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

[georgerm]

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.

 

It's good to hear that someone else was having trouble with logic and following the discussion.

 

 

 

No, my logic is sound, it only differs from bigfoot wishful thinking logic.  What does this mean?

 

  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?  This is clear and a real problem that could use some discussion. There is not much you can do other than post lots of no trespassing signs.

 

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?

 

What do you tell the authorities if something goes wrong and you own the land?  Hmmm? Tell them nothing or they will label you a nut case.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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. 

 

 

 

Whoa! I thought the 'consensus' was that BFs are friendly, gentle creatures who don't exhibit violent behavior towards humans, and any reports of aggressive BF attacks are fraudulent? If the consensus is correct---BFs are friendly, give-peace-a-chance, flower children----- then Holly and Harry have no reason to believe one of their BFs or any BF might "decide to wack one of the neighbors kids or eat the dog", thus no reason at all to go public with their BFs.

 

(Note to habituators: keep your mouth shut and carry on, because now you will be blamed for all aggressive/violent BF encounters, even though BFs are supposed to be "nice".)

[Sasfooty]

So...we're spit on if we do, & possibly charged with genocide if we don't. (Not ascribing this to the staff of BFF)

 

That pretty much says it all.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Sasfooty

[WSA]

What's the expression? Oh yeah.   "Often mistaken, but never in doubt." That about covers it, I think.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

So...we're spit on if we do, & possibly charged with genocide if we don't. (Not ascribing this to the staff of BFF)

 

That pretty much says it all.

 

Not genocide, but definitely complicit in any crimes against humans (destruction of property, assault, stalking, harrassment, etc.)

 

Also, you know how there are signs that say "Don't feed the animals" and some local ordinances have the same clause about feeding animals. Can you imagine the fines a habituator will face for feeding the animals (BF)? Or for running an illegal non-game species conversation program?

 

I wrote it before and I'll write it again: there is no incentive for BF habituators to go public with their BFs because the risk-benefit ratio is unfavorable.

[georgerm]

 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?

 

A realistic point but rare let's hope. If I was a habber and my grandkids played in the yard, it would make me nervous not knowing if a rogue bigfoot was around. We just don't know enough about bigfoot. The Native Americans seemed to have a problem with them that included kidnapping. We do have those on the forum that believe bigfoot is a peaceful fuzz ball, but we have much to learn about bigfoot.

 

So why don't habbers contribute to science? If we would just let them talk and not start hammering them for evidence, we might learn something. Stop running them off, and we each can make up out own minds. Some members think they are the official habber investigators and interrogators. Please take this attitude to another forum. Let them talk here.

Edited March 18, 2016 by georgerm

[Sasfooty]

I never worried about my grandkids playing in the yard or the woods either, & they're still alive, so it must not be too dangerous.

 

The youngest heard "voices in his head" occasionally while out there, but I did too, so I never thought anything about it......

[Night Walker]

If the Bigfoots of the habituators are our own species or a near relative and you love your country then the incentive to go public may be so that the Forest People can have their own dignity, autonomy, and freedom by having a say in the future of their own country. By failing to register Wood Apes and Skunk Apes on the electoral role the habituators are effectively oppressing these mostly gentle hairy giants, are they not?

 

END SASQUATCH SLAVERY NOW

 

FREE BIGFOOT FROM THEIR OPPRESSIVE HABITUATOR-OVERLORDS

 

Let the Hairy Ones participate in the direction of their own future once every 4 years and then they can go back to living their constitutionally free and mysterious existence just like the rest of us...

 

Of course, that's a big “ifâ€â€¦  

[SWWASAS]

 

So...we're spit on if we do, & possibly charged with genocide if we don't. (Not ascribing this to the staff of BFF)

 

That pretty much says it all.

 

Not genocide, but definitely complicit in any crimes against humans (destruction of property, assault, stalking, harrassment, etc.)

