Why do people want to believe in Bigfoot?

[Agishe]

6 hours ago, stereologist said:

BF is not a mythological character. BF seems to be a fantasy character.

The similarities of BF across continents and within continents are poor.

What a steady fantasy for hairy humanoid, holds for millennia!
Enkidu?

[stereologist]

15 hours ago, Agishe said:

What a steady fantasy for hairy humanoid, holds for millennia!
Enkidu?

No. There has not been a "steady fantasy for hairy humanoid" which has been there for millennia. Not at all.

The BF story is modern. There have been some laughable attempts at twisting lore into being a part of the BF phenomena.

[Agishe]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

...The BF story is modern...

???

http://www.bfro.net/legends/

http://williamjevning.com/hairy-hominids-throughout-history/

[Carnoferox]

6 hours ago, Agishe said:

???

http://www.bfro.net/legends/

http://williamjevning.com/hairy-hominids-throughout-history/

The BFRO is far from a reliable source.

[Agishe]

3 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

The BFRO is far from a reliable source.

I do not understand why they should differ on this issue from, for example, this source:

http://www.native-languages.org/legends-bigfoot.htm

[stereologist]

18 hours ago, Agishe said:

???

http://www.bfro.net/legends/

http://williamjevning.com/hairy-hominids-throughout-history/

Apparently you are easy to fool. These stories are all over the place, They hardly match up to BF anecdotes. Which of these stories do you want to include? How about the stories where the creature lives with the family? What about the stories where the creature is an evil spirit? 

The BFRO site does things such as state "The Lakota, or western Sioux, call Bigfoot ..." I call that a lie. They did not call bigfoot anything. They had legends and it is BFRO which tells a lie by stating that a particular culture observed bigfoot. No. It is BFRO that is telling a whopper of lie. But they do not always lie. They have the courage to post that some of the stories they are pretending to represent BF are about the supernatural, while other stories are about actual creatures. 

Your links do in fact show that the BF story is modern. It is a modern tale. There has not been millennia of stories about BF. There are those that pretend that all of these different tales are related to BF and they fail because they bring in a wide range of conflicting stories. 

The same sort of shameful story collecting comes from creationists that pretend that stories all over the world support the biblical flood. The stories have everyone die, no one die, some are floods of resin, and so forth.

Piling together lots of unrelated stories that are often in conflict with each other are there to trick the foolish.

BFRO not only tells tales and pretends those tales are old, but introduces all sorts of other aspects such as BF having psychic powers, and elves or fairies 

Your link 1 stinks.

The second link is even worse. Yes, it is possible to be lower than BFRO.

Quote

Anthropologists have even gone as far as establishing its identity as the Gigantopithecus, an anthropoidal creature which may have survived into modern times by keeping clear of homo sapiens.

That's nonsense. There is no evidence Gigantopithecus lived outside of tropical China millions of years ago. The idea that any anthropologists sign onto this stupidity is simply a bald faced lie.

I looked up the Tomerus battle mentioned on the page and there is nothing there to suggest BF. It does mention the lack of metals and such. The battle description certainly sounds like a well organized army routed a poor people. These were poor people that had clothes, weapons, lived long term in an area, built a town, used tools, and fished. There were hundreds of them in one spot that attempted to defend where they lived. Not a match for BF stories.

Then the site goes off to discuss tales of giants.

Two big fails.

 

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Agishe said:

I do not understand why they should differ on this issue from, for example, this source:

http://www.native-languages.org/legends-bigfoot.htm

So which of these vastly different stories is BF?

The site points this out in the beginning. This is why the BFRO site is a joke.

Quote

So intense is this fascination that some Bigfoot enthusiasts seem to have labeled just about every mythological creature ever known in the western hemisphere as another name for Sasquatch. There are amusing collections of "Native American names for Bigfoot" online that include the names of giants, dwarves, ghosts, gods, underwater monsters, four-legged predators, an enormous bird, and a disembodied flying head. 

 

[Agishe]

On 04.09.2018 at 4:47 PM, stereologist said:

The BF story is modern.

Not more modern than the history of the MEDIA in America.

...

Seems to me, I must reintroduce my first post

So, I never meant a creature composed of flesh and blood.

