Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Any closet Footers on here?


Atuke

Recommended Posts

I'm a huge Bigfoot enthusiast(a Footer) and the Sasquatch have allured me since the 1970's as a young child. I do my own research, collect my own data, and even have collected a few prints, all anonymously and without friends or family knowing my passion. Of course pursuing Sasquatch comes with ridicule, even on this site.

So are there any other Footers out there who hide their passion? I'm curious if there are and your thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe, and I don't hide it. Now, I have never sighted anything nor I am not a scientist, however, I still believe. I know there is a stigma to believing there is an unclassified species of primate living in the wilderness and I could care less if people think I am unintelligent. I get made fun of a lot in my circles of friends, but I brush it off. However, its far from something I am obsessed with, I don't bother watching any TV shows anymore, they seem to be such a joke.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree woodsbooger. But good for you that you don't hide it, I admire that. I actually have friends that believe or say they do and I'll even make fun lol. But my denial isn't a problem since it rarely comes up. Unless my GF comes over and see my DVR 90% full of Bigfoot shows :/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a huge Bigfoot enthusiast(a Footer) and the Sasquatch have allured me since the 1970's as a young child. I do my own research, collect my own data, and even have collected a few prints, all anonymously and without friends or family knowing my passion. Of course pursuing Sasquatch comes with ridicule, even on this site.

So are there any other Footers out there who hide their passion? I'm curious if there are and your thoughts

Just curious, where does anyone get ridiculed here?.....Questioned, and debated maybe, but I rarely see ridiculed. ( some known hoaxers called frauds )

PS....I used to believe in Bigfoot, but was never secretive about it.

Edited by Sakari
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sakari,

No I wouldn't say bashing or ridicule, wrong word usage on my part. This site is fine and I don't mind heavy skepticism or debunking. Just how I won't change their mind without a body they won't make me waver either. It just goes in circles, which is fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sakari,

No I wouldn't say bashing or ridicule, wrong word usage on my part. This site is fine and I don't mind heavy skepticism or debunking. Just how I won't change their mind without a body they won't make me waver either. It just goes in circles, which is fun.

It is fun.....

You think we are nuts for not seeing the " evidence ".....

We think you are nuts for seeing it......

( from a ex-Bif Believer )

Keep discussing, we will show you the way......It is fun.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm like Sakari. I used to be an ardent believer. But the more I study primates and hominins, the less and less likely bigfoot becomes. I'm pretty firmly in the no way camp, but I would LOVE to be wrong. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sakari,

No I wouldn't say bashing or ridicule, wrong word usage on my part. This site is fine and I don't mind heavy skepticism or debunking. Just how I won't change their mind without a body they won't make me waver either. It just goes in circles, which is fun.

I think even with a body people would still question. (Not people here specifically) I think it would take more than one body, or one alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I understand. I went from believer for almost my whole life, to getting away from it and dismissing it, then back to a faith belief system in Sasquatch. Some of the more credible and enthusiastic people in the field caught my eye and I revisited the P/G film for the millionth time. Meldrum, Munns, MK Davis among others definitely got me interested again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't like the term 'Footer'. It kind of feeds in to that hokey circus like atmosphere that's perpetuated by all the idiots at the forefront of Bigfoot in it's modern day media hyped context. I think Sasquatches are relict hominids that have survived into modern times by basing their entire existence and culture on avoidance of the human species altogether. It's as if they fear the spread of disease or the outcome of our discovery of them, which in my view is highly intelligent. I think they have evolved in a domain that we are largely unfamiliar with and are very clumsy in compared to them. I think they evolved and adapted to they physical harshness of survival in the wilderness domains free from human habitation. Native Americans referred to them as the "Boss of the Forest" or viewed them as Supernatural because of their vast superiority to themselves at stealth, tracking, hunting, etc. I think the number and quality of some of the eye witness reports is too easily dismissed by some unfamiliar with the subject beyond the tabloid at the grocery store check out counter. ONCE one actually delves in to some of the evidence available on the subject, most come away surprisingly impressed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigfoot is a great hobby! I have no problem telling people that I go out searching for the Yowie - it's usually a great conversation starter...

r0tgnm.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't like the term 'Footer'. It kind of feeds in to that hokey circus like atmosphere that's perpetuated by all the idiots at the forefront of Bigfoot in it's modern day media hyped context. I think Sasquatches are relict hominids that have survived into modern times by basing their entire existence and culture on avoidance of the human species altogether. It's as if they fear the spread of disease or the outcome of our discovery of them, which in my view is highly intelligent. I think they have evolved in a domain that we are largely unfamiliar with and are very clumsy in compared to them. I think they evolved and adapted to they physical harshness of survival in the wilderness domains free from human habitation. Native Americans referred to them as the "Boss of the Forest" or viewed them as Supernatural because of their vast superiority to themselves at stealth, tracking, hunting, etc. I think the number and quality of some of the eye witness reports is too easily dismissed by some unfamiliar with the subject beyond the tabloid at the grocery store check out counter. ONCE one actually delves in to some of the evidence available on the subject, most come away surprisingly impressed.