 

Also, you know how there are signs that say "Don't feed the animals" and some local ordinances have the same clause about feeding animals. Can you imagine the fines a habituator will face for feeding the animals (BF)? Or for running an illegal non-game species conversation program?

 

I wrote it before and I'll write it again: there is no incentive for BF habituators to go public with their BFs because the risk-benefit ratio is unfavorable.

 

You pretty much nailed it.    No matter what BF are, if you host them on your property you have to be violating game, animal control,  zoning,   endangered species,   or you name it laws if the authorities step in.    It could be even worse if they are human.     Talk about harboring illegal aliens!   The authorities would just step in and decide what they are going to do to punish you.  

[Guest WesT]

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

 

 

t.

Well I may be fixin to find that out for myself big T.  If I play my cards right, I may be invited onto private land to help the land owners wrap their heads around the critter they've been seeing on their property. I've been showing them the pics I have of the ambush set ups and they said they've seen similar things but didn't pay much attention to them. If there's a similar ambush set up there, I'm gonna be stoked. I really want to see another one. And I know exactly what to look for.

 

Proof? Well if I happen across a dead one you'll hear about it in the news.

 

 

 

`

[JKH]

 

 

So...we're spit on if we do, & possibly charged with genocide if we don't. (Not ascribing this to the staff of BFF)

 

That pretty much says it all.

 

Not genocide, but definitely complicit in any crimes against humans (destruction of property, assault, stalking, harrassment, etc.)

 

Also, you know how there are signs that say "Don't feed the animals" and some local ordinances have the same clause about feeding animals. Can you imagine the fines a habituator will face for feeding the animals (BF)? Or for running an illegal non-game species conversation program?

 

I wrote it before and I'll write it again: there is no incentive for BF habituators to go public with their BFs because the risk-benefit ratio is unfavorable.

 

You pretty much nailed it.    No matter what BF are, if you host them on your property you have to be violating game, animal control,  zoning,   endangered species,   or you name it laws if the authorities step in.    It could be even worse if they are human.     Talk about harboring illegal aliens!   The authorities would just step in and decide what they are going to do to punish you.  

 

 

In the words of Mr. Hill/Branco, "they are not going anywhere". In the words of some other smart person, "they go wherever they want". There's nothing any authority or property owner can do about those facts.

[Terry]

 

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

 

 

t.

Well I may be fixin to find that out for myself big T.  If I play my cards right, I may be invited onto private land to help the land owners wrap their heads around the critter they've been seeing on their property. I've been showing them the pics I have of the ambush set ups and they said they've seen similar things but didn't pay much attention to them. If there's a similar ambush set up there, I'm gonna be stoked. I really want to see another one. And I know exactly what to look for.

 

Proof? Well if I happen across a dead one you'll hear about it in the news.

 

 

 

`

 

Nice!

 

t.

[Celtic Raider]

 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?

 

A realistic point but rare let's hope. If I was a habber and my grandkids played in the yard, it would make me nervous not knowing if a rogue bigfoot was around. We just don't know enough about bigfoot. The Native Americans seemed to have a problem with them that included kidnapping. We do have those on the forum that believe bigfoot is a peaceful fuzz ball, but we have much to learn about bigfoot.

 

So why don't habbers contribute to science? If we would just let them talk and not start hammering them for evidence, we might learn something. Stop running them off, and we each can make up out own minds. Some members think they are the official habber investigators and interrogators. Please take this attitude to another forum. Let them talk here.

 

Would it be possible to have a separate pinned 'habituators thread' that is closely monitored where habituators could tell their story and reasonable, non-aggressive or accusatory questions could be asked? Or maybe their claims could be put out there in a 'read-only' format for us to make up our own minds - we could then have a separate topic to discuss the claims that the originator would not have to enter unless they chose to do so? 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Celtic Raider

[Sasfooty]

Here ya go CR:  http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41983-habituating-bigfoot-continued/

[MichaelX]

 

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/

 

 

 

You're right jayjeti, I did find it interesting; thanks much for the link. And interesting is just one of many words that seem to describe Dr. Johnson himself!