Leaderboard

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.

I usually don't have any problem stating what evidence I like, but when proof is asked for it demonstrates a lack of interest in the evidence and how it is obtained, and it simply becomes pointless to talk about the evidence if the point is to simply say you don't have proof. Good evidence often still depends on circumstance and how that is received along with the integrity of the person who collected it. All of which becomes another point contention. One should ask if there is any benefit of trying to put evidence forth for skeptics who don't likely have the credentials to give it it's due evaluation. One can hope however, that those that do have the credentials would happen upon the evidence, and the science would advance. Some of the most meaningful evidence to me is that which I've seen, collected, and recorded myself. Explaining why it is compelling to me could take a lot of space, but probably only compelling to those who know me or the science that would apply to it very well.

Ok, so the skeptics are chomping at the bit to evaluate our evidence. What do we offer up as "good" evidence. Not proof mind you, but evidence. Tracks, film, audio, reports, etc. And this includes all bipedal cryptid hominids in the world. From Sasquatch to Yowie to Almasty. List your top three pieces of evidence you like and write a short description why. I'll start... 1- The Hobbit Science was knocked on their kester with this one. Proving ancient myths of little people correct, skeletal remains were discovered on the island of Flores that were only 10,000 years old. At first there was a big brewhau as to what the bones were? Sickly dwarf humans? Or something more archaic. The question was answered.....it was something more archaic, Homo Erectus or below, and that debate continues. 2- The PGF Ya, its controversial....sometimes I think we need to rename the BFF the PGFF. Despite the debate that boils to this day? No one has found the zipper, no one has offered up the suit. And unlike most film sites this film site was known, measured and photographed along with corresponding trackway after the film was shot. Add Bill Munns analysis which supports the hypothesis of a real animal with no real scientific rebuttal. I still like it. 3- Big Tree Walker's Bone Analysis I'll be honest here I didnt think much of this when it first came out. But short of direct proof this is pretty cool stuff. I've seen some stuff there that I have not seen before. And actually got to participate in the study by submitting a femur bone of my own that had been cracked open and the bone marrow removed. I think its cool.

Your statements are false. Have you forgotten Tontar already? MIB

MIB Was this edit provided from Joe the bigfoot thru a mindspeak episode?

With real evidence, sceptics will be convinced they were wrong. With no evidence ever forthcoming, believers will never be convinced they were wrong. t.

I like that thinking. A waste of time from people who've had encounters. Much better info from those who actively seek them, but haven't actually had any close encounters.

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...)

The dilemma that each describes is understandable and frustrating. If someone comes on the forum to tell a story like Albert Ostman or the Native American that witnessed bigfoots in their tribe and returned home to never leave his village again, we have a choice. My choice is to listen to the story and understand it may be false. If I hear it from others a few times, it has a ring of truth. We need to listen to the ring sound. Sure, ask polite noncondeming questions without fouling and say nothing after you make up your own mind....... just listen or don't listen now. You may never get to know. This is bigfootery at the present time, regardless of how frustrating.

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.

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.

^^ If you are truly interested in the answer to that question, then perhaps you should start a new thread. If all you really want is to create a place to take pot shots at skeptics and their point of view, then please spare everyone the hassle.

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?

Hammer, that was a good read and thanks for sharing your thoughts. You and Sasfooty add much to the forum. Bigfoot is like a good mystery book that leads to another book in a series. Will we get to know the ending? Be strong and don't let the 'nay sayers' rule. The picture is of an area with a few recent bigfoot reports.

I'd say Hammer has offered a hand, working with the BFRO and also a long thread in the premium section where she has shared her experiences. I'll give her credit, she doesn't try to present it as proof, more of a question about what she has experienced. She did so for a long time, despite a couple of people being jerks. She's always seemed pretty reasonable. Good to see you back around Hammer.

Hey Hammer! It's good to see you here again. I wish I could give you 100 pluses on that post. It says it all! I came to the first BFF like you came to this one, looking for answers. I had already started the "researcher thing" & found that it wasn't helping either of us much. After about 10 posts, never admitting that I had seen BF or that they were here, I quickly learned that it was not the place to find many answers. The only people that were even civil, were banned before I could learn much from them. But both of them had some answers that I value to this day, & have seen proven over & over. If their names are mentioned now, it arouses jeers & claims of hoaxing, but they knew what they were talking about. So, with them no longer there, I went away & found people that were experiencing what I was, & not trying to prove anything or make money or names for themselves. Together, we experienced bigfoot face to face & learned, without fear of being ridiculed. Our lives were changed forever. Fast forward a few years. The old BFF (mercifully) imploded & a "New & (hopefully improved) BFF" was started. After lurking for a couple of weeks, it seemed to be not quite so hostile, so I joined. This time, with a chip on my shoulder & a resolve to not be run off or take any bullying from "non believers" (who obviously didn't have a clue anyway.) I had information that came from daily living, surrounded by big hairy, enigmatic, mysterious, sometimes funny, sometimes scary people. Maybe I didn't see everything the way someone else would have seen the same things, but it was real & honest knowledge & was worth sharing with whoever had a desire for it. So I came back willing to share whatever evidence I had collected, & talk honestly about the things that I had observed & experienced, but it was mostly met with disbelief & sarcasm. That made the chip get bigger & the desire to share shrink considerably, but soon, people started to PM, saying "I saw that same thing! I need to talk about it." Some of them had explanations for things that I didn't understand & we helped each other. There was no sarcasm or ridicule. Just a burning desire to talk about what was going on around us without being laughed at. And there you have your answer, Crow, as to why one such habituator "won't come forward & lend a hand". I have shared most of the evidence I have collected including DNA. There's more DNA evidence in the freezer, but I don't care what it would show & nobody else seems to either. Most of the best audio I have collected is on Soundcloud (link in signature) for anybody that is interested. Like Hammer, I don't bother to try for "proof" anymore. And also like her, here is a line from a song that fits my philosophy: "But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well, You see, you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself." (John Fogerty)

Hi Hammer, I was wondering where you went to also. Thanks for the great post. I grew up in NY state and used to visit my cousins in Ohio summers, I hope to visit there some day. It's a beautiful place, for sure. Nice to hear you're doing well with your neighbors. They don't seem to mind the recorders, IMO, and I like to know when they are around, especially in new areas. Cheers!

As a hunter, I've noticed that my "desire" to kill has been reduced from when I was younger. I still love hunting but the killing portion of the hunt has lost its appeal. In my younger days I'd pull the trigger without a second thought. I guess "blood lust" is a younger persons game. I still hunt and occasionally will kill an animal but I'm very selective about what I kill. I've thought about what I would do if I ever saw a Sasquatch and I was armed with enough gun to kill one. If I had enough gun, if I had enough people with me, also armed, and I had the ability to take the body, I would consider it. However, by myself, in deep cover, I'd never do it. I think most hunters would consider their personal safety as well as the ethics of killing something they can't identify. It's not easy to kill anything indiscriminately and much less an animal that looks so much like us.