Jump to content


Photo

Location Of Kentucky Habituation Site Available


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#1 Silver Fox

Silver Fox

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 592 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 03:23 AM

I know the town where the Kentucky habituation site was going on or is going on. I'm not going to give it out in the forum because I'm not sure if it violates the rules or not.

I will give it to you if you send me a message though.

I'm not even sure who is at the property anymore. Leila Hadj-Chikh has moved on and is no longer there. When the new residents moved a few miles away, the BF's did in fact move with them, incredible as it sounds, so I'm not sure what's going on at the site anymore, if anything.

Pretty incredible, it's about 15 miles from a huge metropolitan area and it's within a 3 city metropolitan area of 3 million people.
  • 2

#2 Matt Pruitt

Matt Pruitt

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 08:35 AM

The location has been online for quite some time, Silver Fox. Most people have respected the privacy of the location and the researchers involved there. If I may ask, what positive or progressive things do you expect to accomplish by PM'ing the location to people on this forum?
  • 0

#3 Silver Fox

Silver Fox

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 592 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 08:45 AM

The location has been online for quite some time, Silver Fox. Most people have respected the privacy of the location and the researchers involved there. If I may ask, what positive or progressive things do you expect to accomplish by PM'ing the location to people on this forum?


There's not much more going on there anyway. Dr. HC has moved on and has a new job. The BF's moved on to follow the owners to their new house. I doubt if there is much research going on ATM.
  • 0

#4 indiefoot

indiefoot

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,820 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 09:39 AM

So what is your reason for doing this? Mr Erickson owns the property and he has not disclosed the location. I don't think a bunch of people traipsing over the property is a good thing, do you.

One of the basic ethical standards in this field is keeping private information private. You seem to be doing this to prove how "In the know" you are.
  • 2

#5 Silver Fox

Silver Fox

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 592 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 10:00 AM

So what is your reason for doing this? Mr Erickson owns the property and he has not disclosed the location. I don't think a bunch of people traipsing over the property is a good thing, do you.

One of the basic ethical standards in this field is keeping private information private. You seem to be doing this to prove how "In the know" you are.


I will give the town where it's located, but I won't give any more details than that. If they want to go to the town and look around, they can feel free. The town is only pop. 2,000, but it's extremely spread out. You'd spend forever driving the winding roads looking for the habituation site, and you won't ever find it.

If they want to dig deeper, they can go ahead. It's all private property in that town, fenced, and very rural. You can't go traipsing around because you'll be on private property.

The habituation seems to be over anyway. The BF's are said to have moved on. Dr. H-C has a new job 2000 miles away. I'm not even sure if any research is going on anymore.

I don't anticipate hordes of idiots descending on the town, that's why I didn't mention it in the post. But if I tell them in PM, I assume they will be discreet.

Once that video's out, the town's cover will be blown a thousand miles into the sky anyway, it it's as good as I hear.
  • 0

#6 Silver Fox

Silver Fox

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 592 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 10:01 AM

So what is your reason for doing this? Mr Erickson owns the property and he has not disclosed the location. I don't think a bunch of people traipsing over the property is a good thing, do you.

One of the basic ethical standards in this field is keeping private information private. You seem to be doing this to prove how "In the know" you are.


I'm not in the know. I figured it out with Google. :D :P
  • 0

#7 SwissChris

SwissChris

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 152 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 10:54 AM

I have to agree with the other participants of this thread, Silver Fox. It's not fair (to offer) to reveal the location of Erickson's habituation project. Those who want to find it out, could do it very easily by themselves.

Having said this, I think it could be interesting to discuss the possibility of Sasquatches living close to urban areas in general. I have looked at the maps of the KY habituation location. There are just some patches of wood here and there, some ponds, but no major forests. There are streets and houses everywhere.

Are there reports out there of Sasquatches living close to major cities? (Maybe the name of the thread could be changed?)

Edited by SwissChris, 22 May 2011 - 10:56 AM.

  • 0
my blog: www.sasquat.com

#8 BobbyO

BobbyO

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,218 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 11:52 AM

I have to agree with the other participants of this thread, Silver Fox. It's not fair (to offer) to reveal the location of Erickson's habituation project. Those who want to find it out, could do it very easily by themselves.


Silver Fox is not revealing it & as Silver Fox said, it's Google that gives teh location away, & the people that added that informaton publically on the www. to allow Google to pick it up.
  • 1
It's one thing being obsessed by something, it's another thing entirely and bordering on lunacy to spend big portions of time obsessing over trying to disprove that same something to people who have seen that something, on a Website deidcated to that something. - Bobbyo

Keep the Forum alive, register as a premium member to ensure that by clicking here.

#9 Silver Fox

Silver Fox

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 592 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 12:44 PM

Having said this, I think it could be interesting to discuss the possibility of Sasquatches living close to urban areas in general. I have looked at the maps of the KY habituation location. There are just some patches of wood here and there, some ponds, but no major forests. There are streets and houses everywhere.

Are there reports out there of Sasquatches living close to major cities? (Maybe the name of the thread could be changed?)


I don't know but this site is 15 miles from a major metropolitan area and 45 miles from another major metro area. Each one with maybe 1 million population! I don't get it, honestly.

I looked at photos of the town on Google photo search and it just looked like a standard small rural town of 2000 or so. I did see some woods there, in some cases pretty thick. My understanding is that Kentucky itself is quite wooded. Nevertheless, these BF's are living quite close to civilization.

On the BFRO there are some interesting recent reports of dumpster diving BF's. One on the outskirts of Seattle and another in Chicago city limits. Chicago has ~150,000 acres of parks running through it from one end to the other, often heavily wooded. BF's are now being seen in these parks. In the Seattle case, the dumpster was in an inhabited area that was next to a large wooded area. Where large areas of woods, rivers or swamps abut residential areas, we are starting to get reports of BF's roaming around.

The BF in Seattle tripped when it fell off the curb. :D That cracked me up.
  • 0

#10 BobbyO

BobbyO

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,218 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 12:47 PM

The BF in Seattle tripped when it fell off the curb. :D That cracked me up.


:D

Me too, i wouldn't have wanted it to see me doing so though, just i case..
  • 0
It's one thing being obsessed by something, it's another thing entirely and bordering on lunacy to spend big portions of time obsessing over trying to disprove that same something to people who have seen that something, on a Website deidcated to that something. - Bobbyo

Keep the Forum alive, register as a premium member to ensure that by clicking here.

#11 SwissChris

SwissChris

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 152 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:02 PM

On the BFRO there are some interesting recent reports of dumpster diving BF's. One on the outskirts of Seattle and another in Chicago city limits. Chicago has ~150,000 acres of parks running through it from one end to the other, often heavily wooded. BF's are now being seen in these parks. In the Seattle case, the dumpster was in an inhabited area that was next to a large wooded area. Where large areas of woods, rivers or swamps abut residential areas, we are starting to get reports of BF's roaming around.


Interesting! I've also heard of some reports from the outskirts of Vancouver BC... the wilderness pretty much starts in North Vancouver. They have black bears and deer and even cougars coming into the inhabited areas...
  • 0
my blog: www.sasquat.com

#12 southernyahoo

southernyahoo

    Skunk Ape

  • Steering Committee
  • 3,709 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:40 PM

Are there reports out there of Sasquatches living close to major cities?



Yes, that would be why they get seen, and do not go completely undetected. ;)
  • 0
www.texlaresearch.com

"The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes."Nikola Tesla

Body + human DNA = Human

#13 bigfootnis

bigfootnis

    Bukwas

  • Members
  • 257 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 05:57 PM

Not much forest in that area and I have a difficult time believing that a bf could stay in the area or even pass through. Crossing a lot of open fields and a lot of roads.
  • 0

#14 JDL

JDL

    Yeti

  • Sésquac
  • 2,215 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 06:33 PM

Not much forest in that area and I have a difficult time believing that a bf could stay in the area or even pass through. Crossing a lot of open fields and a lot of roads.



I'm looking at a topographical map of the area and it shows that the terrain is heavily compartmentalized. There are multiple ridges interspersed with long draws. The ridges themselves have fingers interspersed with runoff channels that are several feet deeper. Even improved terrain has ditches along the roads and plenty of artificial structures to provide concealment for someone who is used to waiting for a safe moment to move and then moving from concealed position to concealed position. I could infiltrate a light infantry company through there by night. I'm sure they are at least similarly skilled.
  • 0
For those who have not personally encountered a bigfoot, the proponent/skeptic debate comes down to nothing more than opposing belief systems.

#15 bsruther

bsruther

    Oh Mah

  • Members
  • 555 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 07:34 PM

I don't know but this site is 15 miles from a major metropolitan area and 45 miles from another major metro area. Each one with maybe 1 million population! I don't get it, honestly.

The closer metro area is more like 3 million.

