So Why Won't The Habituators Come Forward And Lend Bigfoot Science A Real Hand?

[Bonehead74]

...this isn't about the PGF. This is about modern day habbers who as we speak are claiming to be in cahoots with bigfoot to the point they have names and can be identified on sight.

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?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

There are entities out there that can work around even those measures.

Like the NSA.

All you really need is the machine identifier.

Then you have the true node.

 

The daisy chain is expensive for the rest to put together and someone would have to really want it bad. (big bucks corporate)

 

I guess you could try TOR

 

My guess is that there are folks that have a big interest in some topics here due to the commercialization of bigfoot hovering off a port and mining for gold.

 

I notice if you post something rare enough you the real data miners start to get into the act.

 

Some are taking it and reposting it or using the ideas for their own feeds or content.

 

Some want to "collect" a specimen from your area.

 

Like the songs goes, some want to abuse you.

 

Fame seekers, fortune seekers, exploiters, materialists, satanists. 

 

I think most forums and internet sites are primarily for mining free content, any way.

 

The authors as free content providers, commercialization of content to follow, when advantageous.

 

I'm just cynical like that, though.

 

Most are not like that but those putting up the money to host, somewhere in that group is always somebody who wants to make a buck.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

...this isn't about the PGF. This is about modern day habbers who as we speak are claiming to be in cahoots with bigfoot to the point they have names and can be identified on sight.

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. 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

Given the mainstream's treatment of the compelling mountain of evidence, were I a habituator, my middle finger would be the most the mainstream could expect to get.

[Bonehead74]

...this isn't about the PGF. This is about modern day habbers who as we speak are claiming to be in cahoots with bigfoot to the point they have names and can be identified on sight.

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. Edited March 17, 2016 by Bonehead74

[Guest Crowlogic]

Given the mainstream's treatment of the compelling mountain of evidence, were I a habituator, my middle finger would be the most the mainstream could expect to get.

Rather than use weak words like "if" why not apply some of that science you're always preaching and apply some math science to the probability curve that allows for 100% of all habbers not providing credible evidence 100% of the time.    I'll add this is not NASCAR this is not mainstream.  This is a bigfoot forum and it doesn't get much more non mainstream than a bigfoot forum.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

[can't respond scientifically to non sequiturs]

[Guest Crowlogic]

Bonehead wrote: OK, a few things:

I can only conclude that Crowlogic must differ noticeably from plain-old, regular logic. 

• 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.

 

No, my logic is sound, it only differs from bigfoot wishful thinking logic.  My descriptions of what habbers are doing with regards to sharing or documenting their experiences is documented quite well by the total lack of said sharing and documenting.  

 

Am I making it up that habbers don't provide anything of substance to their tales?  Wait, exactly how many reasons would you like me to list as to why there are habber claims and what they may or may not feel is in their interests to share or worry about.  I listed two 1:the safety of others 2:the safety of pets, either their own or others.  Now the safety of others includes a lot potential people does it not?  Hikers, bird watchers, nature buffs, homeless people etc.  How would you feel if your favorite alpha male bigfoot ripped apart the kid down the road who was just trying to find frogs for his class project?  Sure you've got 6 tons of bigfoot in your lap and you can keep it secret knowing they're no more dangerous than a herd of deer?  What do you tell the authorities if something goes wrong and you own the land?  Hmmm?

Edited March 17, 2016 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

Your logic is unsound, as has been beyond proven many times here.  Remember:  no one here feels a need to convince you.  Unless there are those who do feel such a need, and should not.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^Soooo you can furnish evidence that proves my position on habber nonsense wrong?  Please it'll mean a lot to the entire bifgfoot community.

[Yuchi1]

Post(s) 152 &154, plussed...spot on lads.

[MichaelX]

Post(s) 152 &154, plussed...spot on lads.

 

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. 

[jayjeti]

 

Post(s) 152 &154, plussed...spot on lads.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

That's not the only one Dr. J feuds with.  There is the feud between Dr. Johnson and the Bluff Creek Project.  You'll find this interesting.

 

http://sasquatchresearchers.org/blogs/bigfootjunction/2016/01/11/dr-johnsons-feud-with-the-bluff-creek-project/

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by jayjeti

[Bonehead74]

Bonehead wrote: OK, a few things:

I can only conclude that Crowlogic must differ noticeably from plain-old, regular logic. 

• 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.

 

No, my logic is sound, it only differs from bigfoot wishful thinking logic.  My descriptions of what habbers are doing with regards to sharing or documenting their experiences is documented quite well by the total lack of said sharing and documenting.  

 

Am I making it up that habbers don't provide anything of substance to their tales?  Wait, exactly how many reasons would you like me to list as to why there are habber claims and what they may or may not feel is in their interests to share or worry about.  I listed two 1:the safety of others 2:the safety of pets, either their own or others.  Now the safety of others includes a lot potential people does it not?  Hikers, bird watchers, nature buffs, homeless people etc.  How would you feel if your favorite alpha male bigfoot ripped apart the kid down the road who was just trying to find frogs for his class project?  Sure you've got 6 tons of bigfoot in your lap and you can keep it secret knowing they're no more dangerous than a herd of deer?  What do you tell the authorities if something goes wrong and you own the land?  Hmmm?

 

[Terry]

 

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?

 

It's not "some", it's ALL so to me, it isn't logical and therefore habbers aren't believable.  

 

t.