Guest Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 But the habituators. They have them living right there. Because they're habituators. They have them. They say so. I do not have a habituation scenario going on (just a possible ongoing interactions at a location thankfully far from my home), but here's something to think about...."they have them living right there" is both the exciting thing AND the problem. They are RIGHT THERE.... several hundred pound, potentially dangerous, intelligent predators with unknown intentions who are close by, know your comings and goings and could squash you like a bug if they so chose to do so or damage your property or kill your livestock/pets. So, if you anger them by trying for photos or video... they might just leave OR they might get cranky about it. Someday I hope to move further out and have a few acres on the outskirts of town or in a small outlying town from Eugene... and if they find me out there, you BET I'm putting up motion lights and cameras because I DON'T want them around my home or around my kid! Right now I live in the middle of town and like that just fine (but BIG dogs, chickens and huge gardens/orchards and a small house are my goals within the next 2 years). Should I ever be in that situation, I'll do what I can to get pix for you! It's easy to say "Oh, they are right there, what's the problem with getting some pix?" but I imagine, not so easy when you have to maintain a truce with the darn things in order to keep yourself and your stuff (and them) safe. Co-existing with an angry bigfoot family whom the property owner cannot escape from (because s/he/they live there too) is rather a daunting idea. A better idea might be to toss out suggestions for habituators that might work in this scenario, on how pictures might be taken without the BF knowing, or how to get more evidence without angering or frightening them, or how to get footprints etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Habituators seem to me to be in the best position to collect DNA samples without actually pulling the trigger, by using hair and blood traps and such... The Erickson Project got their videos from habituation sites and Erickson wasn't too happy when he learned that his videos alone won't make a big difference. Basically, no amount of audio, video or photographic evidence will be enough. Exactly. No sea change from any of that. In the end it will probably take Norse/TBRC or the like but they would seem to have an outside chance of beating them to it. In all fairness the TBRC has sent samples in from their habitation site as well as a least one other sample to Oxford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Once there is DNA evidence, then behavioral stories will be more believable and desirable to collect. That's another area where habituators can contribute potentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Many of the comments made about "habituators" sound like sour grapes to me. For that matter, a good part of the negativity in the BF discussion come across as envy. " If it were me, I'd bla bla bla". 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) I don't think any of us are too far off the mark the questioning, as HBs (habituator's) do make some incredible claims. But so do hunters. Whether infrasound/emf zappping, eye shine, tree destruction, stalking, trigger paralysis,....etc by Hunters, or peaceful purposeful interaction, gifting, stick structures, house peeking TV watching, mane braiding BFs..... The apparent physical evidence via hair still an unknown for anyone really, but agree HBs in best position to collect Apparent lack of good video (EP?) still an issue, and a planned blinded setup for a HB seems more promising too So? Not like anyone can direct, or FUND a homeowner on an iffy project.. it has happened..see the net for discussions of the EP project in Kentucky ....from BFRO showing up to EP purchacing, etc....and perhaps that will be both physical evidence and video...recall glass shards on plate. But, let's say it's all a bust on the video end, or not enough....how to get a willing HB to acquire the right equipment and operate consistently and potentially for a long time. They will need beyond just the basic camera (and what would work for us?...there are options, but $$ attach) an ability to recognize the equipment is working properly, take any media and download and review (or have a team member who can..good video computer. software, highspeed internet), and then share effectively (with who and how?) I think it's a good point for discussion...what do you think the pool is of property residents with a visiting BF? Then of that, those willing to reveal? Then of those, ones willing to invest time to discover? Hpw many of those with the expertise and money to do so? If we can identify three such persons, what could we do to help bring something of quality, non injurious to the homeowner or the BFs in doing so, and make a difference to "science?"......now is the time I think, before Sykes has finished his work.... what methods would you suggest?...depends on the person living there, etc.... it's all a case by case basis... it seems in the past knowing a habituation site was a secret and fought over (see again Kentucky project history) .... but I think that is overblown 'unique situation" in that if one believes even the Hunter types of the SE or Tx/Ok....the opportunities on private property to film are great.... So, how can one help...with $20......those Kick Start programs...if backed by an entire BFF forum...might work...if a program was specific..and then of course, choices must be made, and when choices are made without unanimity, dissenters emerge...and so it goes I do think the reasons BFs aren't proven isn't just their skill to evade...but the dismantling among BFers of programs and work..before and after... if we could take away money/fame from any individual.or specific group..? Then even if purposeful disinfo...from the skeptics, well, at least the the divisions would be clearer. p.s. if a forum like BFF created a kick start pool for capital equipment..and then collectively placed it with various forums members over time (and collectively analyzed and distribute?)..with agreement to what? ...(not profit or attach names?)