Makes No Sense...

[Guest DWA]

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.

 

First, I think WSA has shown that habituators don't all paint with the same brush.  (NAWAC: habituators.  Goodall/Fossey:  ditto.)

 

And again, I totally respect people who think, as LarryP puts it, that proof is inconsequential in the bigger picture.  The holier-than-thou, hyper-empirical (thanks, WSA!) attitude of the mainstream - significantly aped by the public and the media - has me wondering whether I'd breathe a word to a soul were one of these guys stopping by my back stoop daily for a drumstick.  If you don't want proof, screw you! is what I might think.  Only open minds can accept evidence.

 

If habituators who think like LarryP can't congregate here and share notes without scoffers jumping in to pee in the wine glasses, crap on the tablecloth and turn the site into JREF Lite - sorry, JREF is JREF Lite - well, where can they go?

 

And more than one "boots-on-the-ground researcher" has gotten a Facepalm Award from me; and more than one has less interest in proof than in expanding his knowledge.

 

The proponents are their own worst enemies.  If you don't like how others are doing it, zip lip and do it yourself.

 

But some habituators who don't care what you think might be well ahead of you.  Stranger things have happened.  One might learn to deal with the possibility.  Find/kill/stuff isn't the only way to confirm animals.  But it's a great way to get rid of them.

[Guest]

 

 

 

I am not saying either position is in correct. I would just like to understand the reasoning behind it.

 

• Are people afraid that other entities would try to take advantage of BF?
• Are they worried that they wouldn't have that personal connection anymore?
• Is possible that these folks are just plumb selfish?? And want the experience all to themselves?
• Is it possible that its just all made up and you can't prove something exsist when its all made up? 

I am just trying to understand the rationale behind they stance some folks are choosing....

 

 

I agree with WSA in that there are different types of habituators.  I highlighted the words that made the most sense to me, as far as bullet point 2, I see that as the same as 3.  Most hab stories I hear I disregard.  I've seen the photos that some claim to have gotten, they are no better than your average blobsquatches - and these are from habituators that were willing to share.  They also see a face in every piece of foliage.  And if they are questioned too much they simply say something along the lines of "well, you just cannot understand"  or "good luck with your plans" as we have seen in this thread.  To me that seems smug and arrogant, like the proverbial thumbing your nose saying neiner-neiner-neiner.  Here they have an audience of believers, wanna-believers, as well as skeptics and scofftics - but (nearly) everyone here has a great interest in this subject, and a thirst for more information.  Here these habituators are saying "I've got it!  I have the evidence/proof, and even though I may have more questions than answers, I'm still not going to share more than a story with you!" 

 

If you don't want to or cannot capture more hard evidence, why not allow someone else to try?  Invite one or two people for a week, for a month.  I know, I know... that will violate the trust you have built up with the BF that lives in your neighborhood.  Now I'm rambling, but you are right - it makes no sense - other than they are trolling, plain and simple.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Nod4Eight

[Guest DWA]

Nod4Eight:

 

Agree with you on where I stack habituators - NAWAC a notable exception - in my assessment of evidence.

 

This isn't JREF, and is a better place for it; and habituators who don't care about evidence but who want to share notes with one another should be welcome to do that.  (For example, the "Habituating Bigfoot" thread should be scoffer-free.  By mutual agreement.)

 

But don't come all in-your-face with me, folks, if you don't have proof; because I'll just have to tell you that cotton-candy sales count equally to me as regards my personal take on the topic.

 

You may know.  But I won't until you, or someone else, like, say, a sasquatch, shows me proof.

[Guest]

Just breezing by to renew my stance that proof of bigfoot needn't involve the intentional collection of one.  The holotype for a new species could come from a tooth washed out of a gulley, an unfortunate encounter with a snowplow, or a nosey hound that stumbles upon some recent remains.

 

Also, Ketchum's analysis notwithstanding, the potential remains to pinpoint a new species using molecular techniques applied to a tissue sample, e.g., a clump of hair. This is one potentially easy way for a habituator or "contactee" to contribute to the description of the species without violating the creatures' trust with an annoying photograph or more annoying bullet to the heart.

 

Finally, we might not yet be at a point at which the ICZN would recognize a new species solely from photographic evidence, but that doesn't mean that that standard will never change.  Personally, I might be willing to accept the reality of bigfoot on the strength of photographic evidence, although it's difficult for me to express what would make a photo or video truly convincing.  I can say that the provenance of that evidence would be just as important as what it depicts.

 

Granted, I've described scenarios that seem unlikely, and they might sound frustrating compared to the potential to simply shoot one where people claim them to be, but intentional, lethal collection is not the only path to bigfoot discovery.  If they're really out there, then discovery is inevitable . . .

