Over at the Alabama Bigfoot site is a remarkable story of feeding and habituation (from Arkansas, not Alabama). It's quite long, so I won't post it here, just a link.

Rare Encounters

I haven't seen this account discussed here (moderator: please forgive me if this has been previously posted here, and I just missed it). What do all of you think of this story?

frankly, I think any habituation claim is remarkable WHEN we see some actual proof.

I don't know about the habituation claim but is interesting that the researcher claims the alleged discovery was made after reearching a series of cattle and pet mutilations. Personally I find that part very interesting!

Very impressive story, if true. And if true, the absolute GUTS of this guy standing there, then slowly walking over, then reaching out and actually handing a bundle of food to a near grown (no longer juvenile) BF absolutely blows me away!!! Make no mistake about it, the physical stature of these creatures 'in the flesh' is terribly intimidating; terrifying, in fact; awesome -- even a 'small' five or six-footer.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this and I'm having a hard time. It would take a very special state of mind to even contemplate such an approach. On one hand I ask myself what would this take? Nerves of steel? How about no nerves and no fear, maybe even no brain; almost psychopathically stupid. The very idea reminds me of people leading their small children right up close to feed the nice wild bears hanging around our national parks. I have a hard time imagining this, but that's just me.

Then, on the other hand, I have to pull back and reassess by reminding myself that their apparent level of elevated intelligence may give one pause to risk such a move. So, in the spirit of the Russian hominologists who regard BF as a slightly sub-human proto-hominid, I guess long term familiarity could produce a workable context for such a handoff.

But then what about having the additional GUTS to stand up to and bluff out the other, bigger, BF hiding in the trees who was not so shy about displaying his disfavour with his smaller buddy's dubious practice of taking the handoff -- not just once but over and over again. Talk about risking getting stomped on big time! Whew! Wish I could see the movie -- actually, I feel like I'm playing the reel in my head right now and I'm getting motion sickness. And I am reminding myself that I've never met a BF I would want to actually shake hands with.

Oooh, don't touch me there!
Dudlow

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog"....

We have a cat that isn't afraid of dogs....he will chase away dogs much larger than he is.

Some folks just aren't afraid of anything.

Well, he had me up until the Sas didn't show up on the camera (and even offered a theory about a supernatural aspect of BF). Once again, a grand story, well written and somewhat believable, but ya' gotta come up with a better excuse for not gettin' a picture than the fact that BF might be able to make himself invisible!

If true, this guy has nerves of steel.

It's a grand story. I hope it's true.

FL_SasDude,
I felt the same way. The "invisible bigfoot" made me question the report.

However, the scenario described (real or not) is something I have pondered many times. I've always felt it to be the ultimate goal (to actually touch one). Pictures, video, DNA, a body, those are all very good persuits and very important to the research. But for me, handing food to one and possibly getting the inadvertant touch would be the most dramatic of all possibilities.

It sure wouldn't prove anything to anyone except me, and that's fine.

JMO, and this story is supposedly from my neck of the woods, I ain't buying it for a second.

Like a wolverine lol

I liked the report. It was very interesting. From past experience, this story does sound plausible to me. Even though I cannot explain the lack of BF being in the photo, I have dealt with the frustration of a similar scenario. And after an extended relationship with the same creatures you do develop a kinship of sorts with them. This smaller BF sounds very much like one we dealt with. A juvenile that is comparable to a human teenager throwing prudence and caution to the wind.


Allen

I am not sure but i believe that this story came right out of the book called "The Creature" If memory serves me right. I remeber reading this before somewhere and i believe that i am right that it did come from this book with a few exceptions.

Why is it these folks who claim habituation NEVER have photographic evidence?

Because BF is invisible to cameras - didn't you read?

Click to view attachment

RayG

LOL!

The witness attempted to photograph the creature with a cell phone by swinging it quickly past his face then back to his side. He tripped the shutter without looking through the view finder. Even though he thought the animal had been standing in front of a particular tree that was on the photograph, the creature was not in the picture. There were numerous large trees in front of him at the time. The witness knows the creatures are flesh and blood. He rightfully included this incident in his report even though it puzzled him that he obviously missed the shot. He was actually trying to explain that he was constantly amazed at the creature's ability to move, appear and hide so quickly. (And anyone who has had close encounters with them is well aware of those abilities.) The witness never stated he actually thought the creature made itself invisible. He was simply being truthful in saying that thought crossed his mind after that puzzling incident. Had he been less than truthful about his occasional thoughts as to how the creature could be so elusive, maybe it would have been more acceptable to you. But it would have been a manipulated report like a political press release.

Having worked around animals, including non-human primates, most of my life, I respect their incredible strength but I do not fear them. If I ever have a Bigfoot encounter, I'll try to interact. If that doesn't work and he turns to leave...I'll jump on his back and hang on!

