right to our opinions on the topic, and to not be lumped into this group or that group simply because of our belief.

I am always astounded on this site to see someone who I tend to align with in this forum go into another forum on another topic and express opinions which might be completely and utterly opposed to mine in a different subject.  

See? That is the fundamental difference between you and I. I am not here to change anyone's mind, nor am I here to push what I think is right on others. So please stop pushing your version of morality on me. I am simply here to discuss a topic that interests me, and without the believers there would not be anything to discuss.  

orangepeaceful79, on 24 March 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

When talking about groups of people in general it is always wise to avoid painting with a broad brush.  Its our differences and diversity that make this interesting.  

In your zealousness to demonstrate your highly evolved social enlightenment I think you overlooked the fact that the very nature of polls such as the one we are discussing is to separate people into groups and categories within groups...so is your problem with the poll or me discussing the poll for what it is?

Would you have us ban discussing such polls because they generalize and use "broad brush" strokes to separate and categorize people into groups based on what they believe in?

[Sakari]

evancj, on 24 March 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

I for one will not allow you or anyone to tell me what is and is not acceptable phraseology especially when it come to commenting on something as inconsequential as the existence of a mythical ape. I also believe that those people whom are so easily offended should take responsibility for their own pain, anger and resentment. That is their burden to bear not mine, and I will not give up my freedom of speech to placate you or them. As long as I am within this forums guidelines (which I am) I will say what is on my mind, just as you do.    
  

No one should allow this, I say Amen !!!!!!!

Could not agree more.....

Evan, still not receiving my PM's?

[evancj]

Sakari, on 24 March 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

No one should allow this, I say Amen !!!!!!!

Could not agree more.....

Evan, still not receiving my PM's?

Thanks for your support.    

Not since I last time I mentioned it. Have you sent some since then?