Drew Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I take it from your return here, you haven't bagged an ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Boolywooger Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I still haven't gotten a forthright answer out of those of you who think wood apes are human. Have you a) seen one? b ) what did they do and look like that was human? c ) what is your definition of human? d) what are your goals regarding this species? Being identified? Protected? Left alone with no assistance? Ok HM, I'll bite. a) No, no visuals, but very close audio, clear wood knocks, power howls, etc. Visually I have seen eye shine looking in my tent from a distance of 6 feet. I will use the illustration that Mayo mentioned from the TBRC website: http://www.texasbigf...oot-description 1. What other pongid has a hooded nose as is pictured? 2. What other pongid has fleshy lips as is pictured? 3. What other pongid has visible schlera? In addition based upon the audio that was lined earlier in the thread: 1. What other pongid can produce the 'b' sound that was in your audio? 2. What other pongid can produce the 'g' sound that was in your audio? 3. What other pongid can produce the 'k' sound that was in your audio? c) My definition of what makes a human is: 1. Genetics of course and 2. http://en.wikipedia..../Theory_of_mind I believe humans have this and pongids do not. They are self aware, but don't have a theory of mind. For instance: if a chimp knows a pair of sunglasses have been blacked out so that when it puts them on it cannot see, it will not make the leap to realize that if a human with which it wants to interact puts the same sunglasses on they cannot see either. d) I would like them to be recognized as an existing species and if determined to be a relict hominid protected against physical harm. Edited October 9, 2012 by Boolywooger 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I take it from your return here, you haven't bagged an ape. If anyone had, I wouldn't tell you about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 If anyone had, I wouldn't tell you about it. If anyone had, you wouldn't be here to tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 He'd be on the phone with Biscardi querying him on how to run a press conference. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) I agree with what Boolywooger presents as to what a Sasquatch is that separates it from a "wood ape". Assuming they are a hominoidal, which I believe them to be, and not a great Ape as in pongid e.g. a "wood ape" I feel he has outlined things that defy "wood ape" categorization. I'm not clear on the specific vowel utterances but I have heard the chatter and had an up close nocturnal sighting. I interpret the chatter as something more than mimicry but how much more I can not say. I do know that they have a large repertoire of natural mimicry sounds and the ability for one trial learning of cadence and rhythm over the long term (three to six months in one instance). Their persistence in "harassment" in making contact is much more than a common wood ape would present to anyone over time, either a known quantity or an unknown, and this is consistent with the longitudinal history of habituator reports, archival newspaper accounts and the sightings database at large. Whether TBRC is describing one species and Boolywooger and I are describing another remains to be seen (or rather unseen since I believe collecting a specimen will remain elusive and that these fellows need no protection and will outlast us in every respect). As always, JMHO which differs from the "wood ape" camp in many respects, some in interpretation of behavior only, and not so much in morphology I might add. Edited October 9, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I still haven't gotten a forthright answer out of those of you who think wood apes are human. I tend to form opinions based on evidence and physical descriptions, if wood apes are no different than the typical bigfoot, then it doesn't change much for me. Have you a) seen one? Nope. b ) what did they do and look like that was human? I've heard they speak, and have the ability to articulate and produce quantal vowels which is an ability not recognized among other great apes. This goes with decreased prognathism, hooded nose. 1 to 1 ratio of oral to pharyngeal regions of the vocal tract, no elongated canines, and neural functions linked to the FOXP2 gene and it's unique mutations common in modern humans and Neanderthals. c ) what is your definition of human? Genus homo d) what are your goals regarding this species? Identify/ document with DNA, protect with laws. (that won't be hard) Let them be....they are well adapted to many environments and they won't let you help them anyway. Their habitat is renewable, and much of it is conserved or protected for other reasons already. Hairyman, bipto, any other in the TBRC, have you decided on a name for the species if you collect one? How do you feel about poachers coming behind the discovery also attempting to bag one? Are they in for frustrations ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 ...have you decided on a name for the species if you collect one? If we are fortunate enough to be the ones to get one, yes, we have the name we'd choose. How do you feel about poachers coming behind the discovery also attempting to bag one? Once established, there's no reason whatsoever for this animal to be hunted. Assuming they're protected (and I agree, they will be), then anyone poaching them should be punished severely. Are they in for frustrations ? Um, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Once established, there's no reason whatsoever for this animal to be hunted. Bipto - I hope you don't mind me playing the devil's advocate here and ask a question. And, I will preface the question with this - if/when established as a species, I too would want protection for the animal. However.... Let's say you guys end up taking a species. Old Grey. He's over 8 feet tall, heavily muscled - enormous. 10 times stronger than a man. Wouldn't the general public be terrified to go out in the woods knowing these things exist? Most everyone has seen 400 pound Gorillas in the zoo. And this guy is twice the size? I would think people would want to eliminate them for fear of harm. Maybe not, since there is no evidence at all of them harming humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Let's say you guys end up taking a species. Old Grey. He's over 8 feet tall, heavily muscled - enormous. 10 times stronger than a man. 20 - 30 times is a better estimate, based on accounts of BF running up hills. Edited October 9, 2012 by poignant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 If we are fortunate enough to be the ones to get one, yes, we have the name we'd choose. Do you think that can be done without a taxonomist? Would it be premature considering the specimen itself determines genus as part of it's binomial name and clssification? Don't tell me it ends in higginsis or something like that. Once established, there's no reason whatsoever for this animal to be hunted. Assuming they're protected (and I agree, they will be), then anyone poaching them should be punished severely. Suppose someone thinks there's another kind out there, not yet discovered, or doesn't agree with it's name or classification, should they make up a new hypothetical name for it, then go hunting, convinced what is proven is not what they know is out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 9, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted October 9, 2012 The reason there's no evidence of them harming people is because actually, there's no evidence for them full stop. Not saying that if they got proven and accepted by the general public there'd be a flood of proof shown where they had harmed Humans, but bottom line is a lot of the unsolved missing persons cases would have a new something that could be attributed to their going missing. Just saying. I doubt people would be allowed to eliminate them but of course as you well know, Poaching happens. I see no reason to suggest anyone would be successful given the last x amount of years and the lack of any " success " in people looking for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I would think people would want to eliminate them for fear of harm. A distinct possibility and an eventuality that would make our educational outreach more important than ever. Do you think that can be done without a taxonomist? Would it be premature considering the specimen itself determines genus as part of it's binomial name and clssification? I dunno. Not an expert. Don't tell me it ends in higginsis or something like that. Oh. Well... Suppose someone thinks there's another kind out there, not yet discovered, or doesn't agree with it's name or classification, should they make up a new hypothetical name for it, then go hunting, convinced what is proven is not what they know is out there? I say tough cookies to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 20 - 30 times is a better estimate, based on accounts of BF running up hills. I would have to agree with this. Some of the tree breaks that get reported are unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Has it occured to you that that's because some reports are unreal? Edited October 10, 2012 by Bonehead74 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts