MagniAesir Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 You have to wonder what motivates an individual skeptic. If someone doesn't believe in something, why would they bother to join a forum that discusses it? You'd have to think that they would have something better to do that does interest them. But they're here, and that says something. Perhaps they're not interested in getting behind a team and rooting for it - perhaps they're more interested in sitting in the opposing team's section and insulting that team's fans. If so, it's sad for everyone. Some, I think, are just looking for attention. When I participated in the IVBC in the mid 90's, there was a guy with the initials EB who dogged the forum and attached himself to me for a while. He really turned what could have been a gratifying exchange of information into a hassle, dogging and dissecting every post I and others made, posing the contrary argument simply for the sake of being contrary - and for the attention it drew. Sometimes I wonder if I attract that type of individual in this type of setting. I guess others might see themselves as self-appointed traffic cops. If that's their motivation, we're really giving them too much regard. They're simply self-important, no more. Hopefully there is the rare skeptic that is actually objective, who questions without criticizing - who doesn't dismiss sincere contributions out of hand and keeps a portion of his mind open to the possibility that he may be surprised. Funny there was a thread on here started by a believer asking why do skeptics frequent this forum. There were a lot of negative posts by believers, and when skeptics like myself explained why we were on here, it was either ignored or jeered. I will answer the question once again, I am on here simply to investigate the possibility of Sasquatch existing. I spend a lot of time outdoors hunting, camping, 4x4'ing and recently quading. It has been over 25 years since I specifically hunted for Sasquatch sign, but even in my other endeavors I have never seen or heard anything that would say Sasquatch to me. I was born, raised and continue to live in Sasquatch country but for me never a sign. I have visited Ruby Creek, camped all around Harrison and Chilliwack lakes, nothing. When many of you believers (ones that do not claim sightings) look at the same evidence that I do, we have merely reached different conclusions, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 We are going around in circles, aren't we? yes my friend,it seems that way sometimes,doesn't it? thus, my new avatar...... doesnt lend itself well to info gathered ever being presented, imho. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Funny there was a thread on here started by a believer asking why do skeptics frequent this forum. There were a lot of negative posts by believers, and when skeptics like myself explained why we were on here, it was either ignored or jeered. I will answer the question once again, I am on here simply to investigate the possibility of Sasquatch existing. I spend a lot of time outdoors hunting, camping, 4x4'ing and recently quading. It has been over 25 years since I specifically hunted for Sasquatch sign, but even in my other endeavors I have never seen or heard anything that would say Sasquatch to me. I was born, raised and continue to live in Sasquatch country but for me never a sign. I have visited Ruby Creek, camped all around Harrison and Chilliwack lakes, nothing. When many of you believers (ones that do not claim sightings) look at the same evidence that I do, we have merely reached different conclusions, nothing more. By that measure, you are the objective skeptic. Considering and debating other points of view rather than shouting them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Habituator just means you're perceptive enough not to run them off by getting all in their grill. I love all the "expedition" reports. Those are all scientific and put everything in a clear bag all marked up with a sharpie. Only problem is the Bigfoots are in the next county by the time the convoy gets parked. Exept for the two juvenile delinquent Squatches that stayed to chuck a few pine cones. I have been trying to habituate a group of Bigfoots to my occasional visits and to my attempts at photographing them at a distance. I have watched them through binoculars... what a treat. In four years I have seen them twice and heard them a few times. I have gotten a few pics. I have collected evidence along they way but my utmost goal is to be able to come back next time and have then still be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Amazingly convenient. Each and every person in a habituation situation decides not to investigate further. Malarkey. I am sorry, but I need to intervene here. The BF in a woodpile video, one of the finest ever, was shot at a habituation site. The Kentucky habituation site has revealed excellent evidence. Not only 20 videos that will blow the lid of the entire field of Bigfootery, but reports from John Bindernagel, PhD, wildlife biology, and Leila Hadj-Chikh, that they saw BF's at the site. Bindernagel saw them once and Hadj-Chikh on multiple occasions. I agree that habituators should get evidence, but I am starting to wonder why we bother collecting any evidence other than a body. Most skeptics are scofftics and automatically reject any photos, videos or hard evidence that we collect. So why bother? Just observe the BF's and leave them alone. And the BF's do tend to leave habituation sites when a bunch of investigators show up. This was proven in Kentucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted May 19, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 19, 2011 The Kentucky habituation site has revealed excellent evidence. Not only 20 videos that will blow the lid of the entire field of Bigfootery, but reports from John Bindernagel, PhD, wildlife biology, and Leila Hadj-Chikh, that they saw BF's at the site. Bindernagel saw them once and Hadj-Chikh on multiple occasions. That's awesome! where can I watch these videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 yeah, i had a thread earlier in this forum asking the same thing titled "what draws the skeptic to BF?, if its hogwash why bother?"..... 