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

[Guest DWA]

^^^^This is indicative of (1) not reading the reports; (2) not thinking about them adequately; or more likely (3) both.

 

Bindernagel uses them as a major leg of the foundation of his case.  So does Meldrum.  So do all the scientific proponents, reason being they are *scientists*  and *understand how to do this stuff.*  Thinking just like them, I knew this well before I read them.  They only corroborated what I already was thinking.

 

"Repetitive patterns of misidentification and hoaxing as separated from what?"

 

Prove it; and yes, that is on you, as you made the assertion.

 

There is no pattern of anecdotal evidence for anything, in the entire history of our species, like this...that has not been proven to be precisely what it looked like.  And done.

Edited May 6, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

"Repetitive patterns of misidentification and hoaxing"

 

There is another thing to say about this.

 

Every hoax can be set.....here.

 

The live evidence, that we need to run down to the animal producing it, is all set..........................................................WAAAAAAY OVER HERE.

 

Never the twain have met; never they shall.  See how that works?

[Guest DWA]

And this.

 

"Physical evidence, DNA, body on a slab, creature in a cage, foot prints, hair, saliva, feces, or a video tape, still image.

That would be a standard that would satisfy anyone."

 

That is the standard scientists have always used...to satisfy *the ignorant* i.e., the rest of us.

 

That is not the standard scientists use.  Long before they have that....*they know they will get it*, because they know the thing is real.

 

The two things they rely on most, when the thing is an animal:

 

Consistent reports by locals.  And footprints.

Edited May 6, 2016 by DWA

[MIB]

^^^^ this is pretty much right, maybe a little terse, but correct.   When a substantial body of data falls along a bell curve, the thing it describes is real.   Unless coordinated (conspiracy), hoaxes simply do not do that.   You'd have to somehow go back in time 400 years, 1000 years, and more, and edit the cultural history of indigenous peoples to do that.  

 

Seems ridiculously unlikely.

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

...and that's the standard:  "ridiculously unlikely" for the scenario to be anything other than:  this is people, seeing this thing which leaves these footprints.

 

There is no scenario even constructed by the skeptics, let alone presented for consideration.  Should they ever try to do it, they will abandon the exercise, as they will quickly recognize the scenario as...

 

..."ridiculously unlikely."

 

It is, in short, "ridiculously unlikely" that this animal is not real.

 

(Terse = said this and things like it multiple dozen times here.)

 

Repeatedly, sasquatch data (the plural of anecdotes IS data, pipples, surprise!) - including those reports none of you doubters seem to think are evidence - have been shown to bell plot.  As MIB says:  certificate of authenticity.

 

And why I keep on saying that the *least likely* fake scenario is the one the skeptics think *most likely* :  a random concatenation of a bunch of different kinds of false positive...that bell plot.  Not happening.  This must be the most tightly-held, heavily-funded, and successful conspiracy in human history...or an uncatalogued animal.  No other options are available.

Edited May 6, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Bigfoot skepticism = wacko-est type of wacko conspiracy theory

[Cisco]

1. I have never seen a Bigfoot.
2. I'm open to the possibility of their existence because of compelling anecdotal evidence and limited physical evidence.
3. I'm not certain of their existence because of the lack of definitive evidence.
4. I'm pragmatic but not cynical.

 

That being said, I've read some very interesting and compelling habituation stories. However, I find it almost impossible to believe that no solid evidence, such as DNA samples, clear photos or video have been produced from these experiences. I've read most of this thread, although not all of it, but have yet to read a really solid reason as to why this has not occurred.

 

Human nature is such that at least one, of the many people claiming habituation, would be motivated to profit or gain money, fame or recognition from being instrumental in providing proof of such a sensational discovery.

 

But, so far, this has not happened.

 

Is it because the emotional bond with these creatures is so strong that any amount of money or fame is insufficient to cause them to betray this relationship?

 

But....

