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

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I think the P-G film is accepted by scientists who have taken a close look at it.

[norseman]

Crow,

Thats untrue.

Boiled down to brass tacks when skeptics CANNOT find the zipper, then they fall back on the "well its 2016 and science would have found one by now if real" argument.

Which is just a smug baseless accusation that plays it safe. As far as I know there is no official scientific project blue book study going on concerning Sasquatch sightings and evidence. But there are scientists and experts looking at tracks and film. Of course the skeptics throw out any positive testimony of the evidence.

So NO not all Bigfoot evidence has been proven to be a hoax. YOU may be convinced its all a hoax.....but thats just your opinion.

Of course we need physical remains to prove its existence, but there is evidence that supports the notion something is out there. People with PHD's out looking support this assertion......sorry.

Edited May 12, 2016 by norseman

[Guest Crowlogic]

Crow,

Thats untrue.

Boiled down to brass tacks when skeptics CANNOT find the zipper, then they fall back on the "well its 2016 and science would have found one by now if real" argument.

Which is just a smug baseless accusation that plays it safe. As far as I know there is no official scientific project blue book study going on concerning Sasquatch sightings and evidence. But there are scientists and experts looking at tracks and film. Of course the skeptics throw out any positive testimony of the evidence.

So NO not all Bigfoot evidence has been proven to be a hoax. YOU may be convinced its all a hoax.....but thats just your opinion.

Of course we need physical remains to prove its existence, but there is evidence that supports the notion something is out there. People with PHD's out looking support this assertion......sorry.

Since we have no type specimen or even uncontested example of a graphic rendition of type specimen bigfoot does not exist.  I didn't make up that scenario that is the way it is.  I didn't say all bigfoot evidence has been proven fake.  I said all bigfoot evidence that has tried to make it into the real category within the public at large has been proven fake.  The possible exception is the PGF and that's why it has it's own chapel where worshipers can defend it's honor.  But this thread was both a challenge and call for habbers to step up to the plate and lend a hand.  What has it delivered?  Excuses and word salad.  It's failure to deliver is not surprising seeing that the genre of habbers is but a hairs breath away from the full blown woo of portals.  I could have started this thread with something like this "So why don't the Habbers come forward and give science a real hand but don't hold your breath because habbers never have anything and never deliver anything and this thread will end without a single habber contacting a single scientist and offering information and evidence."  Would I have been wrong Norse?

Edited May 12, 2016 by Crowlogic

[Incorrigible1]

You just hafta read more reports, dontcha know? :-)

[norseman]

The debate has wandered, and Im referencing your post 360. In which it seems like your saying all evidence has been proven to be a hoax.

And evidence is never going to get you to the "real" category. Otherwise we would call it proof from the get go.

As far as habbers, I like you have a hard time believing people have habituated Bigfoot Jane Goodall style and unlike Jane offers no scientific data about the species......IF true? What a waste.....but I doubt it is.

But what your trying to do is use habbers to discredit the larger subject. The same way your using hoaxers to discredit the subject, and you seem to superimpose them at will to support your talking points. Which is why I brought up the shark fin analogy.

I think to be fair, Ray Wallace and the Fox habber lady, are pretty easy targets. There is evidence out there that is much tougher and more resilient. And not just the PGF.

But Im not here to sway public opinion about the existence of Bigfoot. Im here only for the truth and to promote procurring a type specimen if the species is indeed real.

[ShadowBorn]

Crow

You know my option.

 

I leave you with this song:

 

https://youtu.be/q7QQLsC7QEw

[Guest DWA]

I think the P-G film is accepted by scientists who have taken a close look at it.

What I frequently say about not only the PGF but the evidence as a whole is that everyone who has demonstrably taken a close look at it...is a proponent.  Skeptics can be too easily shown to have either not reviewed it in depth, or not thought about it as anyone reviewing it in depth must.

[hiflier]

Since we have no type specimen or even uncontested example of a graphic rendition of type specimen bigfoot does not exist...

