If one takes the example of alledged finger bending in the PGF and skeptics offering mundane possibilities to account for this claim we see something rather amusing. In this case the proponent who challenges skeptics to account for this alledgedly obvious feature then proceeds to mock what is suggested yet seems to miss the myriad of ridiculous speculations put forth by footers to account for all the ways which bigfoot eludes identification. They do this with obvious delight which seems to cause them to forget that on the one hand they're talking about a rather irrelevant suggestion concerning the PGF and the fact there is no reliable evidence for bigfoot on the other. In such desperation to grasp at anything to quibble about with skeptics they just lose perspective completely.
...snip...
Well, maybe bigfoot lies in the details... But only in the cherry-picked details.
Like "soil from Onion Mountains has not produced dissecation ridges"...
Or "if the fingers move and the arms are too long, then Patty has to be a bigfoot and not a suit"...
What I am actually interested these days are the workings of the believer's minds and their communities.
For example, most of them say there's a difference between skeptics and scoffics (for some others, its the same). Where they draw the line? I understand most of the pro-bigfoot posters consider JREF forumnites as scoffics, denialists, etc. What I see here, however, is carefull checking and discussion of claims, evidence and reasonings. As soon as the proponent notices his/hers points are being challenged, quite often the "denialist" or "scoffic" labelss pop up. Its fairly safe to say, I think, that here usually mocking comes only after the pro-bigfoot folks start with
ad homs, evasions, obfuscations, etc.
So, where they draw the line between a skeptic and a scoffic? My impression is that they consider a scoffic or denialist anyone who dissecates their claims/evidence/reasonings and comes to the conclusion that bigfeet are most likely nothing but a myth. Those who just say "there are no evidence proving bigfeet are real" are the skeptics in their minds, since this sort of declaration may be understood as giving more room for their claim actually being real.
