Leaderboard

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.

See that's where the problem lies. Over the entirety of the Sasquatch legends existence, these handful of P.T. Barnum like events have come to shape the impression of the story of Sasquatch. You get hundreds, if not thousands of reports of Sasquatch encounters and sightings, then a denier tosses in, "But what about Dyer, or What about Marx" and so on and so on. When one comes right down to brass tacks, neither side has any better proof than the other of the existence or non- existence of the creature, yet extremists on both sides are sure they have the definitive proof to back their stance. I find it hard to believe that there are that many people running around in the forests and woods making fake footprints, and sometimes miles away from any habitation by man, just in the hopes that someone will run across them and think it's a Sasquatch. I find it equally hard to believe that there are that many people, in the hundreds and thousands who misidentify what they see in the forests and woods also. One can try and justify all of that as a mass conspiracy to hoax the general public to themselves, but I think there just might be something to some of these encounters and sightings. If anyone thinks they are all just hoaxes, then I say Prove It. don't just sit back and deny it, but PROVE IT, to the same level of proof that you demand from those who claim they have seen something or have foot casts or whatever the evidence is. I want the proof as bad as anyone, but I'm not naive enough to think everything is a hoax, sham, or misidentification.

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.

Not that I know off but he puts out a fair and I find clear questions. as I said I think it all comes down to trust and yes I mean Doc Holiday.

Crowlogic brings up good points, even though I don't agree with most of them. Opposing opinions and view points are what challenges us to think "outside of the box" and examine things from different angles. If we all agreed on everything, this would be a very boring forum. Some people have questioned Crow's motives for posting, even though he's not a believer. I would question the same people for even responding to Crow's post. If you don't value his opinions, just ignore him.

I think it is more untenable to postulate that an adaptable, intelligent, and stealthy primate would confine itself to just one area. The natural tendency of a species is to populate any habitat that can support it. This is true of cougars, coyotes, deer. Why would it not be true for bigfoot?