This witness didn't get his photo, but he didn't mention that silly-assed "habituation" word either. Are you implying he "habituated" the creatures, or that the creatures "habituated" the witness. Either way, its a foolishly used term. I suppose that the folks who live and hunt in the area of this report could say that they "habituated" deer, feral hogs and bear at their game feeders before they shot their butts off, huh?

Now if you are talking about folks in rural areas who have the creatures coming onto their property as part of the creatures foraging paths and taking food from the garbage cans, gardens and fruit trees, I would sure like to know how that meets the definition of "habituation". And, yes, some of those folks do have photos and videos, And good ones. You and others may get to see some of the "good ones" in the future.

And how is that the long-time researchers and members of this forum who have seen these animals more than once as shown on their personal ID don't come in your gun-sights for not having photos to prove it? It just may be they are telling the truth, huh?

Perhaps there was only one time that this guy thought to try and use his cell phone to capture a picture. I'll go with that. But, this supposedly took place over a span of 2 1/2 years, and from reading the report, these interactions were happening frequently. JMHO, but there is no reason that he couldn't have gotten a picture of these creatures if this happened the way he has reported. Did he ever think about having someone else take a picture while he was handing food in a sack to the creature? Did he ever think about just standing there with a camera and actually taking a picture? Oh wait, bigfoot wouldn't come out because he knows what a camera is and he just can't have his picture taken, now can he. Oh wait again, had there been another person around, bigfoot would not have come out for a free meal handed to him in a WalMart bag.

The bigfoot suddenly stopped coming out when the guy had a CONCEALED weapon, but would come out and not get spooked when the clip to this guys gun was left in the truck? The creature knew there was no clip in the gun? Come on people.

He didn't want a photograph "around" that other people might see? But why would he hesitate to try and take another picture when the picture he took with his phone's camera showed only the tree where the creature had been standing with the creature conveniently missing from the picture? Hell, he could have stood there and took pictures all day and it wouldn't have mattered since the creature had already evaded being in the photograph. Tell me, why would the creature(s) care if his picture was taken if his image wouldn't show up in the photo anyway? Surely he was smart enough to know that he couldn't be photographed if he was smart enough to know if the frickin' gun had the clip in or not.



OK, I guess the writer wasn't able to get a picture of the "confirmed small group of large feral primates" either. How convenient.

I guess you could say I'm skeptical of this report, huh?

Sampson, when you have your Bigfoot encounter and try to interact, make sure that you are wearing protection like

Computer glitch, got cut off. Sampson, wear protection like disposable nitrile gloves and a mask over your mouth --- don't spread human flu to Bigfoot.

Lord love a duck!

I know two guys that have bigfoot creatures running around on their respective properties and they will be the first to tell you that you cannot habituate these creatures. If you could, they would have done it a long time ago.

The story is bogus.

The very basics to acknowledge this claim/story/tale are not in place for serious consideration as with numerous other "reports". I can understand the desire for anonymity, however;
There's no general background information on the claimant provided, no copy of his handwritten or typed account provided for review i.e. "First person" report, no audio or video provided of said claimant telling his tale/encounter/whatever............all of this should precede any serious investigation to any claim of an encounter. That is where any investigation starts and this one's not even close. JMPO

Is it just me or does anyone else think they both sound bogus?

RayG

Well Ray, if I hadn't seen them on one occasion, myself, I would think it was bogus, too.

My point is not that these creatures exist, or that they roam around in the woods, my point is that they can't be habituated.

Well, I haven't seen one, and since both stories have failed to produce a bigfoot, I'll chalk them up as bogus for the time being.

RayG

I would too, Ray, if I were you.

I asked you in my post what you believe these animals really are. As I knew you would, you ignored the question. If you actually knew ANYTHING about them you would understand why it is so difficult to find, much less photograph them. If do not know that these creatures are super wary of game cameras and any other mechanical object left in their home territory, you may not be qualified to make any meaningful assessment of the report. These creatures are not dumb animals. As far as woods-smart and intelligence and survival instincts, they are a hell of a lot smarter than you or I, otherwise there would be no controversy about their existence, and we would have an album of Bigfoot photos.

The most asinine and telling question in your post is this one, "Did he ever think about having someone else take a picture while he was handing food in a sack to the creature?" You have got to be kidding, right?

You, and others, continue to berate this report by inserting untruthful information as "quotes" from witness in attempts to justify your ignorance of the subject and the report itself and by expressing passing thoughts of the witness as conclusions or opinions he arrived at during the unusual incidents. That is simply inventing untruths to justify your own ill-founded conclusions about the report. The witness did not state the creature knew there was no clip in the "frickin' gun" (pistol). He did not say that the creature "evaded" the photo. Your entire response is simply based on self-generated misrepresentation in an attempt to have your opinions to reflect knowledge of the subject and the report. It achieved the opposite result.

