Leaderboard

The dispositive answer to the question is: Why submit evidence for the scrutiny of those with a demonstrated positive talent for not being able to discern good evidence from bad? Period. (Aaaaaaand done...)

Hello Crowlogic, You are missing the bigger point. Ethics. This is a Bigfoot Forum. Menebers that are proponents are here looking for answers and trying to solve the mystery by searching for ways to provide proof to back up what the evidence has been pointing to. Generally. and I say generally, across the board the Habituators all know why proponents and skeptical proponents alike are here which is verification of Bigfoot existence. Knowing that then I find it unethical to come here waving carrots and claiming contact in front of the noses of those believers and skeptical proponents and not expect some kind of backlash. The pattern is virtually consistent- come to the Forum, claim contact, claim the need for secrecy, and then guilt the members when they complain. The mechanism is unethical and the Habituators in retrospect and all honesty should have never said anything if their secrecy was so important to them. How could any intelligent Human not know and understand the ripples such claims and ambiguity would cause. If I was a Habituator I would first come here to see if there were others. If I my privacy in all matters Bigfoot was that important I would try PM's and reach out to others to establish some kind of network outside the Forum. I would do this because I would know that to practice baiting the members with something I had no intention of backing up would be highly unethical. Period. So it really isn't a Bigfoot issue, it's a socio-psychological one that questions basic intent when one come here and plays the Habitution card.

In Crowlogic's black and white world refusal to provide what Crow wants means you are lying. There are other motivations in the world than pleasing Crow. However, I have privately contacted habituators and offered to furnish technical equipment free and advice and in every case have been turned down. That these people will be forum members and want to share share their experiences but refuse to try to get supporting pictures, video or audio is troublesome to me. Most of this was on another forum that was less insistent on supporting claims. Fine keep your location secret, but why blab about your experiences on a forum then turn around and be so coy about pictures or any evidence to support your assertions? The answer to this is often that the BF don't like it and will avoid the cameras anyway. Not if they are hidden well enough. Or they do not want to prove existence of BF. Pictures won't do that anyway. The excuses to suggestions are many and well thought out. The assertion that habber's have been driven off the forum is also suspect. If they have been banned it is because they don't follow the rules. Most likely they leave because people do not buy what they are saying without evidence they could easily provide.

They were banned for what, for telling others of their experiences? I think not. Like all of our members, they're expected to post according to the rules. If they don't, like any other member, they could be banned. It's behavior that will eventually lead to a ban, not what they believe or the claims they make. We work with all members regardless of their stance on the matter. We have bent over backwards to help unruly members, which is something the membership never gets to see. Yet if they still refuse to comply with the rules, they are eventually banned. Nobody is or was ever banned for claiming that they were habituating with Bigfoot. It just didn't, nor will it ever happen. Your assertion is simply incorrect. The forum staff won't be blamed for anyone's exit. Your assertion that they were banned because they claimed habituation isn't fair. It's not accurate, either.

I think there are many "researchers" here, it's just that they don't think of themselves that way, nor want to be portrayed that way.

See ya'll, wasn't that easy?

You may never know without some systematic way of finding the truth for yourself in the field. You'll be forever second guessing all information. Forever incapable of knowing what's real information and what is copycat information.

mini Mamouths? On special this week at Sonic. Delish.

I have a problem with some of the terminology used. I have preconceptions of what I would consider a researcher from my early years in school, and then honed over decades. What, exactly is a "researcher?" Could a "hunter" be a researcher, or just an interested hunter? If some go on extended recons in the field, is that a researcher? If some also do a lot of reading and analyzing narratives, does that also contribute to the title of researcher? So. What is a bigfoot researcher? I also have a problem with the term, Habituator. A long-term witness? How long? What's the criteria to be a "habituator?" How long is a long term witness? How many events of interaction, and what level of interaction or closeness are required to cross into the habituator realm? I have a problem understanding exactly what is to be considered "evidence?" We hang people in this country based on eyewitness evidence. So why are eyewitnesses automatically discounted in the field of large relict species? Observation is 99% of science. What constitutes replication of experimentation? Does that too, also have to be observed? I no longer seem to have an understanding of what "science" is, as I've seen applications here that I was taught were NOT science. Duplication of an experiment, or duplicate observation is supposed to be at least tried before dismissal. Otherwise, science could not advance, and everything would be a postulation. For someone to dismiss observations without them getting off their sorry ***es and doing their own work, is not skepticism - it's a retarded laziness. When some observers see something at a distance, it's entirely reasonable to allow for the possibility of mis-identification. But to dismiss narratives from every historical period, from almost every populated area of earth, from almost every culture on earth, is to be one lazy, disingenuous, willfully contrary, narrow-minded, inexperienced, incapable human imposter. It's almost like they're jealous that others have either put in the work and have seen these critters, or that some of us, who just happened to be doing work in a very remote area just ran into one. But that's not our fault. Maybe the fact that you haven't either seen one, or interacted to some degree with one or more, maybe it's your fault. Others who haven't had personal sightings, but through the preponderance of evidence allow for the existence of these critters - yours is not so much a matter of faith - but a matter of acknowledgement. I've never seen the Eiffel Tower. I'm pretty sure it's there, but I'd be one simple-minded jacka** if I denied its existence until someone either brought it into my range of vision, or somehow, by accident - I actually saw it myself - from where I'm sitting. I have it on good report that there were two huge Twin Towers in New York. They're not there now, so I can't personally verify that they existed. So what stance do I take? Deny they existed? Deny the photographic evidence? Deny the thousands of narratives that they existed? Just how dumb would that be?

Not everyone is motivated the same. Opportunity, you say? Opportunity for what? Exploitation? Some of those habituators know more about the BF than I do. I have to give their views on what's in the BF's best interest more credence than the views of a person who is motivated by personal gain whether that be fame or fortune especially when that's precisely what the habituator choose to forego. Some things in this world should not be for sale. Right and wrong is not based on cash flow. MIB

Heh heh ... I used to tell my daughter there really are monsters under the bed, that's why I slept on my mattress on the floor: it meant the monsters had to be veeeerrrryyyy small. I'm not so sure I was joking. Some, yet some-not. Science and intuition are not opposites, they're complements. Same as science and religion. The dichotomy is artificial. Science, by itself, does nothing. No impetus, no motion. Curiosity is based in intuition. You have to "feel" the presence of a question, "feel" the possibility of something to study first, then drag out science and apply it. Intuition and non-science provide the materials for science to operate on. They complement each other. Neither works at all well alone. I solve puzzles of various sorts. Neurotically so perhaps. I "feel" connections in large data sets, trends, commonalities. I form ideas about what they might be. It's not 'til those intuitive things are complete that I can begin to apply science to the details. They HAVE to work together. Have to. MIB

How can you argue when you know nothing about what the forum staff does? The bottom line is that I won't stand such assertions of unfair treatment of our members by the staff. By the way, if we were dead set against habbers and their claims, why is there a user-friendly subforum where habbers are free to discuss their supposed daily interactions with the forest people? You've made some pretty bizarre claims in that thread, yet you've not been banned, or even threatened with such. This fact alone shows that your claims of malfeasance are without merit.

No, your assertion is incorrect yet again. Besides, no matter how often they were goaded they have the responsibility to react within the rules. There's a report button at the bottom of each post, and these members could simply report any inappropriate goading. At that point, the forum staff could deal with it appropriately. Many of the members you speak of chose to deal with their doubters by posting responses that were outside the forum's rules. As you know, responding to a post inappropriately, or responding to inappropriate content instead of reporting it, can lead to the responding member being assessed warning points, which can lead to an eventual ban, Again, you're asserting that these poor, innocent members (that happen to hold your viewpoint) were ushered out for their beliefs. Yet again, I'm telling you that this isn't true. While you're certainly welcome to your own opinions and beliefs, you're not entitled to your own facts. They weren't victims, no matter how you attempt to preset them in that light. Nobody on the staff is singling out these poor habbers for their claims.

I'm a fan of "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" by The Beatles.

Maybe you should do it since no one else is up to spec.

Norse consider than if we include extinct hominids then the sky is the limit. We all know there were proto humans galore. We can include extinct animals and draw all kind of correlations. However keeping it in the present is perfectly alright. You ask how do we know Hobbit is extinct? Well you are raising a question to answer another question so to speak. There's a little thing called the educated guess that more than adequately confines Hobbit into the realm of being extinct. If we really want to get into antiquity let's add that we humans have a little bit of T-Rex in us too. We have a bit of cedar tree as well. BTW Hobbit is not a Crypto it is a known proven fact ever since it's remains were discovered. Real science at work. This is silly. Real science told us that Homo Erectus died out 500,000 years ago and that the last common ancestor was Homo Neanderthal which died out 35,000 years ago. And then they find the Hobbit...... 10,000 years is a evolutionary blink of the eye. Trying to downplay the distinction with a T rex example 65 million years ago is ludicris. The Hobbit bolstered the idea that we humans could still have cousins lurking in remote regions of Earth......sorry.

Claiming to be a habituator without any proof is the lowest of the low in my book. If a bigfoot family is living in your backyard? You should have ample ample evidence in the form of hair, saliva or scat. Not to mention incredible film footage that would surely make some of us stand up and take notice. All we ever get are excuses. Either the person has some beef with science or the forest people have let them know they dont want to be documented. Either way it is a claim without proof. I suggest if your a habber with bigfeets living in your backyard and they told you they dont want to be documented? Probably best to keep the secret to yourself.......just sayin. (And no I do not think this is truly happening) I think Crow is just trying to drag the community through the mud here. But what evidence we do have did not come from habbers. It came from field researchers pounding the bush, and responding to reports. Which I think is a more plausible scenario as to why we do not have hard evidence(few animals and lots of forest) Than families of bigfeets hiding out at "nice people" home steads, and the evidence is just 86'd.