...lol... ahhh, it just all breaks down so quickly unless someone presents a really inclusive plan or has the funding to control,.otherwise we need more Wallys? Edited February 4, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) I believe that all bigfoot habituation claims are false. The only thing we will get from these claims/claimee's are stories and vague images that depict nothing identifiable. Evidence of a myth, has already been shown time and time again. We can prove time and time again who makes the stories up, who makes the footprints, who misidentifies things as bigfoot sign. People do. Edited February 4, 2013 by LWD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 ^ IF and right now it is only if, we ever get DNA studies that confirm the existence of BF with some of that evidence coming from habituation sites, will you admit that you might be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Habituators are not nessesarily out for discovery or having to prove to scoffers or impatient hunters that Bigfoot exsists. The interaction with Sasquatch is a wonderous relationship of discovery between the parties involved only; kind of like an invitation only get togeather. Trust is established after many, many interactions and is hard earned and can be revoked at anytime that established boundaries are comprimised. The value is not in letting the world in on your intimate relationship with BF but the growing understanding of that relationship in itself and relized as that relationship grows. Let me just say, discovery will come in due time and IMHO should not be rushed for personal gain or glory. Any motive that deals with protection should be ONLY for the benifit of the Sasquatch and science can wait. The Sasquatch need zero protection from the habituators who have their motives inline with what benifits their relationship with Sasquatch and nothing else should matter. The relationship is paramont and guarded. Futhermore the insistance of the pro-kill camp with their "put up or shut up" attitude is enough to any true habituator to see the danger and red flags. Enough said; the relationship is paramont and proving anything is a brek in trust which has no chance of a habituator falling for. As far a taking one for a type specimen? Do you know who you are killing? And do you really think that is the scientific course for protection, hardly. Sasquatch and the protection of would be to prohibit those "types" specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Habituators are not nessesarily out for discovery or having to prove to scoffers or impatient hunters that Bigfoot exsists. The interaction with Sasquatch is a wonderous relationship of discovery between the parties involved only; kind of like an invitation only get togeather. Trust is established after many, many interactions and is hard earned and can be revoked at anytime that established boundaries are comprimised. The value is not in letting the world in on your intimate relationship with BF but the growing understanding of that relationship in itself and relized as that relationship grows. Let me just say, discovery will come in due time and IMHO should not be rushed for personal gain or glory. Any motive that deals with protection should be ONLY for the benifit of the Sasquatch and science can wait. The Sasquatch need zero protection from the habituators who have their motives inline with what benifits their relationship with Sasquatch and nothing else should matter. The relationship is paramont and guarded. Futhermore the insistance of the pro-kill camp with their "put up or shut up" attitude is enough to any true habituator to see the danger and red flags. Enough said; the relationship is paramont and proving anything is a brek in trust which has no chance of a habituator falling for. As far a taking one for a type specimen? Do you know who you are killing? And do you really think that is the scientific course for protection, hardly. Sasquatch and the protection of would be to prohibit those "types" specifically. Tried to plus, but am out of plusses for the day!!!!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 ^ Plussed for us both! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Are the vast majority of habituators female? I guess it does make researching a whole lot easier if those lovely big hairy people somehow enjoy hanging around on your property. Much better than camping out in those horrible, scary, uncomfortable woods for weeks at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) I actually don't think the "vast majority" are females, if one looks at published works it might even swing to men. I don't know that habituators feel the woods are scary or uncomfortable. I get the impression many already live in rather remote locations, often sharing their property with domestic animals..and they live there 24/7, not mere weeks. I think many might be more comfortable in the woods than city go-weekend BFers. I have read many more accounts of BFer campers detailing frightening stories of things that go bump, or wood knock, or smell, or breath, or throw pine cones, than habituators, who seem to have an almost ambivalent attitude over time to the BF presence. Edited February 4, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbhunter Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Here is something to ponder. Maybe the "habituators" don't need to provide evidence, they have evidence for themselves. They don't want to provide evidence because they might feel as though they are betraying the BF's trust. From what I know, interaction comes to those who are trustworthy. I will say this, I am friends with a few "habituators". They trusted me to show me pics, video and other things. There could be a few "nuts" out there sure, but there are some out there that are absolutely not. They want them protected and thusly, will not provide anything that could harm or jeopordize them. In fact, they are Extremely protective of them, and for good reason! KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) KB I do think that is the problem (is it a problem? depends on perspective...), even tho I don't own property, that ranch owner invited me on at my will and I took him up on it....and still find I cannot share broadly for fear of just the type of Bfers and hunters I don't trust. to.either produce genuine unbiased data, or even their ultimate goals....it is a problem generally....and...not! It's only a problem for those wanting proof. Edited February 4, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbhunter Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 apehuman, I know EXACTLY what you mean. KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts