Bigfoot doesn't exist, and witnesses who say they've seen one are liars. Skeptoids posting away at the James Randi forum just come right out and say it: liars. As if that's not bemusing enough, there's the suggestion a group of skeptibunkies get together and hoax stuff. For example, this post from "AlaskaBushPilot":
What would be a fun experiment is having a group of us set out with an entirely new animal to claim sightings for. It needs to fly, and not be real large, but have something unique that is good for marketing, like a hominid head or whatever, and it needs to be discovered around nuclear power plants or chemical dumps where a DNA mutation story can be weaved.
Notice that this is referred to as an "experiment" to give it validity and give it that science-y vibe.
However, "Nightwalker" makes a good point about BF witnesses telling stories of their encounters, as well as the hoaxers, as "folklore" and suggests forum members discuss BF because:
We’re all here drawn like moths to the flame by the Bigfoot phenomenon. Same as the believers. Let us aim for scepticism rather than cynicism…
I disagree with NW's point that BF stories, while indeed folklore, are not true, but at least the poster seems fairly rational. This fine point concerning folklore, etc. is lost among many however.
It always gets down to this for me when it comes to BF accounts. If you're going to be so pathologically bald faced and call someone a liar, well, ... first of all, let's hope said BF witness isn't the kind to haul off and slug ya. Do these skeptibunkies truly believe, in their little hearts, that everybody who's seen a BF -- put another way, a damn weird and strange creature the likes of which they've never seen before and have no name for, hence, "Bigfoot" --- are simply lying?