Leaderboard

If someone makes a claim that Giant Hairy beasts are hucking rocks at cabins, I think the logical counter question is "Do you think an animal that hucks rocks at cabins would not have been killed by the people living in those cabins?" If Bipto wants to make this into a thread where no one can question his claims that is fine, but I think it is quite clear in the rules that claims are allowed to be questioned. And at the same time, the rules state that if you make a claim you should be able to handle the questions that come with it. I think this is Bipto's way of terraforming this thread into a format that allows his claims to go unquestioned. A Bigfoot Forums Genesis project if you will.

I think I really had the topic of the sighting reports in mind when I wrote that. Not saying I think it makes sense to me (because it doesn't), but some categorically refuse to consider any sighting report as having any legitimate value. So, when we acknowledge that position, you can't blame them for refusing to engage on that topic. If I can presume to speak for them, they don't consider them even to be evidence of any kind, so naturally they feel they can still be a true skeptic and avoid that discussion at the same time. But, the proponents' argument is bolstered tremendously (we say) by those reports and what we tease out of them. How would it be possible for these two views to be reconciled? They can't be....simple as that. Best to just acknowledge that and save our energy for other things. It is not up to me, I say, to tell anyone what they should accept, or not, or what I think it means if they do, or don't. I'm only just curious about what they are shootin' for here. We proponents can easily define our thoughts by the evidence we find significant. That is not so clearly defined for the skeptic as he is defined by the opposition to the affirmation of existence. Much different thing. Like the sighting reports.....POOF!, and they are gone. Ditto as to the PGF. Footprints be gone too! (And understand, I'm not wanting to debate if that approach is sensible or scientific. It just is, from their perspective) So, yes, there are other sources or things to identify yourself by if you are a hard boiled opponent of this thesis of BF. They are not so obvious though, I don't think.