Habitchation at BFRO

[pattymac]

Wow seems case closed. Huh guys. But I for one would like to know exactly where you can cite the information from. Abused social out casts and all the rest.

Stories pictures hmmm well lets see those are always deemed to be fake hoaxes and the like. I want to know how come it is that the accuser don't have to come up with hard evidence to back up what they claim. Its always the other way around. For the most part people that habituate won't share with others not because there isn't evidence. Its because its a total waste of time to deal with a closed mind.

[Bill]

I looked at the pictures at the link Pattymac was kind enough to send me. Most were just scenary shots really and to me showed little or nothing to indicate bigfoot presence. I did take a couple that had black blobs and blow them up and if you do that you can easily enough seen it's just a black color to limbs and that there is no creature there.

Now I only looked at that one set in the link I had I didn't go searching for others and some might show more than the ones I looked at. But in that set there is nothing that would in any way cause me to belive she's photographed a bigfoot.

That is NOT to say she has not or will not only that the set of images I viewed show me nothing yet. I'm sure there is a LOT more there than the one thread I read and the few images I saw. I might go back later and look around to see if I can find the rest.

Make no mistake Patty I'm not putting her down or arguing whether she has or has not seen a bigfoot. I'm only addressing the one thread your link took me to and the few photos I viewed from there. I'll need to go back and do more looking for the rest I'm sure is there as I got the impression there were many not just one thread and no doubt lots more images than I saw.

But I am firmly a skeptic for now since I've personally never seen anything I thought was a bigfoot. If I ever have the experience many of you seem to have I guess I'll stop being such a skeptic then. But I am willing to be convinced I just need more proof than I've yet been given.

[Prairie Ghost]

I grow immediately suspicious with people who pull out dozens of photos that are suppose to have bigfoot hiding in them.

I live near some large national and state parks that thousands of people come to every year, and one nearby that several professional photographers visit on a regular basis to take those photos that support their career.  That same park was said by one bigfoot "researcher" to be, "Ground Zero for bigfoot sightings!"

About this "Ground Zero" park.  None of the rangers who work there have ever seen anything that makes them believe in bigfoot.  I know them all, and I have worked there myself.  None of these famous photographers have ever said anything, and they keep going back.  And these people go deep in the wilderness for these wonderful natural photos they take.

So if thousands of people each year take photographs here including some professionals on a regular basis, at a place that someone called "ground zero for bigfoot sightings", then why no photos?  Not even photos of evidence like tree breaks or foot prints.

There are several people out there who are pulling out stacks of photos that they say have bigfoot in them, but all I see are rocks or trees.  One of these people I am sure is borrowing photos from National Geographic & Art Bell, and scanning them in such a way to become out of focus.  I am sure if they look close enough, they can spot the Easter Bunny too!

[Sunflower]

First of all, to all those experts out there, I'd like to say at one time I was a skeptic.  Second, the habituators out there have taken a big risk and if I had bf living on my land, I probably would never tell anyone but another habituator.  Third, it would be a good idea to do some research before spouting off how those habituators were abused and social outcasts.

Now, if you do some research, you might find out that these creatures are curious and intelligent.  We can't dismiss all the sightings and encounters, when policemen and some forest rangers are willing to admit that they've seen something in the woods that shouldn't be there.   I had something in the woods that was unexplainable but at the time I could not figure it out.  As time went on, it became apparent that deer and cougars can't make the noises that we heard and until a creature was actually sighted we had no idea.  We did not chase it, just accepted that it was there.   Lately, because of circumstances I've had the pleasure to get to know a small group of people whom I've come to call friends and will defend them when the need arises.  I am hereby defending them, you know who you are...

As far as the pictures go, well, if you are in the woods and take a picture, after hearing a sound or a shadow that moves, that should stir a suspicion in your mind.  If not, then you may not be paying attention, try again.  Who knows, you might get the next world famous blob?  I, like many other habituators will never share my photos on a forum so closed minded and opinionated anyway, so don't worry, they won't show up here.  The lady in NC has a different opinion and thought she would share, she's had time to rethink that decision, she had no idea how ruthless and cut throat it would get.  But give her time and she will continue doing her own research but because of the "lynch mob" attitude, most on the forums might never know about it.  It's a good thing.....

[jd45]

pattymac, how is it you are able to post your replys in this larger print? My old eyes LOVE IT!!!! Please tell me how you do it, thanx, jd45

[pattymac]

When I go to font size it shows size=10pt I changed that to 11. I hoped no one minds that I changed the size.

[#59]

I thought I had found a place where some of these issues could be discussed without resorting to abusive, obviously uninformed generalities. I seem to have been mistaken.