That's pretty awesome! I'm pretty much in tow with everything you said, and I have said the same things on here before. That was very good. I'm interested in seeing some of your future speculation, thoughts, and posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't like the term 'Footer'. It kind of feeds in to that hokey circus like atmosphere that's perpetuated by all the idiots at the forefront of Bigfoot in it's modern day media hyped context. I think Sasquatches are relict hominids that have survived into modern times by basing their entire existence and culture on avoidance of the human species altogether. It's as if they fear the spread of disease or the outcome of our discovery of them, which in my view is highly intelligent. I think they have evolved in a domain that we are largely unfamiliar with and are very clumsy in compared to them. I think they evolved and adapted to they physical harshness of survival in the wilderness domains free from human habitation. Native Americans referred to them as the "Boss of the Forest" or viewed them as Supernatural because of their vast superiority to themselves at stealth, tracking, hunting, etc. I think the number and quality of some of the eye witness reports is too easily dismissed by some unfamiliar with the subject beyond the tabloid at the grocery store check out counter. ONCE one actually delves in to some of the evidence available on the subject, most come away surprisingly impressed.

I think that's a really good hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have an interest in Bigfoot and the UFO/Abduction Phenomena. I will size a person up to see what their view of it is.

I will sort of mention it to them to see what kind of response they give. If they show some interest. I'll ask them if they ever

heard of a particular case and go from there. But if I have mentioned it to others and they think it's baloney and they have said only trailer trash rednecks come up with this stuff, I let it slide. It goes to show that they aren't educated on the subject because many people of credibility have witnessed this phenomena. And that's what keeps me interested even if there's no concrete evidence.

Edited by Hawkin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call myself a "footer", but I wouldn't mind going out and doing some serious looking, I enjoy being out in the woods and nature anyway, so I can't see it as a negative thing. Unless I run across one in a nasty mood.......then I'd probably be saying something like, "Boy, you're screwed now." As I'm running and leaving a trail of pooh for the Biggy to follow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't believe in Bigfoot. Or the supernatural, for that matter. But I love mysteries, stories and speculation. I enjoy the search of a rational explanation whenever something seems impossible, outlandish or simply otherwordly. I like watching skeptics and believers debate about something. Like Sakari said, it is fun. And you usually end up learning something.

Edited by Galego
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how we learn, through disagreement. I make a point, you make a counter point, in the end we all learn something we might never have considered.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm like Sakari. I used to be an ardent believer. But the more I study primates and hominins, the less and less likely bigfoot becomes. I'm pretty firmly in the no way camp, but I would LOVE to be wrong. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case....

Now you have me curious. What specifically in your study of primates and hominins has made bigfoot less likely? The recent discovery of Denisovans, and Hobbits, both hominins that modern science would have never accepted as being modern, (last 50k years) would only seem to bolster the probability of an undiscovered species potentially living into present day.

Edited by Tira
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you have me curious. What specifically in your study of primates and hominins has made bigfoot less likely? The recent discovery of Denisovans, and Hobbits, both hominins that modern science would have never accepted as being modern, (last 50k years) would only seem to bolster the probability of an undiscovered species potentially living into present day.

Well, sorry but I wanted to take this one. The recent discoveries you mention, Denisovans and Hobbits, do not still exist. The evidence of them was discovered in the fossil record, they existed at one time but.....at least as we know, they are extinct now. Bigfoots have yet to be found in the fossil record in North America, the only fossils that can be linked to them were found in China and belong to the Gigantopithecus. Now I should point out that just because evidence of them hasn't been found that that means they never existed or aren't around today, however the odds of something like them to have managed to elude human detection as a species for this long is pretty darn slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, sorry but I wanted to take this one. The recent discoveries you mention, Denisovans and Hobbits, do not still exist. The evidence of them was discovered in the fossil record, they existed at one time but.....at least as we know, they are extinct now. Bigfoots have yet to be found in the fossil record in North America, the only fossils that can be linked to them were found in China and belong to the Gigantopithecus. Now I should point out that just because evidence of them hasn't been found that that means they never existed or aren't around today, however the odds of something like them to have managed to elude human detection as a species for this long is pretty darn slim.

