Leaderboard

Crowlogic - There are a number of reasons. First and foremost, I've seen two for certain and very most likely a third. All the logic in the world about why one thing or another is a hoax is ab-so-lutely IRRELEVANT in the face of that. You might as well try to convince me the moon doesn't exist. It's not a problem with ME, it's a problem with YOU. Your feeble protests have been weighed and rejected as inadequate "special pleading". Beyond that ... well, frankly there's no point in "beyond that" unless I'm pretending denial of my own observations and experiences and I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to delve down that path. Bigfoots are real. Deal with it. There is no "waste of time" in trying to understand what you know to be true. The waste of time is sitting around arguing, as you do, with people who already have a thing figure out that is beyond your personal comprehension. Project and protest all you want but it's you, not me, that's wasting time. MIB

While this is true, the original post that Crowlogic refers to was asking why denialists come to a forum that clearly supports the possible existence of the creature known as Bigfoot or Sasquatch or any of the myriad names associated with it. This isn't a "There's no way a creature like this could exit" site, it is a "This creature could possibly exist" site. There are sites for those who deny the possibility, the JREF come to mind, and they could have posted over there, but then the discussion wouldn't go beyond the usual backslapping and atta boys that always go on over there. Some who post on this forum as a denialist are treated like heroes on that site, and maybe that is part of the allure in coming here and trying to stir the pot. They even go so far as to boast about what they are planning to do over on this forum. I just look at it as they are very bored and lacking attention in their personal lives, and seek it from any source they can. Some who lean towards the "non-believer" end of the spectrum ( I actually consider them what a true skeptic is ) come here to discuss things and gain a better perspective on the subject, but they actually do have an somewhat open mind. The denialist comes here for one purpose only, that is to stir up the natives, plain and simple. Sadly, a lot of members here fall for it and that is what keeps them coming back, post after post. Personally, I'm a skeptic who leans on the side of the possibility of existence. I have had a couple of experiences that make me want to know more. I want the proof, but I acknowledge the possibility, They deny ANY possibility, regardless of that evidences strength or origin. There are somethings that are out and out BS, but some of the things offed are not so easily dismissed, yet they won't even entertain the possibility that it could be genuine. But hey, that's just my take.

I think a lot of the "denialists" as the OP names them find it amusing to debunk most of the crazy claims made by some proponents. They are here for the fun of challenging the implausible claims, it's easy trolling for sure, but they do provide a form of check/balance against the veracity of some stories. The BFF has a plethora of threads containing claims debunked by "denialists". It keeps the forum real and I for one am happy to have them. That is what makes the BFF unique IMO, you can't come here and tell fairy tales without being challenged. They will be examined. It's a good thing.

I guess that depends on what you consider "the BF community". This site regularly calls out frauds, charlatans, liars and all sorts of ne'er do wells. Anyone who wants in "the BF community" or is already a part of it is doing themselves a dis-service if they don't join in here to find out exactly what is going on.

One cast was fake, therefore every cast must be fake. This is a great example of false progression of logic.

Thanks for the explanation 17x7. It does sound like a good BBQ! Sorry if I came across a little harsh. What you mentioned would be good for further study. I did mention previously that we do intend to do further research on the bones. You also asked about the other bones. There was possible evidence of gnawing on the vertebrae as there was on the ventral ends of the ribbones, but no distinct impressions. This could be because of how the flesh is attached to various bones. It tends to peel away from some bones easier than others. What people need to realize is that animals are able to make impressions in bones. Forensically it is how it is determined what animal preyed on another or even a human. These studies will be referenced in our paper. That's why this type of evidence is so important. Thanks again for the clarification.

Sunflower, don't mistake healthy skepticism from open-minded folks with close-minded denialists who dismiss all notion of the creature. Let's face it. With all the hoaxing, mis-ID, and 'BF-on-the-brain' syndrome going around, the subject NEEDS to be viewed through the lense of skepticism IMHO. However, keep in mind skeptics are open to the possibility of BF's existence and new evidence that can withstand critical scrutiny; denialists are not. MNSkeptic

Fake. That video was part of a viral marketing campaign for one of the 'Planet of the Apes' movies.

But perhaps the seeming conflict of population total numbers vs population density patterns observed in other top predators lay in interpretaion of what the data implies... it could serve as evidence that these beings are more sentient than those they are being grouped with in terms of predicted population density/distribution. Any creature will as a population with abundant resourses, and suitible habitat expand its numbers, presence and distribution endlessly(just look at us!) Especially so, should the species posess a knack for cognitive behavior....meaning...maybe those models that demand numbers too small at that level .of the food chain doesn't apply to the species in question...we ourselves transitioned from the standard population model found in "nature", perhaps they have as well

But this isn't about proclaiming who is the most believable, it's about personal opinion on who you find most believable. I've listed Nathan and JDL, I'd add derekfoot too. But I do want to add, because I have some of the same concern as you and DWA, that I find many people here trustworthy and I don't want anyone to think I don't find them so because I did not name them here. The three I listed are just encounters that I'm more familiar with. I know many more here have had encounters, but after Nathan, JDL and Derek, I can't name anyone else who's encounter I recall.