Why is it so hard to believe in BF?

[Selectric]

do you still have those type dreams. sometimes the very vivid, in depth, realistic type dreams can be controlled. lucid dreams, try that with any more that you may have and you may be able to "see" what was in your mind during the encounter. or what you may have blocked out subconsciously..

Nothing along those lines. Not since childhood. Only had three BF dreams in life and they were it.

 

[Selectric]

I believe alot of it was the house or area. Always had dreams of strange stuff from there including 'hidden' doors throughout the house that went to 'other' places.

 

[Selectric]

I believe alot of it was the house or area. Always had dreams of strange stuff from there including 'hidden' doors throughout the house that went to 'other' places.

And every time had the feeling...yeah...don't go in there...too late lol.

 

[Lynne]

A bigfoot saw me once.

He tried to tell his friends about it but they didn't believe him.

[drum roll, cymbal crash]

"People believe what they want to believe" is a frequent explanation and I think there is much truth in it.

Many people don’t like the idea of a big hairy beast roaming about in the woods. They probably wouldn’t believe in bears if there weren’t overwhelming evidence and agreement from authorities for them.

Another factor is that what a person believes and what they admit to believing are not necessarily the same.

Lots of people say they don’t believe in ghosts but would still be terrified at the idea of spending a night in a house reputed to be haunted.

I love this Crux, a lot of truth here.

 

[Lynne]

experiences that leave an imprint on us is what leads most to digging further for the proof they need to validate their encounters, whether it be ghosts, cryptids, even abilities to an extent.... wanting to find absolute proof dousnt make one a non-believer, quite the opposite actually, it is just wanting to prove what one has already experienced for themselves to others...

This is so true and why I give weight to the thousands of eyewitness accounts. It may not be proof, but it lends to the existence of some creature in the woods.

 

[crux]

I grew up in the SF Bay Area. While in my teens there were two people I knew who told me of their encounters with BF.

One happened in Nortonville, CA, an old coal mining ghost town with entrances to very deep mines. My friend was dirt-biking there by himself one day. He was walking his bike along the bottom of a steep hillside when he looked up and saw the BF up the hill looking down at him and standing near a large boulder. He said it was as big as a man or bigger and covered with very dark hair. It just stood there motionlessly watching him. My friend wasted no time in jumping on his bike and getting out of there. Though it was a favorite place of his, he had no plans of ever going back.

Another witness sighting was a classic road crossing in front of a car that was traveling at night in a remote area near Byron, CA. There were 4 or 5 guys in the car and they all saw it emerge from a wooded area on one side of the road and cross into an area of tall grass on the other side. He said it moved surprisingly quickly and smoothly until disappearing into the darkness.

Both witnesses gave me no reason to think they weren't telling the truth about what they saw.

I had a possible encounter myself which I wrote about here:
Be Honest...

 

[GoneWestUtah]

I feel portals, communicate with spirits. I see UFOs not infrequently and, well, yeah. Lol. Still just blows me away, almost every day.

BF is just a giant hominid. Not really in the same category. Interests me about as much as Nessie.

 

[Stevedog]

It's an interesting question and one I have asked many times on a variety of subjects. I think Crux nailed it that it's more about what people choose to believe.

A reoccurring theme that I see over and over, whether it's cryptids, ghosts or even current events, is that people confuse the ideas of proof and evidence. Simply put, evidence only informs a belief whereas proof confirms a belief. So regardless of what you believe, anything you have seen or experienced that led you to believe it is evidence. Even if someone else looks at the same evidence and comes to a different conclusion or belief, it doesn't cease to be evidence. It only means that different people have different thresholds for how much evidence it takes to change their mind. In this same vein there are people who are set in their beliefs regardless of not just evidence but actual proof. Often these people will discount any evidence without actually looking at it, usually it's circular logic of the "This evidence must be fake because these things aren't real, if they were real there would be evidence" variety.

When it comes to something like Bigfoot there is a lot of evidence which both sides can point to without compelling each other out of their chosen beliefs. Eye witness testimony and historical records indicate that there is some sort of unclassified creature living in certain forests.
Science tells us that there are certain dietary and mating requirements for such a species to exist and that there should be contemporaneous evidence outside of sightings and foot prints available. These two sets of evidence are at odds with each other and don't seem to have a way to both be proven right, one side has to "win" and the other "lose".

It also doesn't help that there are hoaxers and people who create fake evidence, or when a group of people present evidence then years later some members of the group claim it was a hoax but others still insist its real. Which leads to valid skepticism around other such evidence. On the scientific side one has to make certain assumptions about the creatures physiology then form their hypothesis without knowing if those assumptions are even accurate. This is similar to how many paranormal investigators operate, they assume that ghost have certain traits or behavior and use equipment they think will react with or reveal such things. In both cases an lack of evidence can mean a bad assumption, wrong place, wrong time or all manner of other inconclusive conclusions.

Which is why Bigfoot, and other such phenomenon, continue to go unresolved. Each side has too much evidence to be dismissed but not enough to provide proof.

 

[Lynne]

It's an interesting question and one I have asked many times on a variety of subjects. I think Crux nailed it that it's more about what people choose to believe.

A reoccurring theme that I see over and over, whether it's cryptids, ghosts or even current events, is that people confuse the ideas of proof and evidence. Simply put, evidence only informs a belief whereas proof confirms a belief. So regardless of what you believe, anything you have seen or experienced that led you to believe it is evidence. Even if someone else looks at the same evidence and comes to a different conclusion or belief, it doesn't cease to be evidence. It only means that different people have different thresholds for how much evidence it takes to change their mind. In this same vein there are people who are set in their beliefs regardless of not just evidence but actual proof. Often these people will discount any evidence without actually looking at it, usually it's circular logic of the "This evidence must be fake because these things aren't real, if they were real there would be evidence" variety.

When it comes to something like Bigfoot there is a lot of evidence which both sides can point to without compelling each other out of their chosen beliefs. Eye witness testimony and historical records indicate that there is some sort of unclassified creature living in certain forests.
Science tells us that there are certain dietary and mating requirements for such a species to exist and that there should be contemporaneous evidence outside of sightings and foot prints available. These two sets of evidence are at odds with each other and don't seem to have a way to both be proven right, one side has to "win" and the other "lose".

It also doesn't help that there are hoaxers and people who create fake evidence, or when a group of people present evidence then years later some members of the group claim it was a hoax but others still insist its real. Which leads to valid skepticism around other such evidence. On the scientific side one has to make certain assumptions about the creatures physiology then form their hypothesis without knowing if those assumptions are even accurate. This is similar to how many paranormal investigators operate, they assume that ghost have certain traits or behavior and use equipment they think will react with or reveal such things. In both cases an lack of evidence can mean a bad assumption, wrong place, wrong time or all manner of other inconclusive conclusions.

Which is why Bigfoot, and other such phenomenon, continue to go unresolved. Each side has too much evidence to be dismissed but not enough to provide proof.

This was an excellent response to this question Steve, Bravo! Well stated and I agree.