[Midnight Owl]

I learned very quickly that getting any good evidence out in the field is extremely hard.  If it was easy folks, many of these established organizations would be choc full of stuff!  I have been fortunate to obtain a few things, but it is hard to come by.  Having said that, I have attached a link to a video I shot about two years ago and it is a prime example of just how cautious these subjects can be!  I was on a thickly wooded hill side with three other folks.  It was very remote, not a planned trip and we were in thick cover ourselves making locating us a huge task by another third party.  Through it all, the young Bigfoot knew exactly where we were at a distance of over 100 yards.  He never left the cover of the brush.  I shot over an hour of video at this location to obtain this brief clip, yet we could hear movement down there the whole time!  It was shot freehand without a tripod using a jury rigged telephoto setup, but you can see him none the less through all my shaking.  

 

   

 

[norseman]

Just breezing by to renew my stance that proof of bigfoot needn't involve the intentional collection of one.  The holotype for a new species could come from a tooth washed out of a gulley, an unfortunate encounter with a snowplow, or a nosey hound that stumbles upon some recent remains.

 

Also, Ketchum's analysis notwithstanding, the potential remains to pinpoint a new species using molecular techniques applied to a tissue sample, e.g., a clump of hair. This is one potentially easy way for a habituator or "contactee" to contribute to the description of the species without violating the creatures' trust with an annoying photograph or more annoying bullet to the heart.

 

Finally, we might not yet be at a point at which the ICZN would recognize a new species solely from photographic evidence, but that doesn't mean that that standard will never change.  Personally, I might be willing to accept the reality of bigfoot on the strength of photographic evidence, although it's difficult for me to express what would make a photo or video truly convincing.  I can say that the provenance of that evidence would be just as important as what it depicts.

 

Granted, I've described scenarios that seem unlikely, and they might sound frustrating compared to the potential to simply shoot one where people claim them to be, but intentional, lethal collection is not the only path to bigfoot discovery.  If they're really out there, then discovery is inevitable . . .

 

I'm not a fan of the DNA scenario anymore.......besides if your seeing the dang thing but cannot get a proper hair sample or saliva sample? Why bother? Just shoot it and drag it out. It's the most straight forward approach.

 

And absolutely finding a fresh carcass would be proof, and fossil evidence would be good but still would not prove the existence of the creature in the here and now.

 

But I guess if your dead set against killing one? I suppose your going to continue on trying to collect DNA samples. All I can say is good luck, and I truly mean that.

[Guest DWA]

Just breezing by to renew my stance that proof of bigfoot needn't involve the intentional collection of one.  The holotype for a new species could come from a tooth washed out of a gulley, an unfortunate encounter with a snowplow, or a nosey hound that stumbles upon some recent remains.

 

Also, Ketchum's analysis notwithstanding, the potential remains to pinpoint a new species using molecular techniques applied to a tissue sample, e.g., a clump of hair. This is one potentially easy way for a habituator or "contactee" to contribute to the description of the species without violating the creatures' trust with an annoying photograph or more annoying bullet to the heart.

 

Finally, we might not yet be at a point at which the ICZN would recognize a new species solely from photographic evidence, but that doesn't mean that that standard will never change.  Personally, I might be willing to accept the reality of bigfoot on the strength of photographic evidence, although it's difficult for me to express what would make a photo or video truly convincing.  I can say that the provenance of that evidence would be just as important as what it depicts.

 

Granted, I've described scenarios that seem unlikely, and they might sound frustrating compared to the potential to simply shoot one where people claim them to be, but intentional, lethal collection is not the only path to bigfoot discovery.  If they're really out there, then discovery is inevitable . . .

I don't plus saskeptic too much (and the 'quota' doesn't let me do it in the other way), so I'll do it here.  One, he's right; two...well, it is just rare. 

[Sasfooty]

Nod4Eight's ^ post is a good example of why "you don't get more".

 

 

You may know.  But I won't until you, or someone else, like, say, a sasquatch, shows me proof.

 

There's where you'll get your proof, because nobody else has it.

[sheri]

It took me year's to join a forum because of the ridicule I have gotten just from my family. I have only shared my sighting with one person outside of family. when you are ridiculed it tend's to make you not want to share. I believe these people who are having these experiences on their property, are on here to share with other's who are having the same experience's, and not make believer's out of anyone. Sasfooty, I have to say you have made me laugh so many time's.You have such a witty comeback.   

[Guest]

Nod4Eight's ^ post is a good example of why "you don't get more".

 

 

 

Typical and expected response from habituators.  And I do not see it as a witty comeback, I see it as more in line with the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld.  Since I want more bread I get the "no soup for you!" response. 

 

Midnight Owl - thank you for sharing, that's much more than we get from most.  Ultimately it is very inconclusive video evidence.  Has anyone thought about using something like this to try to collect video evidence?  It is an iphone adapter for a spotting scope that can easily be packed and steadied on a lightweight tripod.

 

 

My above post was not intended to insult.  I just call em how I see em and if you take offense that is not my intention.  That is the main reason I have not participated at all in the Hab thread, I've read most of it, but refrain from commenting.  I'm just saying don't **** on me and call it rain and expect me to believe you.

[Ike]

I learned very quickly that getting any good evidence out in the field is extremely hard.  If it was easy folks, many of these established organizations would be choc full of stuff!  I have been fortunate to obtain a few things, but it is hard to come by.  Having said that, I have attached a link to a video I shot about two years ago and it is a prime example of just how cautious these subjects can be!  I was on a thickly wooded hill side with three other folks.  It was very remote, not a planned trip and we were in thick cover ourselves making locating us a huge task by another third party.  Through it all, the young Bigfoot knew exactly where we were at a distance of over 100 yards.  He never left the cover of the brush.  I shot over an hour of video at this location to obtain this brief clip, yet we could hear movement down there the whole time!  It was shot freehand without a tripod using a jury rigged telephoto setup, but you can see him none the less through all my shaking.  

Not to pick on you specifically, but I think this video is an excellent example of what some on here are critiquing. I see movement of some type, but is there no remote possibility that it is wind, an animal, another human? I'm not saying that it is or isn't, but the last thing I would presume is that it is a BF.

 

People really need to turn a far more critical eye to what they encounter experience. Twenty five years ago I and five other people with me had our own experience...not with a BF, but with five UFOs spotted in the distance. Due to the nature of their erratic movements, the remote location of the sighting, the fact that six of us under no outside influences watched them for two and one half hours, I have struggled in vain to explain what we saw in any other way. They didn't move or behave like conventional aircraft (still waiting a quarter of a century later for technology to appear which moves the same way), they weren't weather balloons, Chinese lanterns, swamp gas, or atmospheric anomalies. They changed colors, went into and backlit clouds, and disappeared simultaneously like someone flipped a switch. I don't question at all that I saw "something" and am very sure of what visual data I took in, but all these years later I still try to find a rational, normal, ordinary way to explain it.

 

My point is that I have over and over again tried to find a "normal" explanation of what I saw before I jump to the conclusion that it was aliens, and to this day I still won't go quite that far. When all of these shadowy and indistinct movements in bushes and trees appear, supposed glowing of eyeshine, and every twig snap at night is attributed directly to BF; any rational person can see how far fetched and possibly delusional that stance is. Naturally, if your position is that BF is the cause of every sight, sound, and smell, you are going to open yourself up to serious questioning if not ridicule.

 

The upshot to gaining credibility is to save the BF explanation as the absolute last resort. After exhausting every other possibility, then you can look at the chance it might be a BF. To do otherwise is, well...I'll let the reader fill in the blank on that one.

[Guest]

Because the experiences are bigger than telling people who will think your nuts. Its like a deep dark secret you have to keep. Not everyone wants to announce BF to the world.

[dmaker]

If I was claiming constant contact in one spot and was not willing to try and furnish any sort of proof or evidence, then I would be prepared for people to justifiably question the truthfulness of my claims or my ability to judge the world around me accurately. When one makes extraordinary claims, and is unwilling to do anything to back them up, then one should expect some disbelief.

[Sasfooty]

Soup Nazi. I LOVE it!!! It's even better than previously being called the Unsinkable Rubber Ducky.

 

You probably wouldn't have gotten the soup either, never mind the bread, if you went in & told the Nazi how crappy his last soup was.

 

My above post was not intended to insult.  I just call em how I see em and if you take offense that is not my intention.

 

Of course it was meant to insult! And that's coming from someone that took offense & called me "smug & arrogant" when I wished somebody else good luck getting evidence if he ever got the chance.

 

 

 

It took me year's to join a forum because of the ridicule I have gotten just from my family. I have only shared my sighting with one person outside of family. when you are ridiculed it tend's to make you not want to share. I believe these people who are having these experiences on their property, are on here to share with other's who are having the same experience's, and not make believer's out of anyone. Sasfooty, I have to say you have made me laugh so many time's.You have such a witty comeback.   

I'm glad you finally joined, Sheri, & hope to hear about your encounter if you ever decide to share it.

[Guest Grifter9931]

It took me year's to join a forum because of the ridicule I have gotten just from my family. I have only shared my sighting with one person outside of family. when you are ridiculed it tend's to make you not want to share. I believe these people who are having these experiences on their property, are on here to share with other's who are having the same experience's, and not make believer's out of anyone. Sasfooty, I have to say you have made me laugh so many time's.You have such a witty comeback.   

 

Hi Sheri, 

 

You will find all sorts on this forum. But you have found a place that you will feel welcomed and people who are in the same predicament as yourself.

You will be able to share and compare the things you have experienced with others who are going through the same type of situations. 

 

Good luck and happy Bf'ing

Just a thought maybe there should be a "Habituators" section???

 

I have no axe to grind with anyone. All I am attempting to do is understand something I observed whilst reading a bunch of threads.

Personally it doesn't make sense to me and my reasoning. But its not the first time and surely won't be the last time that happens

Edited May 30, 2013 by Grifter9931