New members! don't be afraid to post!

I just noticed we have 141 members now, yet not very many folks are posting!! DON'T BE AFRAID! NONE OF US BITE (EVEN US MEAN OLD SKEPTICS !!! LOL).


Everybody has something they can add to the discussion! Even if you wanna talk about things in your life other than the big feller!!!

The more the merrier!!!

Hi Stank,

I will be the first to say I'm appreciative of what you posted here.
Skepticism is understandable and warranted in many cases. I do have a concern however, that many sit on the sidelines in fear of ridicule, and belittlement at the hands of our ,most aggressive resident skeptics.

I think that many don't post because of the what they see here on the forum, from you and other skeptics. I understand your desire to have scientific methodology employed and a scientific process followed when it comes to presenting evidence, but very few of those who have experienced things they relate to Sasquatch share your threshold of what's acceptable to present.

I truly feel that limits discussion, and the testimony from those who would otherwise be willing to share. The bulk of membership here, almost 95% proponents of BF's existence, who themselves are supportive and eager listeners to these would be newbies eager to share. Can we expect a more tolerant, and generous Stankape based on what you've espoused in this post?

The amount of pedantry that is displayed here might take some of the fun out of this topic.

The most on point word I could imagine. It encapsulates what I said above Mr. Lee. Thank You Very Much.

NobleSavage wrote:Hi Stank,

I will be the first to say I'm appreciative of what you posted here. Does this mean you are going to refrain from attacking new posters for airing the view/opinions on Sasquatch?

Skepticism is understandable and warranted in many cases. I do have a concern however, that many sit on the sidelines in fear of ridicule, and belittlement at the hands of our ,most aggressive resident skeptics. You, based on your record of posts exclusively, along with B.O.P. would be the main concerns.

I think that many don't post because of the what they see here on the forum, from you and other skeptics. I understand your desire to have scientific methodology employed and a scientific process followed when it comes to presenting evidence, but very few of those who have experienced things they relate to Sasquatch share your threshold of what's acceptable to present.

I truly feel that limits discussion, and the testimony from those who would otherwise be willing to share. The bulk of membership here, almost 95% proponents of BF's existence, who themselves would are supportive and eager listeners to these would be newbies eager to share. Can we expect a more tolerant, and generous Stankape based on what you've espoused in this post?

I don't think I'm attacking anybody. I'm trying to help people help the world of footery entire by limiting the amount of hyperbole and overstatement. It's cool to be enthusiastic ,I get that, but I think when we allow people to make grandiose claims with no evidence we are just perpetuating a stereotype that Bigfoot people will believe anything. That doesn't help the concept of Bigfoot gain much traction with the mainstream science community. Only requiring hard evidence and presenting facts will do that.



ALL,BS ASIDE, it would all go so much easier if people would learn to change the language from "I know, Without a doubt, for a fact...etc" to less absolute statements like " I expect, or I would think, or there's lots of sightings there, or even I am pretty sure that there is something squatchy afoot..." none of these statement bind someone to a position. They leave the air of that there is something we don't know. (which ironically is what believers say to skeptics all the time). But it works both ways, I don't know if there is a Bigfoot or not. If you put a gun to my head (that tired old cliche) and forced me to choose, I would probably say no. But there isn't anything in the fossil record that says it can't exist. and there are lots of compelling sightings and stuff. I'm just waiting for some real, hard evidence before I make unequivocal statements of truth.... i don't think that's asking too much. and being called an idiot constantly by certain believers on here doesn't exactly make my position any easier.... But it doesn't change it.


IMO, more people means more opinions, some strong (on both sides and some skeptical opinions that are really scofftic in disguise as well as believers that border on religious ....that's how people are, we all know this) but generally, I think most people are reasonable. We should be able to handle having our ideas questioned without making threats, or calling people names or getting angry about it.

after all, it's freakin Bigfoot we are talking about for goodness sake! Real or imagined, it really isn't THAT important. Cool, yes! I will grant you that, lol, but in the grand scheme of things, if it exists ,it's just another critter in the woods.

This is a forum, not everyone here is on a mission to define the bigfoot community as a whole. We are here to share ideas, and experiences. It's frustrating to have a member or two members define what is acceptable, and tolerable with regard to how we phrase and frame our posts on a bigfoot forum.

Seriously Stank, we all understand you are fanatical about your discomfort with what you call Bigfooters' relation of experience or viewpoint, but could you not just put personal desire aside for a higher standard from time to time, and let others share their viewpoint without ridicule?