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.

Edited May 13, 2016 by hiflier

[FarArcher]

I would be very fearful of trying to drug one of these things for a number of reasons.

 

1.  Dosage is mass dependent and type dependent.  Not going to be a very accurate calculation.

 

2.  Whatever you use, it can't be the same stuff used on other animals that in turn you must track long distances before it drops - these critters can cover some country fast.

 

3.  This thing is not a dumb animal.  I say it's 50/50 that you aren't immediately attacked by the one you hit with the tranquilizer - with ill intent.

 

4.  I'm contrary to many here, as I'm saying that these things are usually NOT alone.  You drug one, the other(s) may pull your head off or slam you up against a tree and crush you.  And THEN pull you apart.

 

5.  If you had some "habitat," after one gets tranquilized, you'll never see them on friendly terms ever again.

Edited May 14, 2016 by FarArcher

[NCBFr]

I would be very fearful of trying to drug one of these things for a number of reasons.

 

1.  Dosage is mass dependent and type dependent.  Not going to be a very accurate calculation.

 

2.  Whatever you use, it can't be the same stuff used on other animals that in turn you must track long distances before it drops - these critters can cover some country fast.

 

3.  This thing is not a dumb animal.  I say it's 50/50 that you aren't immediately attacked by the one you hit with the tranquilizer - with ill intent.

 

4.  I'm contrary to many here, as I'm saying that these things are usually NOT alone.  You drug one, the other(s) may pull your head off or slam you up against a tree and crush you.  And THEN pull you apart.

 

5.  If you had some "habitat," after one gets tranquilized, you'll never see them on friendly terms ever again.

 

That is some pretty clear headed thinking. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

I would be very fearful of trying to drug one of these things for a number of reasons.

 

1.  Dosage is mass dependent and type dependent.  Not going to be a very accurate calculation.

 

2.  Whatever you use, it can't be the same stuff used on other animals that in turn you must track long distances before it drops - these critters can cover some country fast.

 

3.  This thing is not a dumb animal.  I say it's 50/50 that you aren't immediately attacked by the one you hit with the tranquilizer - with ill intent.

 

4.  I'm contrary to many here, as I'm saying that these things are usually NOT alone.  You drug one, the other(s) may pull your head off or slam you up against a tree and crush you.  And THEN pull you apart.

 

5.  If you had some "habitat," after one gets tranquilized, you'll never see them on friendly terms ever again.

Well here's how it works.  You fire the dart and if the thing is stupid enough to charge you you drop it with a live round.  Sorry but if you hit it with tranq loaded for 1200lb grizzly bear you'll have a sleeping bigfoot as quickly as you'll have a sleeping bear.  Furthermore plan the strike have backup and boots on the ground to track it.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Look for a self domesticating bigfoot and make a buddy.

Take a selfie with your buddy and post to facebook. 

 

The odds are about the same, anyhow.

[MIB]

I would be very fearful of trying to drug one of these things for a number of reasons.

 

1.  This thing is not a dumb animal.  I say it's 50/50 that you aren't immediately attacked by the one you hit with the tranquilizer - with ill intent.

 

4.  I'm contrary to many here, as I'm saying that these things are usually NOT alone.  You drug one, the other(s) may pull your head off or slam you up against a tree and crush you.  And THEN pull you apart..

 

I'm not afraid right now but if I tried drugging one, yep, I would be then 'cause I would have just ended the truce such as it was and declared war on something I can't negotiate with. 

 

MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

More importantly (or as important) you have b0rked your research area.

If you wanted to study groups on site you no longer would be able, I suppose.

 

They would know they are being hunted and that they are missing a family member.

 

They either leave or become more aggressive.

 

Native tales say that that a historical agreement that was reached with the Sasquatch people was for every Bigfoot the Natives killed they promised to kill 20 Natives. Mostly by popping off heads and ripping in two.

[Sasfooty]

Hmmm...  So I guess that's 40 we owe them for what Smeja did.