Skeptics: Only white people and Christians can see Bigfoot

We like to pay attention to what skeptics are saying here at Bigfoot Evidence because we like to know what the arguments are against the existence of Bigfoot. We have discovered a few things about skeptics. Some of them are insane. There are a few 'smart' ones who label themselves 'critical thinkers', and there are some who are just over the top.

Sometimes, their arguments are more nutty than the Nutty Professor watching The Nutcracker, whilst gorging on Macadamias.

In a conversation about Bigfoot DNA evidence and the likely hood of North American ape, a few skeptics in a skeptics forum turned their arguments against white people and religious Christians. To these 'critical thinkers' it's all part of a joke, and since it's about white people and Christians, they encourage you to have a sense of humor and just laugh.

For the sake of highlighting the crazy parts, we're going to annotate some of their sentences with 'WTF?'.

Read below from forums.randi.org (Critical Thinking forum for critical non-thinkers and skeptics):

Posted by: ReverendClog
Critical Thinker

I would greatly appreciate that readers of the following post understand that it was made in a humourous spirit and intends no offence to any person.

This DNA business can't end well for the protagonists of a 'real' Bigfoot, and while I have found several, (if not most), of those nice people on the BFF to be decent, albeit misguided folk, some of them are unmitigated fruitloops.

I do love the idea of Bigfoot, and from the first moment I saw the PGF as a child I wanted it to be real, but Bigfoot, like the tooth fairy and the Queen Mothers wooden teeth, always disappoint when common sense is applied. WTF?: What sort of common sense have you applied to Bigfoot research?

Far more eloquent and knowledgeable people have discounted and recounted Bigfoot and its contradictory nature - from the elusive hairy man to the scientific contradictions of North Americas largest and most wide-spread unfound primate, the supernatural vanishing, eye-shining, bullet-proof, swamp dwelling, coastal, inland, temperate, cold weather, shy, gregarious and habituated, gentle and overtly aggressive Bigfoot. WTF? "Far more eloquent and knowledgeable people have discounted and recounted Bigfoot", that sounds so authoritative. Did you just pull that out of your @$$?

I love Bigfoot and more specifically, I love the idea of 'super' big foot and I wonder if that is the attraction that the myth has for those who wish to believe at any cost. To these folk Bigfoot is an idealised 'superman', the archetypal obermensch, free from human morality and superior by virtue of his strength and improved 'animal cunning', all natural virtues which modern 'city folk' have lost. WTF? It's a myth, that's fine. But Bigfoot is superman? Where did you get that from? You my man just pulled that out from your @$$.

After all one of the most common refutations from the Bigfoot crowd is, 'you don't know the land, man, natives have seen him and you won't 'cos they can smell that you are a fed/shill/forestry commission agent, etc. WTF? This is true and this has always been true. You're not discounting the Native Americans... That's if you're trying to do exactly that.

Is Bigfoot behind the 'freeman on the land movement' ?, and is the Bigfoot movement racist?. Do we know of any instances where people of African-American ancestry have had sightings?. Is it racist to ask?. WTF? Just because you're a 'critical thinker' and you posed this open question doesn't mean you're not racist my brother. You can't hide behind your veil of 'critical thinking' forever and you're just as racist when you talk about black people like this.

The above seems oddly valid to me, for in my ignorance, I know of no sightings of Bigfoot that are testified to by African-Americans, so is Bigfoot a construct of the European, 'jungles and forests are home to devilish creatures', (a mindset that I doubt existed until the industrialised age, when people where turning away from the pioneer mindset and from being in a 'natural' habitat - the 'wild' became a place of caution and fear, rather than and environment in which man had and is supreme, from the invention of the spear, (100,000 bc ?), onwards. WTF? You don't know of one sighting of Bigfoot were black people are the witness? Where's your critical thinking my man? I don't claim to be a 'critical thinker' like you folks over there at the skeptic think tank, but if you're referring to the names of witnesses on the BFRO's website, how can you tell if they weren't names belonging an African American? You're so racist for making this assumption. Go ahead and hide behind your veil of critical thinking.

I know that the above is full of gaps, from Gimlin to Marx, but I think it is time to give up on Bigfoot. WTF? We think it's time for you to let go of your critical thinking abilities, because there's no such thing. EVERYONE on the planet is a critical thinker and we do it all the time. Just because you put your critical thinking into well written essays don't make you a critical thinker.

Goodbye Biggie, and thanks for all the shills.

Another insane skeptic responding to the post above:

William Parcher
Does not claim to be a Critical Thinker

There are very few AAs involved in Bigfootery or who claim encounters. It is very disproportionate compared to the population in general. It seems to be an intrigue/pastime of "white folks" more than anybody else. Within that group there also seems to be an overrepresentation of fundamentally religious (evangelical) people. That's my observation but others have said the same. WTF? I'll just say something authoritative, like what you just said. "White people like to go hunting more than black people. That's why you get more reports from white people." ... See how easy that was? That's how critical thinkers come up with such authoritative comments. Think about that...