Habituation As A Concept.

[Guest fenris]

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...

I suspect the answer lies in the poo myself......

[MagniAesir]

Sigh...

Sigh???

A quote and run that is it?

Please explain why you think a human would not have been caught in a photo,if Sassy did all that stuff.

Or maybe when the op asked for opinions you wished for only ones that agree with yours.

[Guest Cervelo]

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.

Not to derail anything but we(USA) are already there. We've pretty much wiped out the indians for all practical purpose.

[Guest]

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...

"Just apes" does not = not intelligent. Chimpanzees and gorillas are both highly intelligent, even technically sentient it could be argued, but they are still "just apes" (that is, they are not human).

Trust issues with wild animals are indeed a tricky thing. Look at how hard researchers have had to work to engage in habituation research with gorillas and chimps.

That said, I am not at all happy with claims that somehow cameras or other recording devices will "scare them off", and thus should not be deployed by the serious researcher in an attempt to document the species. If gorillas and chimps can be photographed (after much effort and trust building), I don't see why sas could not be.

[Guest Cervelo]

As far as the subject of the thread I have a hard time with any of the habitation examples brought forward in the little time I have been involved with this subject. The concept of I have become their friend and I don't want to see anything bad happen to them I get. I just don't understand why sharing some basic evidence would hurt. I would be thrilled to share with this group and others if I had that experience. The really good stuff yeah save for the big show if that's your thing. IMO to come forward on a fourm make claims and then start with the bs I've seen here is nothing but a way to get attention or some sick way to jerk some people like us (I include myself) around. Don't get me wrong I love watching the circle of pretzel logic get completed after a zillion posts but it always ends in the same place. I won't, I can't or I shouldn't have to. So why come forward at all.

[Guest gershake]

Sigh???

A quote and run that is it?

Please explain why you think a human would not have been caught in a photo,if Sassy did all that stuff.

But that's the point! Sassy has explained it dozens of times (I think dozens is a fair estimate) and in a way that really everyone should have understood it. Yet people STILL misquote her claiming that she said bigfeet were on her property constantly. This is not the case! Bigfeet walk in the forest near her property occasionally. She didn't habituate the bigfeet either, but they were already there when they moved in, moving through the area sometimes. She's also laid down various times that their visits onto her property have become sparser and sparser because they know she knows they are around. She's also explained a few times why she thinks that it's far more likely that a bigfoot will be discovered sleeping somewhere rather than by someone actively looking for them. These are the reasons why I sighed.

Or maybe when the op asked for opinions you wished for only ones that agree with yours.

And maybe you're jumping to insulting conclusions.

Edited November 26, 2010 by gershake

[Guest watch1]

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.

fenris

Just to clear up one thing you stated about Southern researchers, yes there are those who wish to "harvest" one. That is not the standard of Southern belief, as far as I know. Please don't lump all Southerners into the Billy Bob or Bubba with a gun group. There are several groups that are "NO KILL" and that point has caused a lot of division between groups.

Myself and others have been removed from other groups because of our out spoken opinion on the NO-Kill issue.

I and others do not like being placed in the same group that would shoot one of these creatures just to prove they exist.

Thanks,

Mike (watch1)

[indiefoot]

I think that those who have never authored a personal, Bigfoot related, post would have a hard time understanding the sense of entitlement that you run into and how off-putting it can be. It ends up being, you should do this and you should do that and just go there and do this and why didn't you do this.

First, before you tell me what to do, show me how your methods have worked for you. Seems fair.

I take pictures, I use the lessons I learned from people that would be labeled "habituators" to respect boundaries and look to the long haul rather than the short. They taught me that it's easier to run them away than to get as close as you want. So I take my time and take what I'm given and hope that someday they will let me get close enough for a series of decent photographs.

In the mean time people look at my photographs for free and give their opinions for free.

[Guest fenris]

fenris

Just to clear up one thing you stated about Southern researchers, yes there are those who wish to "harvest" one. That is not the standard of Southern belief, as far as I know. Please don't lump all Southerners into the Billy Bob or Bubba with a gun group. There are several groups that are "NO KILL" and that point has caused a lot of division between groups.

Myself and others have been removed from other groups because of our out spoken opinion on the NO-Kill issue.

I and others do not like being placed in the same group that would shoot one of these creatures just to prove they exist.

Thanks,

Mike (watch1)

Sorry Watch, I by no means meant ALL, someone in another thread mentioned an individual whom I think is with the GCBRO which is a better example of what I meant. Sorry if I came across as generalizing.

[MagniAesir]

But that's the point! Sassy has explained it dozens of times (I think dozens is a fair estimate) and in a way that really everyone should have understood it. Yet people STILL misquote her claiming that she said bigfeet were on her property constantly. This is not the case! Bigfeet walk in the forest near her property occasionally. She didn't habituate the bigfeet either, but they were already there when they moved in, moving through the area sometimes. She's also laid down various times that their visits onto her property have become sparser and sparser because they know she knows they are around. She's also explained a few times why she thinks that it's far more likely that a bigfoot will be discovered sleeping somewhere rather than by someone actively looking for them. These are the reasons why I sighed.