BFRO is OK They hit the mark.

These legends accurately describe the demons.

...

What about The Met?

Will you say it's a lie too?

The Wild Man Medieval Myth and Symbolism

Edited September 5, 2018 by Agishe

[stereologist]

55 minutes ago, Agishe said:

Not more modern than the history of the MEDIA in America.

...

Seems to me, I must reintroduce my first post

So, I never meant a creature composed of flesh and blood.

BFRO is OK They hit the mark.

These legends accurately describe the demons.

...

What about The Met?

Will you say it's a lie too?

The Wild Man Medieval Myth and Symbolism

If you think BFRO hits the mark then explain why the stories they relate are all different creatures.

SO what is this link from the Met supposed to mean? What doe sit have to do with BF? Posting a likn and no reason for the link probably means it has nothing to do with the conversation.

[Agishe]

35 minutes ago, stereologist said:

If you think BFRO hits the mark then explain why the stories they relate are all different creatures.

As I said, "they have no bodies", so yowie, BF, yeti, leshy have some not significant differences, probably depending on the circumstances and personal "preferences".

Do not try to classify them as biological species.

35 minutes ago, stereologist said:

SO what is this link from the Met supposed to mean? What doe sit have to do with BF? Posting a likn and no reason for the link probably means it has nothing to do with the conversation.

Mean "hairy humanoid" in the medieval Europe. All different and everyones.

Book is free. 33 mb, take & look it.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Agishe

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Agishe said:

As I said, "they have no bodies", so yowie, BF, yeti, leshy have some not significant differences, probably depending on the circumstances and personal "preferences".

Do not try to classify them as biological species.

Mean "hairy humanoid" in the medieval Europe. All different and everyones.

Book is free. 33 mb, take & look it.

If "they have no bodies" then almost all of the link material you provided is in conflict with your statement. 

It appears you have no argument. So now you want me to read a book that is about medieval times and therefore does NOT support your millennia claim.

Your claim of "holds for millennia!" has completely failed.

As I stated before BF is a modern story. You have provided nothing to challenge that.

[XenoFish]

Bigfoot doesn't exist unless we get a fresh corpse. Till then it's just some urban legend/myth. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by XenoFish

['Walt' E. Kurtz]

Bigfoot is nothing to go ape about until we have a cadaver or chewbaccas grand mother.

[Agishe]

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

If "they have no bodies" then almost all of the link material you provided is in conflict with your statement.

How can it be in conflict with the telepathic hallucinations?

 

10 hours ago, stereologist said:

Your claim of "holds for millennia!" has completely failed.

Seriously?
Why do I need to "claim" the well-known facts, written in Wikipedia?

"Figures similar to the European wild man occur worldwide from very early times. The earliest recorded example of the type is the character Enkidu of the ancient Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh."

Ups! Sorry! I forgot: You surely will say that Epic of Gilgamesh is lie.
Wikipedia? - Liars. (Say it!)
Historian Arrian is a liar
BFRO is liars
Medieval Europe? - What for?
...
You are marvellous!

Edited September 6, 2018 by Agishe

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Agishe said:

How can it be in conflict with the telepathic hallucinations?

 

Seriously?
Why do I need to "claim" the well-known facts, written in Wikipedia?

"Figures similar to the European wild man occur worldwide from very early times. The earliest recorded example of the type is the character Enkidu of the ancient Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh."

Ups! Sorry! I forgot: You surely will say that Epic of Gilgamesh is lie.
Wikipedia? - Liars. (Say it!)
Historian Arrian is a liar
BFRO is liars
Medieval Europe? - What for?
...
You are marvellous!

You are making up stories left and right that have nothing at all to do with bigfoot. You are stooping far lower than BFRO.

You posted links to stories which have nothing at all to do with your telepathic hallucinations blather. The book from the Met and its wild  man stories have nothing to do with BF.

As can be seen from the link you provided these stories have nothing at all to do with bigfoot except maybe in the imaginations of little children. The first sentence states

Quote

The wild man (also wildman, or "wildman of the woods") is a mythical figure

Let me repeat. The wild man is a mythical figure.

Let me help you since you seem to have no idea at all what you are talking about.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/mythical

Quote

myth·i·cal

 (mĭth′ĭ-kəl) also myth·ic (-ĭk)

adj.

1. Of or existing in myth: the mythical unicorn.

2. Imaginary; fictitious.

3. often mythic Of, relating to, or having the nature of a myth: a novel of profound, almost mythic consequence.

The wild man stories are stories of made up creatures.They are imaginary, made up, fiction.

Let's look at other mythological figures

http://greekmythology.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_figures_in_Greek_mythology

A mythical figure, that is a made up story character, does not support your case. You fail even worse than before.

[Minimalists]

I gotta ask...Are we confining this discussion to the United States? If so yes I would say Bigfoot is a modern construct...If no. Then there are recorded instances of hairy ape like men.....Of course Bigfoot proponents will claim "Bigfoot" but is it? There is the 986AD Leif Erickson encounter...The 840CE incident with Agobard the Archbishop of Lyons. Though they referred to them as demons.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/apelike-monsters 

[Agishe]

36 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

I gotta ask...Are we confining this discussion to the United States? If so yes I would say Bigfoot is a modern construct...If no. Then there are recorded instances of hairy ape like men.....Of course Bigfoot proponents will claim "Bigfoot" but is it? There is the 986AD Leif Erickson encounter...The 840CE incident with Agobard the Archbishop of Lyons. Though they referred to them as demons.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/apelike-monsters 

All around the world

[Agishe]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Let me repeat. The wild man is a mythical figure.

Let me help you since you seem to have no idea at all what you are talking about.

Help youself 1

Help youself 2

Help yousef 3

Help youself 4

I see no reason to continue the discussion with stereologist.
So, I've expressed my opinion "why people should not believe in bigfoot"
They (BF) are satanic beings.
Excuse me, if someone seemed that I am offtopic.

Thats all.

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Agishe

[stereologist]

On 9/6/2018 at 7:02 AM, Agishe said:

All around the world

Let me help you out.

The link states

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/apelike-monsters

Quote

Sightings of monstrous apelike creatures lurking in the darkness of forests and mountainous regions of the world have been reported since the Middle Ages.

This is not millennia as you so falsely stated.

Furthermore, the article does not mention that the yeti search and naming of the supposed creature was done by British newspaper working with a well known prankster named Shipton. A nice oversight. The article also does a poor attempt at avoiding the issue that nothing at all exists to show BF or these mythical wild men exist. The article also contradicts the earlier claims of wild men and Alexander's army.

BF is a modern construct. It is not old.

[stereologist]

On 9/6/2018 at 7:16 AM, Agishe said:

** snipped **

 

I see no reason to continue the discussion with stereologist.
So, I've expressed my opinion "why people should not believe in bigfoot"
They (BF) are satanic beings.
Excuse me, if someone seemed that I am offtopic.

Thats all.

 

All you've managed to do is to show that I am right. Well done.

So you think that BF is satanic. That is one of those fringie wacko comments which the stories do not seem to support.

Earlier you made this statement which you have never supported.

Quote

At the same time, a certain coincidences in descriptions and circumstances show that this is not a figment of imagination.

That is where this discussion started.

Then you brought in these links

http://www.bfro.net/legends/

http://williamjevning.com/hairy-hominids-throughout-history/

 

Neither of these links supports your satanic idea.

So you brought n this link

http://www.native-languages.org/legends-bigfoot.htm

That link does not support your satanic story.

Then in comes this link

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications/The_Wild_Man_Medieval_Myth_and_Symbolism

Again you provide a link which in general is against your satanic story.

This satanic idea looks worse and worse the more you post.

 

 

 

 

[Piney]

On 9/6/2018 at 7:16 AM, Agishe said:

They (BF) are satanic beings.

  

.........I think I just ripped my hernia mesh........

[Agishe]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

...statement which you have never supported.

Feel free in your phantasy.

[MWoo7]

Well, I for one just have to butt in and say I like those qualifying / synonym SCREEN SHOTS ! ... just PHABULOUS!

Edited September 7, 2018 by MWoo7

[stereologist]

19 minutes ago, Agishe said:

Feel free in your phantasy.

Please continue with your epic failures.

[Agishe]

No need to continue, I already understand everything about you