Saycheese,

I hope you'll consider giving this place a second chance as with it's more open format people with opinions that smell like the north end of a south bound mule do show up from time to time but I do try and keep up with the occasional garbage that has to be put out at the street.

BTW, congrats on the new purchase...it may well become a better website after all.   

[Bill]

I never log out just leave. When I return I'm always logged in. Just use the stay logged in always option. Can't tell ya what might have happened really but can say I've never seen it.

[pattymac]

Well darn I posted a welcome to Shakydo earlier today and its gone. Did I get deleted? I only wanted to say I don't know Shackydo but welcome anyway.

[Ray Ford]

First of all, to all those experts out there, I'd like to say at one time I was a skeptic.  Second, the habituators out there have taken a big risk and if I had bf living on my land, I probably would never tell anyone but another habituator.  Third, it would be a good idea to do some research....

(Some text deleted.  See above post.)

The lady in NC...had no idea how ruthless and cut throat it would get.  But give her time and she will continue doing her own research but because of the "lynch mob" attitude, most on the forums might never know about it.  It's a good thing.....

Sun,

Have you read the things that I have posted in various places about being an expert and about doing research?  If you haven't, my description of an expert is this: a person who knows enough about a subject to know that he doesn't know everything that there is to know about it.  If you haven't, my understanding of research leads me to feel that using the term "research" to describe what most people who are calling themselves "researchers" actually do is a bit pretentious.  As an expert on both bigfeet and research, ACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTION THAT I JUST STATED, I would be/am much more comfortable using the word "investigators"--or just "hunters."

But about research: In a research community, whatever the field, scepticism is the norm.  In fact, scepticism could be said to be a requirement for persons to whom the results of research are presented FOR REVIEW.  And research is worthless if it is not presented for, and can not stand up to, review in the particular research community.  Research results are almost never accepted if the research that produced them can not be REPLICATED--can not be done over by another researcher and the same results obtained.  The design of the research project must also stand up to scrutiny.  The competence and motives of the person doing the study must be considered.

I say that to say this:  If a person is looking for instant, unconsidered acceptance of their "research results" and unconditional affirmation of themselves as a "researcher," in a real research community, they are likely to be disappointed.   

Have you read the thread "Spencer Creek Photos" under "Bigfoot Photos?"  I suggest that you do.  It will give you an example of how a photograph can, and probably should, be examined.  And the image in question there is a level above a blobsquatch--above a photograph with just a blob of dark or of light.  I suggest that you read my "Questionable Photos" post also under "Bigfoot Photos" in which I delineate three levels of bigfoot photos.  I would appreciate any reponse that you have to that.  I also suggest that you read my "Photographic Configurations" post also under "Bigfoot Photos."  And again, I would appreciate any comments that you would want to make.

Most researchers describe peer review as "rigorous," not "ruthless and cut throat."  And they seldom describe their peer reviewers as a "lynch mob."  I have, though, seen people around carrying ropes with funny-looking knots. 

I've just got to find time to read some of those posts by "hibitchators"--and find out what that word means.  I met a person the other day who claims to share his Tootsie Rolls with bigfeet.  He may be one--may be an hibituator, not a bigfoot. 

BTW, thanks for posting and welcome to Bigfootstudy.  I hope to hear more from you.    

[Bullet Maker]

As far as habitation, it seems that certain people claim to have it.  They are almost always female.  They have had a tragic history of being abused by their father or ex-spouse.  They don't have much social life.  Often they are single parents, and I have found that there is also a past history of substance abuse.  Suddenly they are on the internet and claim to know the 'secret' about bigfoot, and more knowledge than the average person.  Bigfoot becomes everything to them, or their Bigfoot Jesus who is the answer to all their problems.  Bigfoot can read their minds, bigfoot only shows himself/herself to that person.  Bigfoot speaks to them, and they see bigfoot everywhere that other people don't.

I don't know anything about the case at the bfro site, but I have come to believe that most cases of habituation are fantasies of people who are social outsiders, failed relationships, sexually repressed and stubstance abusers.

Yes I do believe there is such thing as bigfoot.  But they don't need anything from us, and have no desire to establish social contact with us.

I am sorry if I sounded harsh, but I am getting tired of these habituation cases that never come up with any results or evidence.  They will create a big hoopla, but nothing ever comes out of them.

Shackydo, I have good news for you.  Your learning disabilites can be overcome.  I once had the exact same ones that you have, and you can see how far I have come.  After a lot of work on reading/writing and english, it can be cured.  Good luck to you on that; I know that you can overcome it.

Lot of wisdom there Prairie Ghost, your right in alot of ways.