Forums

Skepticism in the world of bigfoot, in and of itself, is a healthy and necessary trait. Until someone plops a body or part thereof onto an examination table, it's all sus (suspect).   Trogluddite's excellent above post said it well. I, too, consider myself a skeptical believer. But, hoo boy, there are LOTS of issues with what's taken for "bigfoot canonical lore." (Hey, I coined a new phrase!)   Let's face it: Us bigfoot proponents can't blame disbelievers any too much. The biological necessities make it difficult to explain how enormous, bipedal primates can make a living without revealing their immediate whereabouts that should lead to their discovery.    So rather than grouse about those darned skeptics, realize just how much we're asking the general public to accept on faith. Footprints? Great. Shouldn't a skilled tracker be able to follow them to their source? Tree structures? Like Norse, and I'm not speaking for him, but I ain't buying it. Extremely circumstantial. The amount of daily caloric intake necessary to sustain a five-hundred lb. primate should leave traceable effects on the environment, and along with their footprint impressions, reveal their location to a tracker.   These are some of the nuts and bolts that fuel good, honest skepticism. I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for that. What we skeptical (and hopeful) proponents dwell on are the compelling first-hand accounts, recordings of calls and chatter of unknown sources, and a handful of films/videos, especially the renowned Patty (she's a rockstar!)   So here's to skeptical, hopeful belief.

I consider myself very much a skeptic in that I'm a skeptical believer.  I'm probably much harsher on many aspects of Bigfoot, and even have heretical beliefs on some things regarded as canon law.  I have lots of reasons to doubt the accounts provided by some people/websites/witnesses.  But I have no reason to doubt the accounts provided by others.  While those accounts alone can't demonstrate the existence of Bigfoot to a scientific standard, they should cause reasonable people to be open-minded on the subject.  As Norse says, the skeptics that pop up here often are anything but open minded. 

I think what you’re describing as a skeptic, the BFF traditionally would call a “scofftic”. We used to have many.   Basically they got their jollies by coming on here and calling us idiots everyday. Maybe not in so many words. But demanding absolute proof and scoffing at any evidence offered.    I am skeptical of tree structures and a few other supposed attributes of the mythical creature. But as I have seen tracks? I am very open minded that something still exists out there. With the caveat that we are still on the hook to provide proof that it’s real.

It would depend why they don't believe it.

How would you describe, or what's your term for someone who doesn't believe bigfoot walks in the deep woods?