Is Habituation A Safety Hazard?

[Guest]

I'm just remembering the Janice Carter / Mary Green habituation stories and how they were raked over the coals as hoaxers, but the current crop of claims seem to get a pass.  Proof was demanded from them via photos or video, but not now.  Why?  I can't count the number of times I read from someone that if they ( Carter/Green) had BF's around that much and that close, surely they could gather the evidence.  And as far as a camera violating their trust, can someone explain to me how they have the concept of what a camera is and what it does.  I think you are attributing way to much critical thinking to them.  If they have the understanding and concept of photography, then they should have the concept for tools, shelter and communication.  Think about it, that is attributing some fairly abstract thought processes to them.  Besides, there are cameras available now that you can't even see or have knowledge of their presence.

Maybe their thoughts lean more towards thinking that the camera may be a weapon.  When humans in the woods bring something up to their face, bad things happen.

[Guest]

They seem to speak English, and in that video, follow commands. They would know what a camra is, and what a gun is and probably what GMO food is. They probably pass this information, or the kids do, to other groups, at least locally. (just a hunch)

 

Apparently, one of thier favorite past times is spying on humans. As they have probably 2-4X better hearing than we do, they can sit outside when TV's are on and listen through the glass. They can certainly listen around campfires. Thier brains are about 1/3 to 1/2 larger than ours. It is certainly conceivable that they gather as much information about us as they can.

 

Sasquatch is a spy. We are the TV (entertainment). The encyclopedia.

[Guest]

I heard no english in that video. I think the whole "they speak human language" thing is almost as far-out and potentially detrimental to proving the existence of Bigfoot as is the "paranormal" theory.

[Guest]

I heard no english in that video. I think the whole "they speak human language" thing is almost as far-out and potentially detrimental to proving the existence of Bigfoot as is the "paranormal" theory.

I would have to listen again, but if one believes that video, the obviously 'speak' English. 'Throw something if you understand'....'can you put a handprint on the car?' I would watch again and listen to what is going on. There is a video out there on Utube with them speaking English. The person recording could not understand, but the BF were clearly laughing at why he didn't answer them, and just kept 'repeating' what they said. He could not understand what he heard until he took it home and listened to it. Its like English with a very thick Chinese (Samari)  sound.

[Guest]

Or maybe they just throw stuff as a natural way of interacting with their environment?

I've heard a few people who theorize that Sasquatch can speak human languages, but no theories as to how they learned it. Language of that definition is a human invention. Either someone at some point managed to teach a group of wild Primates to speak english, and they have not only retained that ability, but spread it throughout their species, across an entire continent, or they somehow were able to observe humans long enough to not only pick up sounds we call words, but affix meaning to them, and learn to use them... and also managed to spread it across a very large continent, across geological and man-made barriers.

 

And let's not forget that this is an animal that, if real, is animal enough to grow 50% larger than a large human, be completely covered in hair, hunt and kill large game with its bare hands, knuckle-walk, and just in general act like a large Ape.

 

I cant help but believe that if Sasquatch is real, it's much, much more Ape than it is human. 

 

I do, however, think that it is quite explainable as to why they may occasionally resemble humans, sonically. I think it's just about universal among the believing community that Sasquatch would be the closest living relative to man. Therefore, it's quite reasonable to think that they would create a similar vocal sound to humans. It's the supposed content of that sound... specifically, the potential for their picking up of human language... that I think is impossible.

 

Think of it this way: it takes human children, what, over two years to be able to communicate with any effectiveness, and another year or two to be able to speak with any definition of fluency, and that's when raised in a human-made environment, surrounded and being constantly bombarded by use of human language. The amount of time and observation that it would take for a non-human to pick up this kind of communication to the point of fluent use of it as a language, merely through vague and likely distant observation, would probably take a longer period of time than one individual's lifespan.

 

I also believe that if Sasquatch was truly man-like to the point of using human language, one of them would have wandered into a 7/11 for a hotdog by now.

Edited May 8, 2013 by ForestTone

[Guest]

Aren't the Sierra Sounds the "standard" of purported Sasquatch communication, or vocalizations? Assuming those are real (big step right, or not?)  and Nelson's take that it is language is correct (another big step) I don't see any reason they couldn't learn human language..(in terms of intelligence) except they may not have the ability to modulate their speech like we do ..into very small sounds..

 

Neanderthal probably could not modulate like we do..and maybe these purported BF vocals are closer to that.  

 

On the other hand, Neanderthal were known to have significant material culture and made very good (and difficult to make) spear points...so our expectation of handed down knowledge thru speech is higher..

 

but, as you point out..BF does not need the material culture of even Neanderthals..so much anyway, although I do believe they use tools, such as stones and plant material..

 

I do feel certain, based on personal experience, their ability to whistle exceeds most humans, although we are good...which pushes me to the genus Homo as no known great ape can whistle so...

 

but still..it seems BF is it's own kind and we will need to adjust our evolutionary ideas...perhaps..

 

The quadrapedal reports I don't find convincing as any kind of marker for locomotion as ape...any agile human does the same if in a mad dash on arising, or even upslope  (kids do naturally)...and the reports all seem to be running away or sneaking upon the witness, or foraging/rooting...they seem to have both forms available, with bi-pedal preferred perhaps, as most sightings comment on the standing and walking...

 

The mid-tarsal break is more akin to Neanderthals....do all BFs have one?  I almost feel that there are more than one species...or at least great variation, perhaps through isolation as homo sapien dominated the planet...

 

 it is a real mystery... and I am not feeling like we will get an answer soon from conventional science, but it is surprising how much is known among those willing to look and listen...

 

 

and to go back to the hazard of this thread...

if BF aren't "just" gorillas in mind, or oragatans...and closer in intelligence to us (that big head! Neanderthal has a bigger head than us too)...what hazards to consider then?

 

Were Neanderthal a hazard to us? Or us to them? Were there some who got along and other's that didn't?

Edited May 8, 2013 by apehuman

[Old Dog]

 

I'm just remembering the Janice Carter / Mary Green habituation stories and how they were raked over the coals as hoaxers, but the current crop of claims seem to get a pass.  Proof was demanded from them via photos or video, but not now.  Why?  I can't count the number of times I read from someone that if they ( Carter/Green) had BF's around that much and that close, surely they could gather the evidence.  And as far as a camera violating their trust, can someone explain to me how they have the concept of what a camera is and what it does.  I think you are attributing way to much critical thinking to them.  If they have the understanding and concept of photography, then they should have the concept for tools, shelter and communication.  Think about it, that is attributing some fairly abstract thought processes to them.  Besides, there are cameras available now that you can't even see or have knowledge of their presence.

Maybe their thoughts lean more towards thinking that the camera may be a weapon.  When humans in the woods bring something up to their face, bad things happen.

 

 

I will refer to this line in my post.

 

 "Besides, there are cameras available now that you can't even see or have knowledge of their presence."

[Old Dog]

 

 

The mid-tarsal break is more akin to Neanderthals....do all BFs have one?  I almost feel that there are more than one species...or at least great variation, perhaps through isolation as homo sapien dominated the planet...

 

 

 

 

 

The Terra Amata footprint suggests that the older H.

ergaster foot skeleton had not yet acquired the distinctive features of the

modern human foot. Instead, this footprint appears to exhibit features of

a flexible midfoot, lacking a fixed longitudinal arch and well-developed ball.

Not until Jinniushan (H. heidlebergensis or H. sapiens) is there any skeletal

evidence implying a fixed arch and demonstrating a robust hallux. Subsequent

evidence from more recent and more plentiful Neanderthal foot skeletons

further demonstrates aspects of the modern human foot, although retaining

a greater degree of overall robusticity and relatively elongated heel segment

and toes (Trinkaus, 1983).

 

Taken from here:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_18_1_meldrum.pdf

 

 

There have been many new advances recently on the level of development of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

[Guest]

If Sasquatch does speak human language, it's probably a lot of cuss words.  Really, what do they hear when we stumble upon them???  Cuss words!  

[Guest BastetsCat]

I have a problem with people feeding and baiting BF. Giving gifts of nonedibles, okay, I can deal with that one. Anything food should be an absolute no. Why? Because leaving food out for a giant in the woods on the off side chance that the giant will find it before anything else does is ridiculous. To many other things live in the woods, camera trap or not. Bears, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc. can develop horrible behaviors from being fed and tend to return to the scene often to see if more food shows up. No matter where you are in the woods, feeding animals endangers everyone that could be in or near that area. In many states it is illegal.

 

Foods like Oranges and Avocado, and Tomatoes are poison to most animals. That does not mean they will not eat it if they find it.

 

I agree with a former post that stated every BF is different. When you get down to nuts and bolts they are not all wired the same way. They can be very aggressive as per the written record. The life you endanger by your folly may not be your own. It could be the kids that hike that same trail, or the neighbors, or some other hapless victim. Or it could be the bear or mountain lion or other animal that was only acting according to nature and eating what was available.

[Guest]

great posts, thanks.  I do, occasionally,  go back to some awesome evolution websites (some are interactive to geologic conditions too..) and try and consider..usually I end up somewhere with erectus in the mix... or flip to boise types...  

 

 

Neanderthal just seems too cultured (and short?) although, it is possible a de-evolution or cultural decay occurred?  Or evolved away?  I have always found the NA lore of "they did not choose our path and we parted ways," an interesting one.

 

 

BastetsCats, many counties outlaw it altogether, some don't tho... and forest regulations can vary too...usually aimed at bating for hunters...  There are some who disagree...like the "bear guy" in Tenn (? or S. Carolina).. but cougar don't like many of the things people offer...bear do tho, so it depends I guess where you are......coyote already know to scavenge when they can....so it's more about the many smaller critters IMO, and for the most part the remain "varmint" in regulations..with open hunting season too...

 

But, as you note importantly feeding BFs (corruption/diet/expectancy) is a serious issue for researchers... has given past home owners some too bold BFs? So I hear... I did not have that problem, but I was camping.  Nor did I have problems with bear...but that area was more remote than many and the bears pretty shy.  But, I can't argue with you about that.  

 

Although, I am not sure I would draw the line there and allow durable goods...either for that same corruption issue or exposure to potential hazards.  But, others feel many BFs are already well past that kind of exposure...I think it depends on where they are...Alaska and have seen few humans? Or Ohio?

 

A year or two ago I felt more certain about some ideas..conventional ideas from other species we have destroyed or studied...... I am less sure today of what is right or wrong...they are really intelligent, more than I think Finding Bigfoot implies and many seem to think... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what I find scary is Texas has over 35,000 Big Cats in private hands, most behind a hurricane chain link fence...  

Edited May 8, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

I have a problem with people feeding and baiting BF. Giving gifts of nonedibles, okay, I can deal with that one. Anything food should be an absolute no. Why? Because leaving food out for a giant in the woods on the off side chance that the giant will find it before anything else does is ridiculous. To many other things live in the woods, camera trap or not. Bears, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc. can develop horrible behaviors from being fed and tend to return to the scene often to see if more food shows up. No matter where you are in the woods, feeding animals endangers everyone that could be in or near that area. In many states it is illegal.

 

Foods like Oranges and Avocado, and Tomatoes are poison to most animals. That does not mean they will not eat it if they find it.

 

 

 

Bastetscat wins the thread. 

[Guest]

I agree with BastetsCat. Habituation of any animal is risky, if not to the animal, to the habituator. 

[Guest JenJen of Oldstones]

 

I have a problem with people feeding and baiting BF. Giving gifts of nonedibles, okay, I can deal with that one. Anything food should be an absolute no. Why? Because leaving food out for a giant in the woods on the off side chance that the giant will find it before anything else does is ridiculous. To many other things live in the woods, camera trap or not. Bears, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, etc. can develop horrible behaviors from being fed and tend to return to the scene often to see if more food shows up. No matter where you are in the woods, feeding animals endangers everyone that could be in or near that area. In many states it is illegal.

 

Foods like Oranges and Avocado, and Tomatoes are poison to most animals. That does not mean they will not eat it if they find it.

 

 

 

Bastetscat wins the thread. 

 

 

Agreed. That was really well put, BC.

[Guest]

Bigfoots would have access to tomatoes in many places, and oranges in Florida, avacados in California, wild onions everywhere. Plus, they are primates, not just 'animals'. So they are more in line with what we eat. This is more of a gifting scenario, not a feeding. The caloric consumption needs of a BF are probably 2-3x what a human needs just to support the huge brain, not to mention the primate strength (10x + human). They are not going to rely on gifting scraps people give them. They steal food out of coolers, unlocked cabins, etc. The only danger I would see is foreign stuff from other countiries, like the giant african snails they found in Texas, that could be an issue.  Plus, in the case where they steal chickens or other livestock, food gifting might be able to compromise and end that type of situation.