why do people still believe in big foot

[Jeff Albertson]

And there are the Leviathan, the Harpies, the Chimera, the Sphinx, the Hydra, the Mormo, the Centaurs, the Karkinos, the Dragon, the Naiad, the Selkie, the Jenglot, the Hecatonchires, the Panis, the Leprechaun, the Ekek, the Tengu, and thousands of other cryptids in folklore and myths from around the world which are completely false.

That is why science doesn't rely on myth or legend. Anyone citing it as any degree of evidence will be laughed at.

Science should not relay on myths alone some myths are based in reality we can determine which ones do. You can't say that all myths are false or those ones you mentied are false. So far to the best of our knowlege they seem false though.

[JGirl]

Gentleman, I believe this is the image you're talking about:

Supposedly this indisputable drawing of Bigfoot is in a cave in Northern California but I've been unable to verify that.

this looks like a bear to me

[Nathan Drake]

It makes it very unlikely that it exists.

The burden of proof is on those who say they do exist.

Soooo, there may be dragons, and serpents, and Centaurs, and Harpies, and multi-armed monsters roaming around, and until we can prove they don't exist, we should just assume they do exist?

I'm afraid you have science backwards.

I do not have "science backwards" at all. I never claimed to have evidence of these other creatures, but I simply said their appearance in multiple cultures stories does not discredit their existence. The guy I responded to made the claim that they DON'T exist, there is no science to this, it is an opinion based only on the fact of what we have found and not found at this point, that is not science.

And you are putting words into my mouth like many people on this site seem to love to do, I never said you should "assume they do exist," but if you are claiming that you KNOW they do not you should have a better reason then "folklore is not fact and is not an accurate representation of anything but folklore" when many of the creatures in folklore are real known creatures, you can not make the claim all things found in folklore are ONLY a representation of folklore.

[Clobhair-cean]

" Bigfooters should realise that folklore is not fact and is not an accurate representation of anything but folklore."

Really? And tell me, you know this how? Just because something is included in a group of peoples folklore or mythology, does not mean it does not exist. Several known and proven animals are also included among these types of cave paintings, carvings,etc. You have no basis to say what parts of it are true and what are not without any evidence to back it up. The only evidence you have is that there is no evidence to the contrary at this point. That is not a very strong argument to make the claims you did.

Notice the word "accurate". What I'm saying is based on the general views of the science of folkloristics. While there are correlations between reality and folklore, you can't pick folkloric elements and use them as a proof for anything but folkloristic topics. That's what happens when reality and imagination mix. I did not say that no folklore is ever true, just that it's unusable to support statements about reality, especially about animals.

I've seen Kathy Strain being mentioned here, so we have something to start out on about the elusive bigfoot cave paintings. I've found this exquisitely referenced post that practically destroys her arguments about the Yokuts bigfoot. Here's the gist: She claims that the Yokuts people have a cave painting depicting a family of bigfoots and that they have a creation myth about these creatures. There are some issues with these claims. Firstly, there are no other bigfoot creation stories anywhere else in the West. Secondly, there are no other bigfoot cave paintings anywhere. The only source for the bigfoot creation stories are from Kathy Strain, there is no record of them anywhere outside her writings and bigfoot websites, even though the Yokuts legends are really well-documented. Furthermore, all the other scientific material written about the paintings suggests that they are of anything but bigfoot. Instead, they are evil spirits/bears/mountain lions/people. The only academic who seems to have reached the bigfoot conclusion is Kathy Strain. The Yokuts do have a "Hairy Man" in their myths, but just because something is hairy and walks on two feet that does not equate it with bigfoot, just look at Robin Williams.

So, there we have it. The cave paintings are not clear, but they are most probably not bigfoot.

[Nathan Drake]

And there are the Leviathan, the Harpies, the Chimera, the Sphinx, the Hydra, the Mormo, the Centaurs, the Karkinos, the Dragon, the Naiad, the Selkie, the Jenglot, the Hecatonchires, the Panis, the Leprechaun, the Ekek, the Tengu, and thousands of other cryptids in folklore and myths from around the world which are completely false.

That is why science doesn't rely on myth or legend. Anyone citing it as any degree of evidence will be laughed at.

Once again making claims you have no backing to other then you have not seen them or evidence of them so therefore it is fact they are "completely false."

Edited December 23, 2012 by Nathan Drake

[Nathan Drake]

Notice the word "accurate". What I'm saying is based on the general views of the science of folkloristics. While there are correlations between reality and folklore, you can't pick folkloric elements and use them as a proof for anything but folkloristic topics. That's what happens when reality and imagination mix. I did not say that no folklore is ever true, just that it's unusable to support statements about reality, especially about animals.

I've seen Kathy Strain being mentioned here, so we have something to start out on about the elusive bigfoot cave paintings. I've found this exquisitely referenced post that practically destroys her arguments about the Yokuts bigfoot. Here's the gist: She claims that the Yokuts people have a cave painting depicting a family of bigfoots and that they have a creation myth about these creatures. There are some issues with these claims. Firstly, there are no other bigfoot creation stories anywhere else in the West. Secondly, there are no other bigfoot cave paintings anywhere. The only source for the bigfoot creation stories are from Kathy Strain, there is no record of them anywhere outside her writings and bigfoot websites, even though the Yokuts legends are really well-documented. Furthermore, all the other scientific material written about the paintings suggests that they are of anything but bigfoot. Instead, they are evil spirits/bears/mountain lions/people. The only academic who seems to have reached the bigfoot conclusion is Kathy Strain. The Yokuts do have a "Hairy Man" in their myths, but just because something is hairy and walks on two feet that does not equate it with bigfoot, just look at Robin Williams.

So, there we have it. The cave paintings are not clear, but they are most probably not bigfoot.

I agree that you can not use them as proof, and I was by no means saying you should accept something simply for the fact it appears in folklore. But you should also not discount something just due to folklore and I was not just referring to the alleged Bigfoot example, just in general. I guess I somewhat misunderstood what you said, and I thought you were claiming folklore is just simply that with no basis in reality, so I do apologize for that, though I still stand by my views on the topic.

[scowl]

Once again making claims you have no backing to other then you have not seen them or evidence of them so therefore it is fact they are "completely false."

Again, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim. Do I have Martians living in my garage? I might!

If you want to believe all these mythical magical creatures that you've read in books could exist because you can't prove a negative, then enjoy the world you've created.

[scowl]

But you should also not discount something just due to folklore and I was not just referring to the alleged Bigfoot example, just in general.

No one has said this.

[Nathan Drake]

Again, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim. Do I have Martians living in my garage? I might!

If you want to believe all these mythical magical creatures that you've read in books could exist because you can't prove a negative, then enjoy the world you've created.

Again I never said this, stop claiming I said or alluded to something I never did. I don't believe in them because " I can't prove a negative" I never once said that. Believe what you will I am not going to have a discussion with someone who tries to prove their point by making false claims about what the other person said. All comments I have seen from you so far have no better arguments then someone who would just blindly believes in these things. Most of your comments seem to suggest that you don't believe in even the possibility of something unless you have solid proof, then you go on to suggest that it is up to believers to prove it and until then you will not even consider it. It s a very ignorant way of thinking you are suggesting, I am fine with differing opinions and have many times said I don't even claim many of these things DO exist, but I can not tolerate those people who feel their opinions are fact.

[Jeff Albertson]

I've seen Kathy Strain being mentioned here, so we have something to start out on about the elusive bigfoot cave paintings. I've found this exquisitely referenced post that practically destroys her arguments about the Yokuts bigfoot. Here's the gist: She claims that the Yokuts people have a cave painting depicting a family of bigfoots and that they have a creation myth about these creatures. There are some issues with these claims. Firstly, there are no other bigfoot creation stories anywhere else in the West. Secondly, there are no other bigfoot cave paintings anywhere. The only source for the bigfoot creation stories are from Kathy Strain, there is no record of them anywhere outside her writings and bigfoot websites, even though the Yokuts legends are really well-documented. Furthermore, all the other scientific material written about the paintings suggests that they are of anything but bigfoot. Instead, they are evil spirits/bears/mountain lions/people. The only academic who seems to have reached the bigfoot conclusion is Kathy Strain. The Yokuts do have a "Hairy Man" in their myths, but just because something is hairy and walks on two feet that does not equate it with bigfoot, just look at Robin Williams.

.

Right on you have evidence to look at and make a educated juments on. I we have to give a answer later, since I am not fimilar with what you are talking about, I have not seen any thing against here opion yet.. I just was letting you know so it seems like I was ignoring the question presented. I don't beleive in the existence of bigfoot but also I don't think it can't exist either, though. Any evidence that you can give on your postion will be appreciated. I have to find good refernces that I know are legitimate cypberspace is notaries for wrong information before I can answer the question prested. I did mention Kathy name in regards to the pictrographs I think those are the ones that some one mentions as evidence but can't say for sure because I can't answer any ones elese question. So far I can say that there is pictographs of large human like foot prints, whicH would elimate such other options as any thing besides a bear or person, or a animaL not know to science and myth be a not a reable expanation based in evidence.There a legends of bigfoot like creatures most of which are from the west coast, a few well know examples would be skoom and saquatch. There is a few examples what to look like bigfoot other than pictrograhs though which include totempoles, and what in my oppion looks like intresting evidence, are the 100's carved stone heads portraying the buk'wus which clear have ape like figure which are not limited to but include sagitale creat, and brow ridge.

[Dontlisten2me]

People think things are true even though the evidence doesn't say so. It's because some people don't "believe". It's because some people know or so they say. This forum is fake. It's a series of tubes. Forums existed as in real buildings back in ancient Rome with beer.

Edited December 23, 2012 by kampz

[Stardrive]

I'll put them up as I find them.

[Stardrive]

[Stardrive]

[Stardrive]

[Stardrive]

[evancj]

Holy cow Stardrive!

You've been busy, good job. Thanks for the effort you put into this.

Some very interesting stories that you have collected. I especially enjoyed the one about the farmer bear, a true tall tale that one.

The majority of them seem to be reports of what our friend psych101 would call "hobo sapiens" you know homeless mentally ill people. There was one in there that seemed to fit the bigfoot descriptions we hear today.

Thanks again I appreciate the time and effort you put into this.

Edited December 24, 2012 by evancj

[keninsc]

That's why I tell people to Google their own results. I don't care to become their teacher, if their too lazy to Google then their probably too lazy to make an effort to learn as well.

Yeah, not warm and fuzzy, but then nether is life.

[evancj]

Stardrive has always bee good about backing up his claims, and seems to enjoy educating those of us who need it.

[Jeff Albertson]

That's why I tell people to Google their own results. I don't care to become their teacher, if their too lazy to Google then their probably too lazy to make an effort to learn as well.

Yeah, not warm and fuzzy, but then nether is life.

Where you talking about Kathy strain pictrograph resarch or John Greens pictrographs, ect?

[keninsc]

Holy cow Stardrive!

You've been busy, good job. Thanks for the effort you put into this.

Some very interesting stories that you have collected. I especially enjoyed the one about the farmer bear, a true tall tale that one.

The majority of them seem to be reports of what our friend psych101 would call "hobo sapiens" you know homeless mentally ill people. There was one in there that seemed to fit the bigfoot descriptions we hear today.

Thanks again I appreciate the time and effort you put into this.

Stardrive is good about it, me I don't have the time, patience or inclination. I used to, you understand, but them that need education the most are themselves largely the problem.