"at least as we know, they are extinct now"

presumptuous..

...post i referenced spoke about evidence from recent research that diminished the likelihood of surviving hominid

...i'm stating the discovery of recent hominins other than us surviving up to only 12k years ago bolsters the case for other hominins surviving to present as opposed to the state of things prior to discovery

"Bigfoots have yet to be found in the fossil record in North America, the only fossils that can be linked to them were found in China and belong to the Gigantopithecus"

....there once existed the Bering Land Bridge

... DNA found thus far show they are very closely related to humans, so close our current methodology identifies the DNA as contaminated by human or human itself

....bones have been found that I think were identified as very large robust human skeletal remains....again i believe them to be a slight variant species very much resembling a wild human

"odds of something like them to have managed to elude human detection as a species for this long is pretty darn slim"

Hmm.... a very intelligent and capable evolutionary cousin, which evolved on the same scale as we civilized humans but adaptive to it's domain, superior to us in the wild beyond what we can comprehend. As much as master of their domain as we are ours. Think of the strides we have made with civilization. Now imagine a hominid very similar to us in intelligence, with a larger cranial vault I might add, but that has chosen a different path long ago. A path because of it's adaptations that had no need for civilization, or technology. A path more naturally suited to this world, a more harmonious existence with nature than our own. No telling what discoveries and abilities they have developed living wild, evolving wild. We've put men on the moon, so imagine them trying to conceptualize such a thing. That's where we are with our understanding of them.

Couple that with the simply jaw dropping amount of unoccupied wilderness available to such a species, and I think the odds for a small population 10k or so surviving to modern day is within the scope of "worthy of further investigation." Then again I know they exist so my paradigm has shifted. I think it's a cultural or survival instinct taught to offspring. I think we probably almost wiped them out, and that they intelligently avoid us at all costs, although not always possible(hence the 100k sighting reports) going back 1000s of years.

It's OK to be a skeptic as long you are scientific about it and don't pre-judge the data. I had one "scientist" cite this rationale as to why he simply did not believe the witness' report (and I quote nearly verbatim here) "It's not possible for an animal that large to go unseen." Well, duh, whatever it was by definition did not go unseen since the reported sighting is what's being discussed ... and yet he rejects that it was seen because it's not possible for an animal that large to go unseen? That type of logic in the name of "science" makes me cringe. He then made a second objection about whether there would be enough food for such an animal ... while accepting that there is ample food for the large bear that is acknowledged as living there. And on it went ... because as a "scientist" he "knows" that this cannot be. Sadly, too many people take this approach to the question.

Scientifically, the data are what the data are. As long as the data have been collected reliably and reported truthfully, it really doesn't matter whether they support one hypothesis or the other.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"at least as we know, they are extinct now"

presumptuous..

​That term isn't presumptuous at all, as far as we know they are extinct now, perfectly sound and current. Now should they be found to be alive, obviously that will have to change, but until they are found alive there is no presumption.

...post i referenced spoke about evidence from recent research that diminished the likelihood of surviving hominid

...i'm stating the discovery of recent hominins other than us surviving up to only 12k years ago bolsters the case for other hominins surviving to present as opposed to the state of things prior to discovery

"Bigfoots have yet to be found in the fossil record in North America, the only fossils that can be linked to them were found in China and belong to the Gigantopithecus"

....there once existed the Bering Land Bridge

...and that has what to do with fossil of bigfoots? I'm sorry you lost me there.

... DNA found thus far show they are very closely related to humans, so close our current methodology identifies the DNA as contaminated by human or human itself

DNA of Bigfoots found? Where? If you know where this can be found then by all mean post up a link. To my knowledge no Bigfoot DNA has ever been found.

....bones have been found that I think were identified as very large robust human skeletal remains....again i believe them to be a slight variant species very much resembling a wild human

Large human skeletons have been reported to have been found, but as yet I have seen very few of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By law Native American remains(skeletons and skulls) CANNOT be displayed in any way. And any good Sasquatch researcher knows that the Sasquatch people and certain Native American cultures go back thousands of years. So good luck coming up with remains that aren't protected from Native American laws and rituals. Sasquatch has always had a symbiotic relationship with Native Americans and the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.