Leaderboard

For those who believe they have experienced something paranormal, what you are asking is also the most dishonest and shows the most self-disrespect. It involves suppressing information and disenfranchising themselves to buy a troll's approval. MIB

That is just it , we cannot conform to this type of intimidation and censor those who have experience this type of behavior. This type of behavior is out of the norm and needs to be brought out in the open so that we can learn from it. People need to know that there are others who have experience this and are willing to go on record in the open. Whether we are at a stage of some sort of evolution or we are now learning some thing that we never thought possible. Either way it needs to be brought forward with open arms so that we can understand what we are dealing with. I am all for pushing people to come forward with what they have experienced since it is a real deal, some thing that is hard to explain. Science keeps coming forward with new things each year, so explanation seems to get easer to explain. We just need to know the truth.

I put more faith in the existence of the bigfoot creature than I do actual habituators.

This makes no logical sense. C'mon Crowlogic, even you have to admit that an "uncontested example" if far from saying 100% refuted as in the PGF. So your conclusion of "does not exist" falls apart in the context of your quoted statement. You want Habituator logic? I'll give you Habituator logic. Nearly across the board Habituators are adamantly in the no-kill camp. No killing no matter what. To me it's the chief driver for secrecy- or should be. But their philosophy fails as they won't lift a finger in the way of proof even after knowing that the rest of the Sasquatch population is at risk for losing a member to someone in the field bent on grassing one. To me this is a case of double-think. I don't think they consider that even more than one could be shot and dragged onto a slab if there's no notification from the shooter in the field that one had been taken. This tells me that MORE THAN ONE could be at risk, or a family. But as long as it's not by the Habituator's hand then it's apparently it's OK. Saving another Sasquatch or it's family certainly does not appear to be enough to motivate a Habituator to step forward with proof. For all their "good" intentions this point glares as running counter to the purity of their philosophical reasoning. To me it seems rather dichotomous to the dialogue they have been maintaining for years. In other words, A Sasquatch may get shot- but it won't be their Sasquatch; even though proof could mean NONE get shot. But rather one gets sedated, studied, and returned to the field- happens to many other creatures with no harm done. Most of science today isn't as archaic as they used to be.