And the investigators did not say if they obtained photos during their confirmation of the presence of a group of animals in the areas. They may have.

OK, I guess you weren't able to get a pictures of the "confirmed small group of large feral primates" that you surely have encountered on your long and arduous work in the field which resulted in your self-appointed leadership on this forum. How convenient.

And by the way. Since you may have exhausted your supply of opinions about reports from other investigators' data bases, there may be help on the way. And, by golly, they will be in the form of photographic images (actually video), something you and others crave and can understand, but apparently make little effort to obtain. But, you you will have your work cut out for you to discredit this data. Be patient, or go do what you think is so easy to do: video tape or photograph a few of the creatures like these folks did.

Oh boy, this is gonna be fun!

Hey Bradley, I've been patiently waiting for the past 30+ years, I guess another 30 won't hurt. If I live that long. In the meantime, excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for someone who makes grand claims to actually produce.

RayG

Well Bradley, you seem to be close to the action, how about a reply to my PM before it's too late, please. Also, I wish you and your friends luck if what you say is factual about photographs and videos. It sounded like a fairly convincing scenario in large part to me. But, the proof will be in the "processing" as you allude. Best wishes. And, don't take things so personally, I don't think JayleeD is doing anything other than formulating opinion since we have so little facts to deal with here on this forum!

Please explain how providing food in the home territories of any wild creature can be construed as habituating them? Were the hundreds of these creatures that have raided garbage cans, gardens and orchards for generations with no assistance or invitation from the property owners habituated? Or does the residents have to put a collar and rabies tag around their nexks to make it a confirmed "habituation" case. Damn, what an idiotic term for these situations!!!!!!!!!!

Your story is bogus. (That is unless you have video, photographs, fingerprints, their SS #, etc, etc. You know, all that stuff the you require of others who post statement of facts about the creatures.)

Bradley, with all due respect, we have heard this before. Many times, in fact.

Why is it no one ever makes these good photos public?

Bradley,
What exactly is your association to this incident? Are you the investigator, friend of a friend, the one claiming the sighting?

I responded to your mail nearly immediately after I received it. Sorry, I will re-send it.

Bipedalist, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who expresses opinions about anyone's report, as long as they do not bastardize or misrepresent what was actully contained in the report(s). I cannot abide deliberate misrepresentation. It is no different than the classic:"I did not have sex with that woman!" Anyone who does that is in the same damn class as the idiotic Georgia Boys. Every one is entitled to their opinions about any report, but if they have to misrepresent the report to justify their opinions, their opinions are not worth a tinker's damn.

And, if I am not allowed by the mods to express my own opinions about the way others arrive at their conclusions and opinions, so be it.

Understood! My PM box gets sort of full as I'm a packrat, but send her on again.

Did you actually read the report referenced at the beginning of this thread?????? If you have seen one that is more detailed for a period of nearly 2-1/2 years, please post a link.

By the way Bradley, I started this thread awhile back and earlier than this one, they should have been joined together long ago.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=518378

I read it and it's missing all of the elements I cited, for starters. If you can fill in these little tidbits, I'm all ears. Also, since you overlooked my subsequent question, I'll repeat it; How are you connected to this incident, if you don't mind my asking?

There was abundant detailed personal information gathered as to the reputation, credibility, outdoor experiences and truthfulness of the witness by the researchers long before he was interviewed in depth. During the process of gathering that information, a vivid and impressive example of the witness's fearlessness was disclosed.

No investigation or research was initiated in the area of his encounter until confirmation of his activities in the area of the encounters during the time period was obtained. During that initial period the witness, researchers and local residents were able to jointly and separately verify the presence of the creatures in three separate locations adjoining the massive area in which the witness's encounters took place. With those confirmations, the witness was again interviewed in great detail, and that interview was tape recorded. All of the information gathered has been documented and reviewed by qualified investigators. The data is exactly where it should be; in the confidential files of the research group that gathered and evalued it at a sizeable cost of time and money.

It should be noted that this report was not submitted to you or the forum members for evaluation by the witness or by the researchers involved. It, and all the information that you feel should have been submitted along with the actual report, has already been evaluated. The research group is not obligated to supply you with any confidential information from this file, and they have no reason to believe that you would be any more qualified to do a more comprehensive analysis of the data than has already been done.

The reports of the follow-up investigations and field work which were prepared for publication are being withheld due to unusual intrusions onto the private lands surrounding the area. As time permits, those circumstances and events will be posted on the web site from which this report was obtained.