I live near the site and have driven by it, partly out of curiosity and partly from just wanting another place to go to view the local scenery. Actually, the scenery between here and there is much nicer than the site itself. There is nothing remarkable about the site and I believe that anyone that goes there, hoping to get a glimpse of BF, is wasting their time. There is no access to the site or any adjacent properties. There is nowhere to just pull off the side of the road and get out, without trespassing on someones property. The wooded area at the site isn't very big and while it's fairly dense, it's a relatively young woods. When I saw the site and the area around it, the first thing I thought was there is absolutely no way a creature such as this could be living there. There's no type of natural shelter and no place to go undetected for a long period of time, except for stands of Eastern Red Cedars.

I would be completely amazed if BF were proven to exist, even more amazed if they are proven to exist at the pancake site. Seeing the site is one of the things that has caused me to have even more doubt in their existence and as I said before, anyone that wants to go there in search of BF, is wasting their time. It seems to me that BF would have to be nomadic or at least transient, to be able to exist and I don't see how stacks of pancakes would make them stick around long term, especially there, at that site.

Now, there is one thing about the site that I found interesting. There is a power line right-of-way, running right through the property.

I'm looking at a topographical map of the area and it shows that the terrain is heavily compartmentalized. There are multiple ridges interspersed with long draws. The ridges themselves have fingers interspersed with runoff channels that are several feet deeper. Even improved terrain has ditches along the roads and plenty of artificial structures to provide concealment for someone who is used to waiting for a safe moment to move and then moving from concealed position to concealed position. I could infiltrate a light infantry company through there by night. I'm sure they are at least similarly skilled.

The multiple ridges, interspersed with long draws are what we refer to as rolling hills. The ridges and hillsides in that area are mostly pasture land. The runoff channels at the bottom are often wooded. There is also a small river, not too far from the site. I don't think you could infiltrate a light infantry company through there by night. If the cows didn't give you away, the dogs would.
  • 0

#16 JDL

JDL

    Yeti

  • Sésquac
  • 2,215 posts

Posted 22 May 2011 - 09:33 PM

The closer metro area is more like 3 million.

I live near the site and have driven by it, partly out of curiosity and partly from just wanting another place to go to view the local scenery. Actually, the scenery between here and there is much nicer than the site itself. There is nothing remarkable about the site and I believe that anyone that goes there, hoping to get a glimpse of BF, is wasting their time. There is no access to the site or any adjacent properties. There is nowhere to just pull off the side of the road and get out, without trespassing on someones property. The wooded area at the site isn't very big and while it's fairly dense, it's a relatively young woods. When I saw the site and the area around it, the first thing I thought was there is absolutely no way a creature such as this could be living there. There's no type of natural shelter and no place to go undetected for a long period of time, except for stands of Eastern Red Cedars.

I would be completely amazed if BF were proven to exist, even more amazed if they are proven to exist at the pancake site. Seeing the site is one of the things that has caused me to have even more doubt in their existence and as I said before, anyone that wants to go there in search of BF, is wasting their time. It seems to me that BF would have to be nomadic or at least transient, to be able to exist and I don't see how stacks of pancakes would make them stick around long term, especially there, at that site.

Now, there is one thing about the site that I found interesting. There is a power line right-of-way, running right through the property.


The multiple ridges, interspersed with long draws are what we refer to as rolling hills. The ridges and hillsides in that area are mostly pasture land. The runoff channels at the bottom are often wooded. There is also a small river, not too far from the site. I don't think you could infiltrate a light infantry company through there by night. If the cows didn't give you away, the dogs would.


I'm visiting Cincy over the Memorial Day weekend. I'll drive down and get a first hand look.
  • 0
For those who have not personally encountered a bigfoot, the proponent/skeptic debate comes down to nothing more than opposing belief systems.

#17 believer

believer

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 178 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 04:36 AM

It's the bin laden approach. Kentucky is perfect habitat for Sasquatch.
  • 0
Without hope, we become warped and crippled creatures

#18 Silver Fox

Silver Fox

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 592 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 05:04 AM

The area is very mountainous and hilly, it is true. There seem to be ravines running between the very frequent hills too. It's not flat at all.

Edited by Silver Fox, 23 May 2011 - 05:13 AM.

  • 0

#19 Silver Fox

Silver Fox

    Oh Mah

  • Banned
  • 592 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 05:09 AM

It's the bin laden approach. Kentucky is perfect habitat for Sasquatch.


Got it. Hide in plain sight.
  • 0

#20 JDL

JDL

    Yeti

  • Sésquac
  • 2,215 posts

Posted 23 May 2011 - 05:10 AM

It's the bin laden approach. Kentucky is perfect habitat for Sasquatch.


Funny :lol:
  • 0
For those who have not personally encountered a bigfoot, the proponent/skeptic debate comes down to nothing more than opposing belief systems.