Makes No Sense...

[Guest Grifter9931]

Well, good question that only a habituator can answer.

I don't know what you say about folks who don't want or need to supply proof. I don't think that habituators gathering on bigfoot sites to compare notes should be harassed by skeptics. This should be a safe haven for them. Let skeptics go elsewhere if they don't like it.

Doesn't bother me and shouldn't bother anybody. I draw my personal line at people selling habituation accounts for money that don't have proof in them. But again that's just me.

 

I completely agree. However if you jump onto a forum board and post these encounters as an weekly occurrence then you should have some skeptics. If you keep it to your self or between the folks of the same ilk. Then if someone is badgering or harassing, that person/s should not be able to do that. 

I have a few friends who are from all over the world. And some of the tales they tell are incredible. 

• 60ft snake from south america (The Yacumama)
• 35ft Croc in Australia
• J'ba Fofi 6ft spider

All have seen them in person. They all have same attitude towards these animals... Fear

[Ike]

>>Having said that I would also point to our history of how we have treated our own known to be human brothers and sisters, like for instance the native Americans, and I will leave it at that ...Im sure we each can each draw together a huge list here. So what would the history be if it was shown that these things are not in such small numbers as many believe and that they in fact are just about everywhere and have been all along...<<

 

I've heard this bandied around as an excuse to "protect" BF/forest people before. So exactly when was the last time in North America that we set out to systematically kill an entire ethnic group or for that matter, an entire species of animal? Ten years ago? Twenty? Fifty? One hundred? Last I knew, our modern culture has bent over backwards to insure this doesn't happen. Can anyone say "spotted owl?"

[Guest]

Habituators don't take pics because Squatches use their Squatchy senses to be able to tell that an evil human has a device that can capture their soul, and prove existence. They don't want the circle of trust broken. I'm not sure why habituators all seem to be alike. They throw enough out there to garner attention, then pull back, and act appalled that people are preposterous enough to ask for proof of their campfire stories. If anybody wants to see it for themselves, check out Team Squatchin' USA, or whatever they call themselves. Every stick in the woods is from a 'Forest Person', every hit bait pile was from their friend, Chuey the Sasquatch, and every bump in the night is a signal to the habituators that they are aware of their presence.

For every good, objective boots on the ground researcher, there is a habituator who sets research back. It's a shame, really.

[Guest Grifter9931]

Wasn't the middle class a species at some point???

But PacNW that's a very interesting observation about attitudes of habituators....

[GuyInIndiana]

Why not get the proof and start a movement that should be a positive step for this creature that folks seem to being so infatuated with???

 

It's quite possible that once you 'know' they exist, you also understand that they don't really *need* humans to protect them. Hence, no need to prove it to anyone. As a researcher, I'm not personally interested in proving it to anyone: only to understand them better, myself.

Something about that statement is just wrong... Maybe its worded wrong.

Or maybe I am interpreting it incorrectly. It comes of as kind of selfish and elitist.

I don't know, you think people would want to share in something so amazing...

 

I find the mindset abhorrent. But I also know that it is a very common mindset.........even with researchers you watch on TV. And it's a giant hurdle with proving the existence of the species. Because the majority of the people out there looking? Have no interest in proving the animal exists.

Just because someone doesn't share your "end-goal" doesn't make their mindset abhorrent. It means they have a different objective than you. It's really pretty simple and doesn't need over thought.

[norseman]

 

 

 

 

No. It has a different objective than a scientific one.

 

I'm not saying that this mindset makes people bad people, I have friends with this mindset. But it's an illogical, non scientific mindset none the less.

 

And to be fair, many feel my mindset is as equally as abhorrent.

Edited May 30, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

I agree with Old Dog

[southernyahoo]

 

Why not get the proof and start a movement that should be a positive step for this creature that folks seem to being so infatuated with???

 

I'm less certain now than I was when I began this journey last August that proof would be a positive step.  

 

I don't think public acknowledgement would make them safer, because I don't think they are "animals" that need protection - they are some sort of primitive ape-like people that have their own needs.  We just don't have a frame of reference for what they are and how we should treat them.  Our history with minority human tribes is genocidal... not the best track record.  Public acknowledgement would bring trophy hunters of all sorts, scientific experimentation, government abuse and a lot of social upheaval as people fight about what and who they are.  I don't think that would be good for them OR for humans.  They do just fine as a "myth" and don't need our protection per se, just to be left alone for the most part, except for when THEY choose to interact with us.  

 

However, I would LOVE to know exactly what they are genetically.  I find that utterly fascinating!!!

 

 

 I may be a little less concerned about them being hunted, but couldn't say the rest much better. If there ever came a point where they could be safely and reliably studied to any degree, I can see that they would have to be treated as humans first, then let them prove themselves not to be. It would be an atrocious act to take a type specimen first only to find out they are a type of human. Talk about the epitomy of nonpolitical correctness in this day and age.

[Guest]

Southernyahoo said: 

 

"I can see that they would have to be treated as humans first, then let them prove themselves not to be."

 

Question, why wouldn't you just let them be what they are - and then as time goes on work on figuring out where they fall in the evolutionary line? Observation alone will not decide IF they are "human" or not. 

[southernyahoo]

^ Well I'm not one to practice certaintly based on an observation, especially not just one observation, So I feel I am letting them be what they are by what I see in the evidence. The point would be that if there is uncertainty, which I have good grounds to be, then erroring on the side of caution is warranted. My decision to be non-prokill is not because I don't have the stomach for it, it's because I see too many human elements in the evidence, for if we can say that no video would be proof, it's because we can't distinguish a giant hirsuted man from a man in a suit. This should not be the case if they are certainly not human or genus homo.

[Guest]

Southernyahoo said: 

 

Well I'm not one to practice certaintly based on an observation, especially not just one observation, So I feel I am letting them be what they are by what I see in the evidence.

 

So, you're going on a preconceived idea of what these animals are - based on what you know now? I'm not saying that's wrong, but are you willing to change that opinion if you see different? I personally see problems when we enter into something with a personal bias one way or the other - based on what we "think" is the case. Not saying you are. 

 

The point would be that if there is uncertainty, which I have good grounds to be, then erroring on the side of caution is warranted.

 

What's the side of caution? That they are human? 

 

My decision to be non-prokill is not because I don't have the stomach for it, it's because I see too many human elements in the evidence, for if we can say that no video would be proof, it's because we can't distinguish a giant hirsuted man from a man in a suit. This should not be the case if they are certainly not human or genus homo.

 

I'm not pro-kill either - although I understand the need for a specimen. But, I didn't ask about that - so it's all good.  

[Guest DWA]

One thing that kind of bugs me in this whole discussion is what appears the tendency to put humans at some kind of pinnacle of evolution.  We're not.  (I think Ma Nature has major second thoughts about this experiment every day.)

 

The evidence sure doesn't say "human" to me.  Every such assessment I have seen is backed up by stuff that doesn't change my mind.  We don't give animals enough credit for being what they are.  A lot lighter on the planet, for one thing. 

 

I'd rather not kill a specimen; but I don't get up on any moral high horse about it.  It's just not, from a scientific standpoint, necessary, even if scientists refuse to see that.

[WSA]

Not all habituators are alike, I've come to see.

 

For instance, what is the NWAC doing in Area X, if not an habituation? Their stated objective is, yes, to take a type specimen, but in the meahwhile they are trying to gather as much evidence and non-kill proof as they can. Meahwhile, they are having a series of interactions over long periods...documented to a high degree. But, very few (them included) are accepting that documentation as proof, as far as I know. Still, they are trying. Could another habituator do any better?

 

Over on another habituation thread we have a group parsing some video evidence, showing a high degree of interest in getting some substantiation of what happened to one habituator.

 

So, I think painting all habituators as proof-averse is probably not borne out by things we see here on a regular basis. 

[Guest LarryP]

Habituators don't take pics because Squatches use their Squatchy senses to be able to tell that an evil human has a device that can capture their soul, and prove existence. They don't want the circle of trust broken. I'm not sure why habituators all seem to be alike. They throw enough out there to garner attention, then pull back, and act appalled that people are preposterous enough to ask for proof of their campfire stories. If anybody wants to see it for themselves, check out Team Squatchin' USA, or whatever they call themselves. Every stick in the woods is from a 'Forest Person', every hit bait pile was from their friend, Chuey the Sasquatch, and every bump in the night is a signal to the habituators that they are aware of their presence.

For every good, objective boots on the ground researcher, there is a habituator who sets research back. It's a shame, really.

 

If your research involves cameras or thermal imaging devices then you've severely hindered your ability to do research before you ever got started.

 

It's also important to note that most so called "habituators" are really just what I call "Contactees". If anything they are the ones who are being habituated (or acclimated) by BF.

 

When it happenned to me it was completely out of the blue. As anything even remotely relating to BF was the furthest thing from my mind.

 

But now I know without question that when they want to get your attention, they really know how to get your attention.

 

And I understand why not providing proof makes no sense to someone looking from the outside in. All I can say is that in my case it didn't take me very long to understand why proving this to people was inconsequential to the bigger picture. 

[southernyahoo]

Very intellectually honest WSA.. Plussed. 

So, you're going on a preconceived idea of what these animals are - based on what you know now? I'm not saying that's wrong, but are you willing to change that opinion if you see different? I personally see problems when we enter into something with a personal bias one way or the other - based on what we "think" is the case. Not saying you are. 

No it's conceived after looking at the evidence, of-coarse you could say that I've been on this path for some time, but it might only take one experience or piece of evidence to turn me around on the issue. The specific sounds I hear in some vocalizations even the less human ones still hint at human. The tracks are nearly self explanatory, and I don't necessarily dismiss the midtarsal break in some. The human charachteristics in hairs with no cut ends, a lack of non-human ape DNA from biological samples, the similarity to human biomechanics in videos all plays a part in my perception of bigfoot, which has only been strengthened over time so far.

 

What's the side of caution? That they are human?

Yep, genus homo until something proves otherwise. Definitively non-human and unknown ape mtDNA would go a long way, so maybe Sykes can get me off this unscientific (as some would call it) position of mine.