 

If this is true, then why do habituators feel compelled to share their experience with others. In many cases, these stories are told on public forums, such as this one.

 

So there is obviously a need to share or to gain recognition. Whether or not the need to share is driven by the desire to help or the desire to gain attention is really somewhat irrelevant because it negates the logic of why physical proof can't or won't be provided.

 

I just don't get it...

[Bonehead74]

I don't think you are supposed to get it, Cisco.

Ok, I know I'm about to make crazy talk, but...

I'm beginning to wonder if the so-called habituations are a part of a conditioning process, that the witnesses are specifically chosen, and that the habituations involve a certain level of intentional psychological manipulation of said witnesses.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Bonehead74

[SWWASAS]

You mean the witnesses are being conditioned by BF?   Interesting take but if we believe BF are as intelligent as some say, then it would follow that BF may enjoy just messing with people and conditioning them as you put it.   But for that to work BF have to get something out of the process.   They have messed with me for entertainment.  What other motivations might they have other than pilfering human or animal food supplies in a habituation situation?  Seems like they have to get something significant out of a relationship with humans for them to take the risk to have contact with humans.    

Edited May 7, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Bonehead74]

I never said the bigfoot were doing the conditioning.

[norseman]

Aliens.....dirty buggers!

[Sasfooty]

I'm beginning to wonder if the so-called habituations are a part of a conditioning process, that the witnesses are specifically chosen, and that the habituations involve a certain level of intentional psychological manipulation of said witnesses.

Absolutely, Bonehead. I was convinced of that several years ago.

 

There may actually be some BFs that are either to weak, too lazy, or too stupid to find enough food for themselves & will take it or steal it from humans, where ever they can. They'll hang around if humans will allow it, & take handouts like a stray dog, doing their little tricks to keep the humans interested. If they cause trouble, such as occasionally eating livestock or pets, or stealing animal feed or raiding the garden & the humans get tired of it, things can go bad. These are probably outcasts, & are likely what the people in Honobia were dealing with. As a matter of fact, two rogues came here, occasionally causing trouble, several years ago, & the ones that were already here eventually ran them off.

 

The outcasts are not the kind that I know. To be honest, I'm not sure that all of these are actually BFs.

 

What other motivations might they have other than pilfering human or animal food supplies in a habituation situation?  Seems like they have to get something significant out of a relationship with humans for them to take the risk to have contact with humans.    

 

They all get something significant from the humans that they choose to interact with. Otherwise, they would have no interest in us.

 

[Bonehead74]

Aliens.....dirty buggers!

Didn't say that either!

[Guest Crowlogic]

Wow we're in off the deep endsville now.  Hey first off there is a predictable pattern to bigfoot that is reflected in bigfooters and bigfootism.  Evidence is found or claimed to be found, evidence is lost or shown to be not bigfoot, hoaxers create evidence, promises of great strides are made and nothing ever results.  So from this science can look at the repeated  pattern and walk the other way.  Proponents just never get it that anecdotal heresay, hoaxes and excuses are the meat and potatoes of bigfootism.  It's been this way since Ray Wallace  first stomped tracks and it is still this way.  Although in the early days there were less excuses and less woo to it.

[hiflier]

You know I can handle Sasquatch maybe being a real animal but not this junk. And just because I don't think any of this is proved true or not because we don't know the creature is no excuse. It may be fun for some to strut out this kind of stuff but it's done with absolutely NO concern with what outsiders think. Or scientists. Complain all you want about science and the media, this kind of dialogue simply shoots the community in its own foot.

Folks if you want to change attitudes you need to keep the subject as weird as it is in a realm that's at least plausible to the public-at-large. A thread on Habituation and Science is fine as far as it goes but when the discussion moves in this direction it just goes off the rails big time. If it's a creature that lives in the wild and some claiming contact and even leaving food once in a while that's one thing. Everybody gets that. But when things move in this direction then it can only take a giant step backwards.

Edited May 7, 2016 by hiflier