Most paranormal events are seen and later remembered, related and evaluated from the RIGHT side of our brains, the creative side, primarily because of their heavily emotional nature.

Researchers have to keep switching our senses over to the rational, analytical LEFT side of our intellects, so we can cooly evaluate both the event and, later, the discussions and critiques and other ramifications, much as we are doing above.

See how quickly we slide over into emotion-driven sarcasm and innuendo and reactionary responses, splitting hairs and parsing sentences until we lose track of the actual subject?

I think most, if not all, of the folx on this thread sound like Agnostics on the Bigfoot subject (and, by association, most other Paranorms), and there’s nothing wrong with that ~ it simply means…

I don’t know.

All of the “skeptisism” displayed as I matured was learned. I was taught to be skeptical by the local educational system–particularly by the science courses. I am now 20 years removed from academia. I have tried to absorb as much knowledge from this world as possible. The conclusions I have drawn about the ball of light and God will remain my own. As for the bigfoot I saw as a child I still can not say whether or not it was real.

The bigfoot I saw as a child was on the Patterson film. With all the advances in technology I have seen in my lifetime, all the skeptisism that has been pounded into me, and all the people that have investigated this matter, for it to still be a mystery to me is profoundly disturbing.

At this point it shouldn’t matter whether a person considers themselves to be skeptics or believers. In my mind they are two sides of the same coin and neither side has proven anything. Yet, curiously I am begining to “believe” that’s excactly what both sides want. Which would put me decidedly in the camp of the cynics.

The only thing left for me now is to be enlightened by the discovery of a large bipedal hominid. I have been a believer, a skeptic, and a cynic. And through it all I remain hopeful.

Does anyone else see the irony? Bigfoot, be it myth or monster, has been leaving it’s indellible footprints upon the human spirit for ages. Missing link? I think that is excactly what it is.

We “skeptics” have a similar problem, because for many, the word has negative connotations. Yet being skeptical, as I define it, is simply asking for sufficient evidence before accepting a claim. People are skeptical of used car salesmen and their politicians, yet no one thinks THAT is harmful or negative. I try not to separate out “skeptics” and “believers,” because many Bigfoot proponents are skeptical.

I also agree that it fosters an “Us versus Them” mentality which I think is a real problem and misunderstanding between skeptics and believers.

I’m often asked if I “believe” that Bigfoot exists, and I explain that that’s the wrong question. As Loren pointed out, the issue of Bigfoot, like that of the penguin or camel or coelcanth, should be of evidence, not belief. It’s easy to “believe” just about anything; I can’t tell you how many Bigfoot believers (or “proponents,” though they truly are believers) tell me “I know for a fact that Bigfoot exists, because I saw it.” Yet is this “knowledge” or belief?

I don’t doubt what anybody saw, I try not to say they saw something else or they saw a unknown animal because I was not there with them. So who am I to say they did or didn’t see whatever it is they saw? Personally I think there is a bigfoot, but thats just me. And no I have never seen one, nor do I want to, cause then I’d need a new change of pants (might as well just fess up to it right now). Uhh, yeah…

I look at Bigfoot the same way I look at UFOs: UFO “believers” or “knowers” never change their thinking, regardless of the evidence. A light in the sky becomes a craft, becomes an alien spaceship. When shown to be a flare, the believer attacks the explanation. Nothing will get them to change their minds. Their “knowing” interferes with logic.

I see the same thing with the evidence for Bigfoot: fuzzy videos and pictures are automatically regarded as “real” with the onus on the skeptic to disprove it. And if skeptical explanations are given, they are ridiculed just as often as “believers” are ridiculed by skeptics. It is a two-way road.

I want to believe (or know) that Bigfoot exists. When younger, I had “known” that I had seen one. But I also realize that people have seen the Virgin Mary, blood-sucking kangaroo things, and lights in the sky. But without any actual, indisputable evidence (i.e. a body, etc) it’s not up to skeptics to do anything. It’s up to the “knowers.”

I don’t mean to imply bigfoot folks deserve to be insulted, just to be clear.

I just wanted to point out that Craig (amongst others) could be a little more sensitive than neccesary — he said he thinks being called a bigfoot believer is demeaning. Probably because he feels it implies that he’s goofy for believing in bigfoot.

My point is that getting so emotionally involved in an unproven hypothesis creates this attitude that DEFINES ‘bigfoot believer’. If that makes sense.

Also; all these mild verbal insults really do is sow discord. Try not to label people based on their point of view, because we’ll probally never know Bigfoot without the help of the skeptics.

I wouldn’t call my comment insulting, perhaps snarky would be a better word.

But do you notice the stance you are unconciously taking in your argument? That it’s OK for the skeptics to insult the fence-sitters or believers, but not the other way around? (I would consider myself a “mostly convinced fence-sitter”.)

I’m glad you brought up criticism, which the skeptics are just as sensitive and emotional about, if not more so, than the “believers”. It’s like they think they have a monopoly on skepticism – that someone can’t be skeptical of their explanations, no matter how incorrect, lame, far-fetched, ill-informed, or ill-conceived? And here again, when their explanations are questioned they often resort to ad hominum attacks rather than engagement in argument, falling back on the crazy, nutty, moonchild, etc. insults.

There’s a difference between someone who’s applying scientific or logical analysis as a skeptic, and someone who’s being insulting. In fact I would consider myself a skeptic who, after becoming informed on a significant amount of the available information, comes down on the side that there is a very high probability that some undocumented primates exist in some areas of the globe. I don’t think that’s “crazy”, “childlike”, or unreasonable – I would call it an informed judgment made on the basis of a significant amount of evidence.