Leaderboard

You seem to answer your own question here. These people claim a unique relationship with these creatures. Because of that, they are loathe to betray that relationship for the sake of "proof". I am not a habituator (or even an eyewitness) but I'm certain that if I had proof of bigfoot's existence, I would keep it to myself, and perhaps a small circle of sympathetic family and friends. Why is it so hard to understand that there might be some people in the bigfoot community who have no interest in proving, or desire to prove, that bigfoot exist? OK explain the 100% of the habbers have played secret squirrel since habbing became vogue. The people not wanting or needing to prove bigfoot is a strawman argument and here's why. In today's world anything that can generate something that makes it to the public eye has the ability to generate income. Income in the form of book, movie, documentary, interviews, TV etc. Now then is every habber well off $$? From what I've seen anything but. But money is not the only reason to go go public. Unless Holly & Harry Habber lives in the distant mountains or deep swamp there are other human beings around. Can Holly & Harry Habber in good conscience keep quiet knowing that these giants might decide to wack one of the neighbors kids or eat the dog? I promise you if there were real habbers with real solid credible evidence they would jump at the change to have their 15 minutes of fame. Indeed some might be eccentric enough to keep quiet but all of them all of the time. No way, this is the hallmark of fantasy mongering BS. OK, a few things: I am not obligated to explain anything to you or anyone else. You asked a question and I presented a possible answer. You don't like my answer. Sorry. Your understanding of what constitutes a strawman argument seems questionable. You allow only a very limited set of motivations to drive a habituator's action(s). If they are as familiar with the bigfoot as they claim, I'd trust that habituators would have a fairly accurate estimate of the (at least) physical dangers involved. Your absolutism concerning what a habituator would or wouldn't do is purely subjective. I can only conclude that Crowlogic must differ noticeably from plain-old, regular logic.

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

^^^ I will be the first to admit that there are inconsistencies in the reports. But for example throwing rocks is a dang good way of scaring off a human while remaining undetected. Compare that with how a Griz defends its territory? Either a mock or full charge? I think many of the supposed Sasquatch traits are better at non confrontational avoidance. And when do they reportedly enter campsites? At night right? Does a Griz care about day or night time? No, they follow their nose around.

^^^^ Sounds like Yuchi speaks from experience! Whoa!

I second the motion, especially #154...that's classic! Thanks for the details on the LT witnesses Yuchi, with all that occurred to them it certainly seems to affirm the opinion of a lot of members here that it's just not worth it to most "habituators" (or witnesses for that matter) to say anything. While searching the internets about the aforementioned LT witnesses, I came upon the saga of Dr. J (Dr. Matthew Johnson) and his SOHA (South Oregon Habituation Area) vs. Derek Randles and the Olympic Project. Nothing like a "family" feud to keep the Bigfooting Community interesting! (Probably old news to some here but yet another situation I don't remember hearing much about) I sometimes think that the interactions between some of the more well-known players in the field are just as interesting as the subject of Bigfoot itself.

Not necessarily.....Crow. If the creature is rare, shy and elusive? The proof may still elude us. If the creature is intelligent as some claim then that could make it that much more elusive. To the point of actively hiding from humans. Add to that some very remote terrain in north America? I think you cannot rule out something like this, it remains plausible. Do we still need proof? Absolutely.

But that cuts both ways.... The Bigfoot community is a pretty rough bunch when it comes to hoaxers, just ask Todd Standing. And yet the PGF still stands....it has passed our scrutiny. So it is either a very good hoax or not a hoax at all.

Ok, show us what you got, how have you succeeded?

What I'm saying is there are people that can/will find you (Youtube video) and you may well regret posting it. There are firms/entities out there that can find the source of anything on the web, proxy IP be damned.

Well yowiie, I guess I fit into that category. Since I haven't had a face to face encounter. I'm also a researcher in the scientific sense of the word. The evidence we are finding is becoming repeatable and measurable. We don't use a lot of high tech devises, a digital recorder, camera and precision measuring tools for analysis. As Fararcher said I have seen enough evidence to acknowledge their existence. The important thing for what we do is spending time in the field, boots on the ground. Then doing the tedious work of analyzing, measuring and cataloging what we find. As my signature below states, it isn't always what we are looking for.

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...)

You won't find that many on here Mr Yowie, a few but not that many. However, when you accept that we have the best part of 2k actual visual sighting reports in our SSR and an enormous chunk of them (around 35%) are from witnesses who have been driving, I'd say anyone who is regularly driving roads at any time of the day in North America could be actually classed as a researcher as they've got just as much chance if not more so than someone who is in the middle of a forest hiding behind any tree they can, wearing camo and thinking that they've found Sasquatch tracks when they're in fact overlapping bear tracks. Insane numbers imvho, but the reality where research is concerned.

Incorrigible 1, you say tens of thousands of reports by tens of thousands of different witnesses amounts to a hill of beans, a phrase that means amounts to nothing. That's what I meant by unhealthy skepticism. The sheer volume of reports, many by credible people such as those in law enforcement, should give pause to any kind of reasonable skeptic.

If someone shot one and proved it with a dead body, their life would change forever. The scientific community would be in disarray and would have to rethink a lot of stuff. Other people would thank you for what you did and would say that you did a good thing by proving their existence and now forcing government to recognize the species, which would result in protections for the rest of them. But I also think a lot of people would hate you and your life would become miserable. You would probably have to live in hibernation and in fear of your life. You might even have to become a hermit--I really think the consternation would be extremely severe. How dare you shoot one!?!!?? And the Legal world would be upside down. Who would own the body? I really think the government would seize it from you and turn it over to state and federal biologists to study, maybe even a university. You would not own it, that is for sure. The USFS, Dept of Wildlife, State agencies, Native tribes, and others would fight it out legally, just like they did when "Kennewick Man" was discovered on the Columbia River in Washington. I started a thread on that but it seems to be another thread that has disappeared...

Shoot Secure (refrigerate) Retain attorney Contact Meldrum Voila!

Bottom line ... it depends on which state you are in. I've said this before. Guess someone didn't want to hear so I'll say it again. Some states list the protected animals and anything not specifically listed is "fair game" year around. Other states list the animals that can be killed and the conditions they can be killed under. In those states anything not specifically listed is automatically "protected." Know your state's laws. I believe, but won't swear, that California, where the Sierra Shooting was done, lists the things that can be killed. If so, Justin Smeja did indeed break the law. If it had been done here in Oregon it would have been legal unless there were some other illegal component ... shooting from or across a public road, shooting from a vehicle, hunting by prohibited methods (spotlight, for instance), or trespassing. Know your state's laws. (See, said it again.) Do not assume what is true in one state has any resemblance to what is legal in another. MIB