[keninsc]

Where you talking about Kathy strain pictrograph resarch or John Greens pictrographs, ect?

Bless your heart Jeff, went right over your head again. Hang in there Buddy, one day maybe it'll make sense.

[Clobhair-cean]

Hmm, interesting articles, but there are some things that should be noted. Firstly, many of these are not local reports, especially the first few and some are about events on the other side of the country, which is suspect at best. The late 19th century was the heyday of yellow journalism, when in order to make money, journalists made up whatever stories they wanted, including petrified babies, mammoths roaming the countryside and of wild men. This doesn't invalidate the articles, but they should be treated with caution.

So, let's see them...

1: An article from Pennsylvania that quotes a one month old piece from California, that conveniently doesn't include any names. The old hunter is also suspiciously compassionate for the 1870s, and doesn't shoot the "gorilla".

2:Same papers, but the story is from Nevada. Still no names. "Undoubtedly a white man".

3: Louisiana paper, about events in Georgia concerning bears practicing animal husbandry. I think this sounds very much like a hoax and not at all like bigfoot.

4: Ohio-Ontario, not that far. But there is one strange thing: Pretties Island, Ontario is not a hundred miles north of Ottawa, but about thirty miles to the Southwest from there. Interesting Once more, no-one can be clearly identified. The creature is armed with a tomahawk and a "bludgeon"

5: A third-hand report, ("reliable gentleman" - Walker County Messenger - Atlanta Constitution), The wild man makes rude gestures with its hands, its facial features are clearly visible from 100 yards (though they are never described), wields a long pole and throws 100 pound rocks at the same time.

6: The first completely local report. It describes a half-naked man with long hair and a long beard, bare feet and a bare head. This doesn't sound like bigfoot at all.

7: Another third-hand account from the state of New York. Somewhere, Peter Thomas's carriage is attacked by something hairy in the middle of the night and he loses one of the horses. Later, berry pickers find a campsite with smoldering fire. They somehow identify the remains of Thomas's horse (how?) and find the bones of other animals. "It is thought by some" (at wikipedia, this would be followed by [who?] at least) that it's a chimpanzee or a feral human.

8: A wild man who wears sheepskin clothes and has a "flowing mane", but isn't said to be covered in fur. Doesn't sound like bigfoot.

9: A Nevada paper reporting from Missouri, about a naked black woman doing crazy stuff near a road. Doesn't sound like bigfoot.

10: A small town newspaper from New York references a small town newspaper from Pennsylvania about some people who found some footprints somewhere.

11: Now this is interesting. The Manitoba Free Press publishes a letter to the New York Sun about Vermont hunters in Massachusetts. They say that the creature had long, hairy arms, a beard and looked like a man. Or a gorilla, it's not completely clear. (I have to add here, I doubt that hunters from 1879 era Vermont had any idea what a gorilla looked like)

While these stories are fascinating, I don't see clear indications of bigfoot in most of them, and their veracity is doubtful as practically all are small town newspapers reporting about faraway events with as little traceable facts as possible.

What it proves is that I was wrong and the media-fuelled bigfoot craze has its origins in late 19th century "wild man" articles that were probably inspired by tales of Native American religion.

[keninsc]

And that's the other reason I don't try to educate people any more.

[orangepeaceful79]

In response to the question posed by the OP - I think people still believe in Bigfoot for several reasons:

a) they want to. Volition drives belief in cryptids - it has to, as there is no evidence or logic that actually supports their existence.

personal experiences/anecdotal evidence. My thoughts on personal experiences and anecdotal evidence are that they are almost all either sightings of misidentified already existing animals, hoaxes, or hand-me-down versions of the former.

c) problem solving skills and critical thinking are in decline in the adult population. Instead of going out to find information on which to base beliefs, many people believe first and then find confirmation and validation in stories (eyewitness accounts/anecdotal information mentioned above) that support their belief.