Leaderboard

Hard lined skeptics, scoftics, and denialists are a curious group of folks...(just as much so as those who believe every thing they are told). I am very skeptical of everything I see/hear/read in Bigfootery. I feel that a huge percent of it is BS. I like listening to Todd Disotell. I think most critical thinking proponents do. But even Todd won't go so far as to say there is absolutely no way that Bigfoot exists. Is there not one single story that you have read from a credible witness that makes you wonder if you're NO BIGFOOTS stance might be wrong? I would never assume that my stance MUST be correct and that I KNOW the answers. Do I think enough evidence has been presented to say that they exist - heck no. Do I think there is any evidence right now that is 100 percent, without a doubt, evidence of BF? Heck, no, So, that being said, am I prepared to say that because of this, there is no Bigfoot? Heck NO! Why? Credible witnesses.... not many.... but a few. There are a few who have nothing to gain, there could have been no mistaking, they are not on drugs, they saw what they said they saw. What did they see? I think denialist can probably think of at least one instance of a credible witness with a story that can't be explained (they just won't admit it).... So how then, can they still be a denialist? But the funny thing is, even though I believe a few witnesses are telling the truth, I can't say 100 percent that I believe BF exists. I think they possibly could.... but I don't know. I don't think any of you really KNOW either, except those of you who have had clear, unobstructed sightings that aren't on drugs, and don't have mental illness. (I think we have a few of those here). Some non-witnesses proponents may think they know, but how could they? It all boils down to what you are willing to believe in. And belief has no place in science, so.... (Just thoughts to start the day. I just find it interesting how proponents and skeptics will battle on and on, when neither can prove anything)

on second thought " self delete...

I agree Bodhi but footers don't like it when someone tells them their evidence doesn't stack up. Words like denier, denialists and scoftics start coming out. There is a clear space between the statements "There is no bigfoot" and "The evidence is proof bigfoot real" that footers don't generally acknowledge.

Another absolute, an absolute sweeping generalization of a group of people. This is also an absolute crock of duck droppings.

"Habster" .. sounds kind of derogatory. So is hive-mind. Points to the problem. When people are under siege, and the habituators ARE under siege including by you when you use faux words like that ... they tend to circle the wagons. You are not OWED anything, so if you want anything besides your walking papers, earn it by cleaning up your own house ... starting with the choice of words you use towards people you want cooperation from. Y' know? This is simple psychology. Show disrespect, get disrespect. Your words ARE words of disrespect. MIB