Ah, deja vu all over again!

Hey Jaylee. I feel your frustration!

Umm I think you should read the forum guidelines because this forum is not for serious evaluation of any kind. It is about BF research and debate but that's it. And if you feel that people must not question what anyone posts and simply accept it as fact you came to the wrong forum...

Bolding mine.

Bradley, these bolded areas are the other red flags in this story.

The original report was posted on a forum that is owned and administrated by a gentleman that "took his toys and went home" from this forum, because he couldn't believe that the folks here "didn't believe" that a bigfoot skinned a poor dog. Folks here looked into other possible reasons for the skinned dog besides bigfoot, while his only reasoning was that only a bigfoot could have done it.

The original report was posted on a forum that is chock full of folks that see and hear bigfoot everywhere in the woods. Many of them have been banned from almost every other bigfoot forum on the net.

The original report was posted on a forum that is definitely no-kill, and will ban you if you have any pro-kill, attitudes. Which is the forum owner's perogrative, however the forum is full of posters that tend to cater to the idea that bigfoot is some kind of "mystical", "cuddly teddy bear animal", "almost human", "pancake eating", "English, Choctaw, Cherokee speaking", "Shadow Folk", "Forest People", "Indigenous North American Aboriginal People" "habituated", "climbs up on my garage" creature.

The original reported was posted on a forum that is ram-rodded by a known hoaxer that submitted a photo that he claimed was of a bigfoot that he saw, and was determined to be a photo from "Archeology Magazine". This known hoaxer is the big chief on that forum.

......So, I am just wondering who these "qualified investigators" were, and just what makes them "qualified investigators"?

You still haven't filled in any blanks yet and have chosen to berate those that are scratching their heads at this unsupported story, you must surely understand why you are receiving this level of scrutiny, no?
You're correct that this wasn't submitted for my evaluation because it would have been sent back as incomplete.
I can assure you if I were investigating this claim, all information--including the tall tale, would be withheld until I was prepared to release a final report with FULL supporting evidence and documentation OR to pull the plug on the whole thing and expose the nonsense. You see, REAL Investigators where I do business don't release "teasers" and then claim that the rest of the "evidence" is being kept/hidden/fabricated/eaten by their dog/withheld for future publication...etc.
It's not that this story is different from hundreds or thousands of others, it's more so that you are trying to defend the incident without offering any tangible evidence that a reasonable person would entertain as possibility.

My qualifications?
Over the last 10 years, I've conducted hundreds of interviews with crime suspects,witnesses and victims. I've conducted all levels of Criminal investigation (except extensive Homicide) and Internal Affairs Investigations and I'm POST certified in Interviews and Interrogations which include the areas of statement content analysis, multiple suspect elimination, Kinesics and Proxemics as used in Law Enforcement interviews.



What's wrong with NOW?

Bradley you need to dial your sarcasm down a notch and read the guidelines. You're treading a bit thin.

Bradley, are you claiming that someone else is aware of the incident/sighting and is claim-jumping on private land or gaining access or right-of-way through private land, is the sighting on public or private land or both? Just want some clarification here. What are you afraid of by withholding publication?

To say that they are not dumb animals and can't be "habituated" makes no sense to me. I assure you if they exsist can be outsmarted in one way or another by even the dumbest human. All creatures have one habit, eating, so to say that you cant establish some sort of feeding habit or pattern with an animal or super intellegent beast is wrong. I also think that BF recognizing a trail cam or firearm is bunk, they have no idea what a camera is and what it does. If they recognize a gun that would suggest that they have a form of communication and pass the warning of man and his many different types of firearms down the generations of Bigfeet. It feels funny debating my self because I want it to be true and can visualize the scenario but come on how can it be.

The idea that BF speaks ,and is some sort of supernatural being makes me chuckle everytime I hear it.The best one Ive heard is about a transparent BF.I saw a story about Janice Carter on "Is It Real?-Bigfoot" on Nat Geo.When she said that a BF knocked on her door and asked for some spices.I thought "No wonder some folks think you're half-crazy when you talk about BF" These unsubstantiated habituation BF claims do more harm than good because they make the claimant and BF researchers look like kooks and crackpots.I believe if what you're saying is true,prove it.Photographically,hair samples,dung,any sort of real physical evidence.Otherwise,don't say anything.Better to be thought a fool,than opening your mouth and proving it...

Bingo....I was right, you are Tal Branco. It's against posting guidelines to sign up with a second user name because you can't post under the other one. Have a great day Bradley!


I apologize to the members here, I didn't realize that there was a thread already going on this subject. I've been sick and haven't been here as much as I'd like to have been lately. I'm closing this one, but I will bump the other thread to the top so that you/we can continue this discussion if you care too. Thanks!