And maybe you're jumping to insulting conclusions.

And you are misquoting me.

Where did I say constantly?

You should read my whole post not just parts you don't like.

Vilnoori stated that she thought Sasquatch may be H. erectus or nearly human.

So the simple question is if you had humans doing the same type of activity over the same time frame, using the same methods Sassy supposedly used, do you or do you not think that you would have photos?

Sassy described a bunch of different methods for trying to take those photos, most of which would have worked if her visitors were human

I grew up on a hobby farm, and I have absolutely no question that I would have got photos of humans doing this type of activity.

So this would lead me to believe (assuming the habituation is real);

1) People such as Sassy are really bad at what they are trying to do

or

2) They (sasquatch)are not human or human like

So either add a third alternative or tell me why my you believe number 1 or 2

And maybe you were just jumping to insulting conclusions

Edited November 26, 2010 by MagniAesir

[Guest gershake]

 

So the simple question is if you had humans doing the same type of activity over the same time frame, using the same methods Sassy supposedly used, do you or do you not think that you would have photos?

The simple answer is I think not. 

Sassy described a bunch of different methods for trying to take those photos, most of which would have worked if her visitors were human

How so?

So this would lead me to believe (assuming the habituation is real);

Here we go again with the reason I sighed - this is no habituation! It's sasquatch occasionally walking through the forests around her property.

1) People such as Sassy are really bad at what they are trying to do

or

2) They (sasquatch)are not human or human like

So either add a third alternative or tell me why my you believe number 1 or 2

Alternative 3, and this is how I understand it: The situation the way she described it is just not ideal (to say the least) for obtaining visual evidence.

 

And maybe you were just jumping to insulting conclusions

Where did I insult you?  

[Sasfooty]

I grew up on a hobby farm, and I have absolutely no question that I would have got photos of humans doing this type of activity.

This is an intriguing statement. Do people come to hobby farms & dodge cameras? What possible relevance could growing up on a hobby farm have to getting a picture of an unwilling subject?

So either add a third alternative....

Maybe you are underestimating the intelligence & determination of the subject of your proposed picture.

[Sunflower]

MagniAesir,

A few years ago we (our small group) tried to figure out just how they hide in plain sight. Well it's very easy, dress one of your kids up in red and blue colored clothing. Then ask him/her to try to hide from you in very dense brush and trees during daylight hours. A hobby farm will do. They have to be able to see you but not get caught by your camera. The results are amazing and very telling. Please come back and show us your results.

Now try that with a shadowfolk covered in hair. Hair that seems to have a translucent property in the bright sunlight. It really doesn't look at all like ours. Good luck!

[Huntster]

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.

Indeed, just as eventually a carcass is required for the obvious need for a necropsy to learn about the creatures physiology.

What intrigues me most about what Fenris is referring to is whether or not cohabitation can occur on a long term or repeated basis without it becoming "leaked". More, even if cohabitation is successfully conducted in several places and/or for a long term, and it is done by somebody with enough scientific background/experience to successfully record "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", what good does any of that do unless and until it is released to the appropriate people (and thus the public), thereby proving the existence of the creature?

For example, if I told you all that I've been sleeping with sasquatches for the past decade, and I have all the answers to your questions, but refuse to provide proof of their existence because I think that humanity will treat them poorly, who's going to believe me, and thus, what good does all that information do?

[Sasfooty]

For example, if I told you all that I've been sleeping with sasquatches for the past decade, and I have all the answers to your questions, but refuse to provide proof of their existence because I think that humanity will treat them poorly, who's going to believe me, and thus, what good does all that information do?

Suppose you say that you have been hearing them, & occasionally seeing one, or parts of one for a few years, but lately you have only been hearing & not seeing them at all. You mention that they sometimes come up at night & toss a rock on the roof, whistle, or bump the house, but not often. You also stress over & over that you are not an habituator, you don't sleep or dine with them, & repeated (expensive) efforts to get proof have all failed, & you don't have the answers to all their questions.

Proof is demanded although you have already said that you have no proof. Finally, you show some of the small amount of evidence that you have painstakingly collected. You don't show the best first, because you want to see what the reaction will be. You're probably glad you didn't because you & your evidence are met with contempt & ridicule by almost everybody that sees/hears it. The voices of the few who recognize it for what it is are drowned out by the others.

Then as soon as the uproar dies down a little, the demand for more begins. It is insinuated that you are probably lying, & you are repeatedly told how incompetent & selfish you are because you haven't met your obligation to science & everybody on BFF.

Would you feel like you owed it to anybody to fork over anything else you might have? If you would, you are a lot better person than I am, because I don't have the slightest desire to.