So, uh, can I join your religion of abigfootism? Not believing in the Jersey Devil has brought me nothing but sorrow. I need something else to not believe in.
Bigfoot does exist. I have seen it. I have no way of proving this to you, but I know it is true. I simply cannot conceive the world without Bigfoot. I hope that when you go camping, you will find Bigfoot and start believing. Meanwhile, I will wear a big sock for you.
You people are very silly.
Valteron, I liked your op, but do you leave room for the possibility that Big Foots exist? I mean, it is not completely out of the question. I also understand the Sasquatches don’t play dice.
Jim
Ah bigfoot. Of course he’s roaming around and all. Isn’t he the one with the half human son?
I for one am a agnosasquatch. I think there might be a Bigfoot but follow no Definite organized group and am not 100% sure Bigfoot exists.
I believe the abigfootists are right in being concerned about the overbearing Bigfootians trying to force their belief in Bigfoot down everyone’s throat. Belief in Bigfoot should be personal and private and evryone has teh right to believe in what they wish without the majority pushing its version of Bigfoot in everyone’s face.
Besides, whether a believer or not we all agree those Loch Ness believers are absolutely nuts!
If Bigfoot does not exist, what is the origin of the Yetinsyny, particularly we SubGeniuses? Got you there!
No, no! Isn’t it obvious that Nessie believers and Bigfootians are talking about the same thing, basically? I mean, if there was an accident where the lake meets the forest, I bit some of the witnesses would see a big hairy creature walking away, and some would see a scaly creature swimming away.
As a fellow Agnosasquatch I agree with everything you said but the last part.
I only think the believers in Nessie that think it is a dinosaur are nuts, those who think it might be a marine reptile or magical being on the other hand, at least seem to have as much merit as those that definitely believe in Big Foot, the Jersey Devil or even ELOHIM.
Personally I believe in Joe Pesci*. I have little faith in anything else.
Jim
- bonus points to whoever gets this reference.
I believe it is from the Codex of St. George Carlinus the Heresiarch.
Swoosh, points score, nice layup sirrah.
Well, they’re all fundamentally the same practice anyway, right? Honor the Cryptozoological, and treat your evidence uncritically.
Not that I subscribe to any of that nonsense; I outgrew it long ago. Left the Church of the Mapinguari when I was Fortean.
Have we reached a new Lo! yet?
That was beautiful. You deserve some slack for it.
I’m not sure, but I think this is a Thread of the Damned.
I am an advocate of Old Fashioned Primative Gorillaism.
Reformed Kong Sect.
BURN! BURN IN THE FIERY PITS OF MONKEY HELL, INFIDELS!
Read my OP carefully, yer Lawdship! 
I do not mention God or atheism. Maybe elsewhere in other threads, but not in my OP.
I have some questions for you, now:
Is there a name for people who do the following?
They listen to a claim that something exists, and examine the evidence in support of that claim. Then, if the evidence for the existence of that thing is highly sketchy and inconclusive, they look at the probability factors. And if the existence of the thing is unproven and its probability of existence seems weak, they say: “Well, until something happens to produce a different conclusion, I find myself unable to believe in the existence of that thing.”
That, for example, is why I am an agianttroutist rather than an agnostgianttroutic.
It all has to do with whether you believe in the existence of 10-foot trout. If you ask me if I believe there are any 10-foot trout in fresh water anywhere in the world, I will have to tell you that I don’t know for sure. Nobody has ever landed one to prove they exist. And you could never prove they do not exist unless you had the power to look at every lake and river on Earth and measure and classify every fish.
So you might say that I am an agnostgianttroutic, since I admit that the existence of 10-foot trout remains neither be proven or disproven. But you would be wrong.
I am actually an agianttroutist – one who does not believe such trout exist. Just because something remains neither proven nor disproven does not logically lead us to conclude that the chances for its existence or non-existence are 50%.
You must also look at the probability factor. And I am pretty certain that if 10-foot trout existed, such a spectacular fresh-water fish would have been caught and displayed.
I never say never. Bring in a 10-foot trout and I will fully admit I was wrong. But until then, considering the probability factor, I cannot logically adopt any other position than agiantroutism.
Obviously. The historical Bigfoot documents are much older than the Loch Ness documents, and therefore harder to impugn. The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that older documents are valid and newer documents are fabrications. Bigfoot was seen in the early 1800s - if he weren’t real, wouldn’t there be more writings from the time disputing his existence? What kind of idiot would believe in a serpent-like creature that lives in the water? It makes so much more sense to believe in an ape-like creature that lives in the woods.
What if Bigfoot shows up with a giant trout?
We sic the invisible pink unicorns on them both.
If you will read my OP carefully, you will see that I said I have an open mind, but that an open mind is not an open sewer.
The door is still open to receive new evidence if it comes along.
For example, I do indeed believe that there probably existed a 10-foot ape in Indo-China about the same time as homo erectus existed there. I believe that because fossils of that ape have been found and reported.
I am not an unreasonably demanding guy. Any reasonable evidence will do. So where are the Bigfoot bones or fossils?
<Non-Bigfoot Bosda Di’Chi Of Tricor SLAPS kidchameleon with non-giant WET TROUT>