44 pages & 1310 replies later it got locked down after the same old circular discussions & derailing that eventually spiraled downward into crap, such is the way it seems. as for info gathering, habituations and all......well, over the years folks get burned by enough tall tales that crash into hoaxes & start being very careful when they hear similiar sounding stories( i know i do anyways) its a shame,but many dont want to be "had" by another hoax. some of the most cynical questioning you see may be from "proponents" simply trying to weed out the BS & theres been plenty of it out there.. so much that potentially credible claims get swept under the same rug as the bad ones............& sadly , probably why some d@#* good accounts &/or possible evidence will never be brought forward, imho . Actually what I asked was very different. ( But feeling the love! ) I asked how folks feel about presenting more & more information under the guise of attempting to rebut a question. Now it does seem the ones repeatedly asking some of the same questions over & over aren't adding anything to Bigfootery. Unless someone tries to answer and provides yet more info. A discussion should be an equal exchange of ideas. Not merely one sided. I was plain in my attitude which is it's phishing for info from those who either google references, or provide their experences. Regardless if someone puts any stock in those experences by defination it is information not previously known, whether anyone values it or not. Whether the phishing resulted in what anyone specifically wanted, is less relevant than "Someone went Phishing". I would like to see some of the repeat "Phishers" contribute as much info as the other posters. To even things out into a real discussion. If everyone is bringing info to the field of Bigfootery more can be learned. Now this isn't impossible. Unless as I have considered before that some are here to impead the flow of general BF information. By Incorigables defination all BFRO reports should be thrown out because they are just words and stories. Sorry, that is just taking an idea to the Nth degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) Just using Incorigables idea as an example, had anyone else posted the same thought I'd of used it. Edited May 19, 2011 by grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Stories and tall tales. As much as you or anyone else wishes such were true, how is it the creatures are still cryptic? Sorry to be blunt, but it's ludicrous. I put it to you that they are not "cryptic". I think they are well understood. As you say, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. What they are not is publicly acknowleged. Big difference. If you approach the phenomena from a point of view suspending disbelief, some things will imediately present themselves. First, they must be intelligent. Animals could not remain undiscovered. Intelligence suggests the use of systems, which are a type of tool. Systems require language to operate. Systematic, language using, intelligent creatures would, naturally, make contact. Really, it is absurd to assume they are unassisted. Clearly they have accomplices. The level of sophistication of thier avoidance systems implies "inside information". Simple observation wouldn't preclude surviellance imaging, for example. Obviously they have had motion detectors and infared light explained to them. By whom? Habituators? Why not? It certainly addresses some of the most vexing questions assosiated with the phenomena, doesn't it? Really, it doesn't make sense that they have no collaborators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 That's awesome! where can I watch these videos? Not released yet. But they will. It's part of the Erickson Project. They are waiting for the DNA evidence to get published first, then they will release the video stuff, probably as a DVD. Should be released in 2 months, but could be up to a year. Thx for your enthusiasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Systematic, language using, intelligent creatures would, naturally, make contact. Really, it is absurd to assume they are unassisted. Clearly they have accomplices. The level of sophistication of thier avoidance systems implies "inside information". Simple observation wouldn't preclude surviellance imaging, for example. Obviously they have had motion detectors and infared light explained to them. By whom? Habituators? Why not? It certainly addresses some of the most vexing questions assosiated with the phenomena, doesn't it? Really, it doesn't make sense that they have no collaborators. You are very perceptive, Buzzard Eater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I'm skeptical of habituation claims. I'm skeptical of those that state they have encounters with bigfoot/sasquatch on a regular basis. I'm more than skeptical, I think those claiming such are attention seekers, and in their own way, as much a detriment to this forum as confirmed skeptics. You are entitled to your opinion of coarse.-Knuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 The phishing for information idea presupposes that there is value in such data. From what I've seen, that's not the case. If all this "info/data" isn't of value, just why the heck are you devoting so much time to a forum aimed at something you don't believe in? -Knuck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Awww.... Now you're just being jealous. That seems to sum it up. Well said!-Knuck 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 This is why if you want to know their secrets, someone who trusts you must let you in their click. Basically, it's a cult. Basically, some here are just stirring the pot with these kind of remarks, and none of it is meaningful, nor is it productive toward the goals these people claim to require. THEY don't want "new" evidence. THEY want new material to tear apart, and deride, because they keep spouting the same old scoftic party line. I came here to discuss what I have going on in the vicinity of my home. I am not in the habit of lying, fabricating or telling tall tales. I cannot help the FACT that they are present here through no effort on my part. They just ARE HERE. I didn't go looking for a "crew" of squatches to drag home. I came here because this is SUPPOSED to be THE place to DISCUSS my experiences. NOT to have some unseen "person" bob all around the word without coming right out and calling me a LIAR! Of course, those that fling accusations ought to know. They know the behavior well. Too well. Get It? The goal of these "people of an opposing view" lol yeah right, is to get us THAT KNOW to shut up about it. JMEO-Knuck 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts