Habituation As A Concept.

[Guest fenris]

Since the Romantic/Skeptic clashes, it seems like habituation is the next largest hot button subject in things squatchy. It is, in fact fascinating as a concept for a number of reasons:

Firstly, it could be argued that it thraetenes the status quo, existing research methods get called into question by those claim the creatures are more people than ape, and thus too smart to fall for the usual tricks; wood knocking, trail cams, etc.

Secondly, it irks the skeptics and entitled (I'll use that term) who seem to think they are owed proof at times, at others times not as much, because the habituation argument counters that bringing in a bunch of camera wielding yahoos will ***** the relationship that the witness has fostered with the squatches.

Thirdly. it's perfect bit of yin and yang, giving proof ruins the habituation so no proof is needed. The witness won't betray his friends to the trigger happy folks who want to harvest one...

What I find interesting is that mnay habituator-esque witness are beginning to show up and seem to have very, very similar stories to tell. Is it copy catting, made more possible due to the internet, have we have been doing everything wrong?

Are the more skeptical minded quick to dismiss habituators because it's easier to do that than look at it open mindedly.

This topic may become a poll, but first, yoru thoughts?

[Guest]

This is actually a very good way in which you phrased the dilemma Fenris. You've phrased it from the middle the best you can so as to solicit a balanced appraisal. Still there is risk in how those long frustrated with not finding answers for so long, will write off the differences in approach by habituators as being 'hogwash' and excuses. But I will also assert that a big part of that response will be in identifying where the nay-sayers are coming from with respect to what they view sasquatch to be. If they continue to view it as just some proverbial giant ape, then they won't comprehend the depth of interactions or need for trust that the very habituators claim to be the case.

It is one more paradigm where there is a long list of paradigms that remain because of old school ideas developed by a long line of well known (but not exactly successful) researchers. And so one must realize that with the paradigm which the ape camp has promulgated during their overall control of forums for many many years, it may be necessary to understand that the ones who haven't been successful, might just need to humble themselves a little if they want get past the limits they've actually sowed for themselves.

Let me say that I've probably had my chance at a more in-depth habituation. But I too tried being a researcher in that task and ruined opportunities that may well have turned into something more. They found my hidden video camera and I feel that caused them to take a step back from me. Last Summer I only visited the area once, figuring I'd let things cool down and start fresh in the future. Next Spring I may return but will do so without hidden cameras and give them that added respect they appear to require. There, that's a slice of what a habituator deals with early in the process.

[Guest fenris]

Actually this is meant to be as much a study in the sociology at play here, as much an exploration of the concept, a look into bigfootery subcultures well. It's fair to say you are in the habituator camp, or aspiring anyway. I'm hoping this is allowed to get some open minded exploration. Let's see how it plays out.

Personally I find the Enoch and Sasfoot situations interesting for reasons likely different than you would but that's all good. To me there's interest in the similarities of whats perported to happen, the reaction to what's presented, how that is recieved as well as again what I percieve in some to be a wee bit of entitlement. But that's my take in part, I hope to others.

[Guest vilnoori]

And in the end habituation studies would have to occur anyway to give us information about what these creatures do, eat, where they sleep, how they procreate (monogamy, polygamy, take pot luck, etc.), level of intelligence, language, culture, child raising practices, shelter building, coping with seasons, tool use, rate of aging, metabolism, ability to move around etc. All are things that you can make a good guess at by studying scat and footprints/trackways, and if you get a body, stomach contents etc. But in the end habituation studies answer the questions best of all.

[Guest fenris]

And in the end habituation studies would have to occur anyway to give us information about what these creatures do, eat, where they sleep, how they procreate (monogamy, polygamy, take pot luck, etc.), level of intelligence, language, culture, child raising practices, shelter building, coping with seasons, tool use, rate of aging, metabolism, ability to move around etc. All are things that you can make a good guess at by studying scat and footprints/trackways, and if you get a body, stomach contents etc. But in the end habituation studies answer the questions best of all.

But again, I have to disagree with the premise of needing the body, the minute you kill one or arguably screw with their dead, they wouldn't want to deal with people again, IF... they're people (intelligent) and not just apes...

And that seems the consistent opinion of those claiming habituation or similar situations. Much difference than a certain subsection of the Southern researcher demographic who want to "harvest" one, they seem as a rule to be convinced it's a monkey, maybe a threat and can be taken just a deer in Season. That, I personally disagree with.

[Guest vilnoori]

Sure, well, if you're friends enough just get them to do a cheek swab for you like scientists have done with indigenes all over the world. LOL

The thing is these beings appear to be a hominid, possibly H. erectus, and having a skull or better yet a whole skeleton would help to confirm that. That would place them firmly in the human family. A DNA test if positive will also place them in the human family but since we don't have a sample of H. erectus DNA (though we do have one of Neanderthal) we couldn't do a match to identify it. We could only place it relatively within the time scale of human evolution, like was done with X woman (Denisova):

Edited November 25, 2010 by vilnoori

[Guest vilnoori]

I suspect that if a sample was taken it would actually fall between Denisova and Neanderthals, which would be consistent with H. erectus.

[Guest fenris]

I suspect that if a sample was taken it would actually fall between Denisova and Neanderthals, which would be consistent with H. erectus.

I hear ya, but in my book, that makes them PEOPLE, which in my world, harvesting then becomes an exercise of murder, if in the name of science, we have become nazis essentially.

[Guest]

Can you define what you mean by habituation? Are you talking about a situation where they happen to be on land that you own but you don't necessarily interact with each other or are you talking about people who actually establish relationships with them?

If it is the first scenario then I think that probably happens pretty frequently when it is land that has been passed down through the generations. The people may or may not see them but the sasquatch tolerate their presence because they are "habituated" to the family being there.

If it is the latter, that's a good bit harder to accept, and most likely very rare indeed, simply because it would be hard for the two different species to relate to each other enough to find common ground. I'm not saying it couldn't happen since humans can bond with chimps. I just don't think it would be likely unless it was a lone bigfoot that had been on his or her own for quite awhile.

[Doc Holliday]

But again, I have to disagree with the premise of needing the body, the minute you kill one or arguably screw with their dead, they wouldn't want to deal with people again, IF... they're people (intelligent) and not just apes...

And that seems the consistent opinion of those claiming habituation or similar situations. Much difference than a certain subsection of the Southern researcher demographic who want to "harvest" one, they seem as a rule to be convinced it's a monkey, maybe a threat and can be taken just a deer in Season. That, I personally disagree with.

ive noticed that too,the habituation reports do seem to parallel closely w/ "its human " theory holders.

i think the thing w/ habituation claims may be that it seems a little more unlikely based on the typical encounter. some people search for years w/ barely a glimpse, yet others claim to have squatch around regularly, so perhaps its just a "what are the odds?" kind of thought for some.

some of the habituation reports also come off as sounding a little extra hokey, & perhaps im wrong, but werent a couple of the more well known reports like this later proven to be hoaxed? could be that sort of thing stays in peoples minds when hearing similiar reports later.

the "monkey convinced,easy to shoot " crowd may not be limited to the south. those ideas seem to be prevalent among a lot of "keyboard cowboy" types from all over.

i see the pro -kill idea popular w/ a good number of folks across the country & some of the more outspoken anti -kill guys ive ran into report to be from the south, so who knows?ive reconsidered my ideas on shooting as well, for various reasons.

concerning the "entitled", could that be frustration on the part of some due to the lack of public proof combined w/having unanswered questions for so long? people claiming habituation could be seen as closer to being able to prove it,so that may leave the frustrated saying "so do it already"

good thread fenris. you may be on to something w/ the sociology at work study here. it is interesting how people divide into groups convinced that their squatch/research ideas are correct & others are wrong, even though as i think it was indiefoot that said in another thread,(paraphrasing here)the sasquatch appear to be the only experts so far

Edited November 25, 2010 by slicktrick

[Guest]

ive noticed that too,the habituation reports do seem to parallel closely w/ "its human " theory holders.

I'll add my thoughts on this one. One evolves alongside the other and acts to confirm each other as you 'test' the different steps you take. As you begin to try to understand them, you begin to appreciate their true intelligence and they seem to give you an inch here and there for respecting their position. So, as you find yourself developing a habituation in the early stages, you realize that the added respect you give them has nurtured the process of them trusting you more. You get back in return what you give of yourself in a sense. That's why people who have experienced habituations, mention how important it is to not betray them. It is about 'growing' a friendship if you will, though not quite like the friends you grew up with. lol

[Guest vilnoori]

I hear ya, but in my book, that makes them PEOPLE, which in my world, harvesting then becomes an exercise of murder, if in the name of science, we have become nazis essentially.

Oh, I agree that they are probably people. But there are more ways to get DNA than to "harvest" or kill a body. Probably sasquatches die all the time. There must be a way to find the bones. They don't have to be new bones, just ones that have been deposited in a protected, dry, non-acidic area such as a limestone cave. Or, in a peat bog, maybe.

Remember the guy that claimed a female bigfoot left a baby on the side of his property? That's another scenario. What if someone found an unprotected baby, and watched for quite a while, and nothing came for it except predators. I would want to take that baby and raise it. That's the best cross-cultural method there is of discovering a new people group. And that's another thread...

[MagniAesir]

I suspect that if a sample was taken it would actually fall between Denisova and Neanderthals, which would be consistent with H. erectus.

I don't recall H. erectus being 7 to 8 feet tall, or do you subscribe to the theory that most people over estimate the size of a sasquatch?

I have very little knowledge of habituation stories, however since you mentioned Sassy's story. I will say that if she tried all of the methods that she claimed to have tried, well she would have got some clear pictures of even the most clever of humans.

[Guest gershake]

Sassy's story. I will say that if she tried all of the methods that she claimed to have tried, well she would have got some clear pictures of even the most clever of humans.

Sigh...

[indiefoot]

Can you define what you mean by habituation? Are you talking about a situation where they happen to be on land that you own but you don't necessarily interact with each other or are you talking about people who actually establish relationships with them?

If it is the first scenario then I think that probably happens pretty frequently when it is land that has been passed down through the generations. The people may or may not see them but the sasquatch tolerate their presence because they are "habituated" to the family being there.

If it is the latter, that's a good bit harder to accept, and most likely very rare indeed, simply because it would be hard for the two different species to relate to each other enough to find common ground. I'm not saying it couldn't happen since humans can bond with chimps. I just don't think it would be likely unless it was a lone bigfoot that had been on his or her own for quite awhile.

I'm still hoping we can speak to Jodie's question. I know and have worked with some folks who would fall into the category of what you are calling habituators in your OP and I appreciate the balanced way the OP was presented. I would not presume to speak for any of the folks I know, but they don't see themselves as habituators. The term implies a deceptive set of practices intended to get you what you want, a mercenary sort of manipulation if you will.

Instead, I have heard the term co-habitation used to describe the relationship. It's more of an acceptance of the fact that the Bigfoot have not chosen to visit your property as much as you chose to inhabit a house on their property. If the scenarios all sound familiar, maybe that's because they are all dealing with the same situation. Same thing, different place.