Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) I have no problem with habituators (1) talking to each other about their experiences here and (2) not being required to provide proof.But it's only reasonable to say that if you are publishing something and charging for it, you are being disingenuous in the least if the proof isn't in it. Seems reasonable to me. And if you can't provide proof - which exactly as Sasfooty said, and also makes sense -and you are trying to sell a book or something like that, which goes beyond just discussing the issue then maybe you could document WHY you can't and HOW you are trying... if you are. I admire Scott Carpenter in this regard.. He claims habituation and to having ongoing experiences, and he documents it all. Whether the video or pix is good or junk, he posts it and says what he saw and what was going on. That I respect. It's like math - and showing your work on a scratch piece of paper imho. He does make claims and he does have a book now, an ebook, and I respect that he does try to put it all out there for his readers to decide for themselves. I don't see any duplicity in what HE does, and I like that. And I don't think John and DWA are picking on anyone here, personally. For instance, I cannot PROVE I have had any encounters or that they were bigfoot. Therefore, I cannot get my knickers in a knot when someone doubts it. What I resent and won't tolerate, is mockery and nastiness about it. That's just common courtesy. If someone wants to hear what I have to say, then I'll tell them. Doesn't mean they MUST believe it. They just must respect ME. I think that's the line in the sand for me. Edited March 7, 2013 by madison5716
Guest DWA Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 ^^^...and as I noted above, when as in Autumn Williams's case you are publishing directly for the people who are sick of the ridicule and the 'proof culture'; know themselves what's going on, or want to hear something from someone outside the 'proof culture'; and want the story for the story...well, as long as one knows going in what's in the package, sell away. It's just that the 'proof culture' starts getting involved when the discussion hits print. Just what happens.
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 I'd definitely like to keep this thread as a safe place for folks to discuss their ongoing incidents. I like to listen to the conversations and sometimes chime in. It's different from other parts of the site, and I appreciate that and the folks who talk about things here.
Guest njjohn Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 I used book as an example. I said there's two types of people in the community. Those that claim but share openly, and those that claim for the sole purpose of profit, attention, or cause a rukus. I said most of the times, those that get upset with the habituators confuse the two. The habituation thread hasn't had any of the attention grabbing going on. I never pointed out anyone, instead was defending those that do share without wanting to back it up. Writing isn't a bad thing. I'm a writer, so I encourage people to write things down, even if you never share it. The difference between the two types I mentioned would be someone like apehuman or Scott Anderson who write down what they can and share the information to everyone. The second type would be if I came into the the thread and said "Hey, I've got this group in my yard that is identical to what you're describing and I have proof! If you want to see it.. it'll come out eventually." Or "I'm writing a book, so all the pictures and videos will be included there, pre-order now." Lol, I might just be explaining it wrong.
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 I admire Scott Carpenter in this regard.. He claims habituation and to having ongoing experiences, and he documents it all. Whether the video or pix is good or junk, he posts it and says what he saw and what was going on. That I respect. It's like math - and showing your work on a scratch piece of paper imho. He does make claims and he does have a book now, an ebook, and I respect that he does try to put it all out there for his readers to decide for themselves. I don't see any duplicity in what HE does, and I like that. I really like Scott Carpenter. He just seems so laid back. He doesn't seem to care if you believe what he see's or not. I have a hard time seeing stuff he says is in the video's its not like being at the location. But at least he is out doing his own thing and showing things. I like that he tried to setup a camera trap area. I would love for him to be one to get clear HD video of what he see's.
MarkGlasgow Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Of course, the idea that rural, isolated properties being visited or passed through by BF's isn't far fetched by any manner of means. Indeed our own BFF habituation thread makes for some good reading however, with some really worthy research work balanced against some amusing 'out there' theories and assumptions. The lack of evidence to support multiple sightings & encounters that take place is a problem. I simply don't buy the 'evidence is impossible' line. This takes us down the route that states that these animals are much more than what we think they are. I struggle with the basic notion that 9ft tall 700lb bipeds who are unknown to science exist at all. To suggest that these animals may have extra-sensory powers which render all recording implements useless is something I will never be able to contemplate.
Guest DWA Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 ^^^But some of them aren't saying that. They're just saying that documentation is not why they are doing this. (Speakinawhich, per the book I cited above. Go to Amazon and put yourselves on pages 96-99 of Enoch. The diatribe against our civilization that Williams delivers in those pages is worth the read.)
Sasfooty Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Indeed our I simply don't buy the 'evidence is impossible' line. If you're trying to quote me here, I said PROOF is impossible, not evidence. There's plenty of evidence. This takes us down the route that states that these animals are much more than what we think they are. Either they're much more than most think they are, or we are much less than we think we are. Otherwise there should be proof by now, dontchathink?
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Either they're much more than most think they are, or we are much less than we think we are. awesome sasfooty, I love it and I agree
Guest LarryP Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Your first post is funny. I don't think I'm the one in denial of anything. I'm fairly certain it may be the other way around. My bolded: That sounds a lot like excuses. If your "evidence" was authentic, and tangible, why would science scoff at it? Why would anyone? Maybe because it's not what it's being represented as. Again, have you ever asked someone like Jeffery Meldrum to come "out with you" to your bigfoots playground area or whatever? Why not? A lot of excuses, and stories. That's all I've seen on this forum so far. You're making the false assumption that everyone here who has this knowledge feels compelled to provide "authentic" "evidence" of same. That is not the case.
MarkGlasgow Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 No Sas not trying to quote you directly. I fully meant 'evidence is impossible'. People will have varying degrees of what they consider evidence. A large poop or a pile of twigs may do it for some. Others however, including myself would only consider something much less circumstantial. Either they're much more than most think they are, or we are much less than we think we are. Otherwise there should be proof by now, dontchathink? Really does depend on how prevalent we think they are. If they are genuinely hanging around in all these folks backyards, then yes we should have oodles of proof. On the other hand, if they are as elusive and remote as some of us think they are, then the proof we seek will be much harder to obtain.
Guest LarryP Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) This takes us down the route that states that these animals are much more than what we think they are. I struggle with the basic notion that 9ft tall 700lb bipeds who are unknown to science exist at all. To suggest that these animals may have extra-sensory powers which render all recording implements useless is something I will never be able to contemplate. Think of all the people who couldn't even begin to "contemplate" that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, instead of the Sun revolving around the Earth. Your use of the term "extra-sensory", clearly demonstrates your belief that us humans with our very limited senses is all that matters. Einstein debunked that false assumption decades ago at the end of his book "The Theory of the Universe". Edited March 7, 2013 by LarryP
Sasfooty Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Really does depend on how prevalent we think they are. Almost nothing depends on what we think, since it can change in a millisecond.
MarkGlasgow Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Think of all the people who couldn't even begin to "contemplate" that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, instead of the Sun revolving around the Earth. Your use of the term "extra-sensory", clearly demonstrates your belief that us humans with our very limited senses is all that matters. Einstein debunked that false assumption decades ago at the end of his book "The Theory of the Universe". Not sure that my use of the term 'extra-sensory' 'clearly demonstrated' anything about my beliefs or anything else Larry. Using Albert Einstein as a point of reference during a debate regarding the possible 'extra-sensory' powers of the 'still to be proven by science' sasquatch is an interesting approach. Not too sure he would approve. Almost nothing depends on what we think, since it can change in a millisecond. If that were indeed true Sas I'm going to have a very difficult day at work tomorrow.
Recommended Posts