If your mission is to build confidence and respect from the scientific community for witnesses, and forum members, I would deem that as wishful. It's not going to happen, and the phrasing and wording of what we share here won't change that.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Why not you?

think about what you just said, you said that everybody else's viewpoint can be shared, yet you want me to not express mine. Sounds like you just want a commune of believers sitting around agreeing with each other. That's not a forum. Nothing moves forward that way. Nobody learns anything new. Eventually you just end up bogged down with how great everybody's stories are (while you roll your eyes at some of them at home).

It would be one thing if I was just screaming " Bigfoot isn't real, yer stupid" or 'you all look like fools cuz there is no Bigfoot" but I don't, cuz I don't think either of the above things are absolutely true....


You act like I'm in every thread torturing people with semantics or something.......... (and I would like to point out that it was the proponents who jumped into the skeptic thread and started trouble, not the other way around)

there is as much coming towards me (if not more) than I am dishing out .

as an addendum to my above post about using absolute statements, I want to clarify that I am not referring to people who are describing their own personal encounters. Regardless of the available evidence to backup your story, you still saw what you saw. and I'm not in the business of putting the screws to people's stories. (though I may ask a few questions,which I think is fair)

StankApe wrote:think about what you just said, you said that everybody else's viewpoint can be shared, yet you want me to not express mine. Sounds like you just want a commune of believers sitting around agreeing with each other. That's not a forum. Nothing moves forward that way. Nobody learns anything new. Eventually you just end up bogged down with how great everybody's stories are (while you roll your eyes at some of them at home).

It would be one thing if I was just screaming " Bigfoot isn't real, yer stupid" or 'you all look like fools cuz there is no Bigfoot" but I don't, cuz I don't think either of the above things are absolutely true....


You act like I'm in every thread torturing people with semantics or something.......... (and I would like to point out that it was the proponents who jumped into the skeptic thread and started trouble, not the other way around)

there is as much coming towards me (if not more) than I am dishing out .

Ridiculous....my post was clear....I don't want discussion limited, and inhibited by those setting standards and thresholds that are unrealistic, and don't apply to a bigfoot forum.

If you can't understand that, I can't spell it out. You are in every thread, and that's obvious to anyone accessing this forum.

Proponents intrusions into the skeptic thread were deleted, and warnings were given, so I don't want to hear your bullshit. You are on the edge here, and I'm trying to be as tolerant as I can.

The fact is you limit discussion here, and know that your posts are being observed intently by administration. We respect all members here, but you are not trying very hard to get along.

StankApe wrote:as an addendum to my above post about using absolute statements, I want to clarify that I am not referring to people who are describing their own personal encounters. Regardless of the available evidence to backup your story, you still saw what you saw. and I'm not in the business of putting the screws to people's stories. (though I may ask a few questions,which I think is fair)

I was just going to say something about personal stories & how offensive it is for someone to tell them they didn't see what they saw. I think your last statement was fair. But I will tell you that "ghosts" exist & thats a fact Stank.

The last time a new poster came aboard and posted a story that had been on his chest for 17 years about a personal sighting and this forum ripped him limb from limb.
I had to beg him to stay as a member.

yeah,i made a mistake in how I worded that one (and I took a serious lashing for it) but I think I have been as fair as I could be since then........... jeez I'm just a human being I'm not perfect ya know.

its amusing stank,

You as a supposed Skeptic Use Absolutes all the time.

People who have seen Things... Creatures we call Bigfoot things we define as Ghosts or U.F.O's you will jump in and say they aren't real and then you jump in with your own pseudo science and claim its not possible.
Yet when asked about simple science explanations you refuse to answer.

Again You say you know Physics.
Which Theory of Gravity is Real?
Which Theory of Wormholes is Real?

True science has just as many Theory's or beliefs in something that they can not yet explain. How is any of the above 2 any different than Ghosts, UFO's or Bigfoot. They aren't that is why you can not answer them.

Being a skeptic doesn't mean you throw out every Idea because you don't believe it. If your a true skeptic then you should be a true skeptic across the board even when it comes to Physics and other science's but you have show you are not a true skeptic.

I also Know A creature we call Bigfoot is out in the woods! We have enough evidence beyond a body to say SOMETHING is alive in the woods that walks barefoot in the woods with a huge stride and feet.
I know their is some things we can not yet explain with our current technology "i.e. things we define as ghosts"

Yup I am guilty of renewing an old thread. Some of our skeptics have changed modes, so we should just be thankful and move on.

I have posted my story and answered a few other posts.

You cannot convince me that I did not hear what I heard and did not see what I saw (ha, try saying THAT ten times real fast, lol). You can ridicule me all you want or be as skeptical as you like, I am utterly convinced and I'll swear it before the dang Supreme Court if need be.