Guest Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The monkeys?? When and how were they ever catergorized as such?? Scientifically, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Bipto, If I believed Wood Apes (or any apes) are native to Oklahoma, your accounts would be very exciting. However, there does not appear to be any reasons to think that apes do live in wilds of Oklahoma, there being no historical, biological, or paleontological evidence to suggest otherwise. What we do have are testimonies of Bigfoot and/or Wood Ape proponents to the effect that indeed Oklahoma does have a population of anomalous apes. The proponents have seen them, and recently. Now, I want to understand why and how this dichotomy exists. It would be easy to say: "Wood Apes exist because the folks at TBRC have seen them and are saying they know the apes exist." In my view, it would equally easy to say: "The TBRC are being hoaxed and/or overzealous in their interpretations because no apes exist native to Oklahoma." Since you have had your experiences and I was not there, my doubts can't and shouldn't be an equal counterbalance to your experiences. Having said that, wouldn't it advance your case if you and TBRC opened up your Operations to participants who are truly neutral or even skeptical? Shouldn't you be recruiting non-Bigfooters to chronicle your operations? This would be beneficial to your long term goals. If the apes decide to move away (your possible scenario) and your group can't relocate the unit, all we would have in the end are testimonies of believers. This will be enough for fellow believers. But for others, scientists, naturalists, general public, etc., it will be less impressive than if mainstream scientists or hardcore skeptics tell the same story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Suppose who ever comes to chronicle the events at X become knowers and proponents themselves? All you would have is their testimony that they were once skeptical. I don't see that it would change anything for skeptics that remained outside. Their previous hardcore skeptical position wouldn't change the lack of biological, or paleontological evidence. So your still not getting anywhere by sending in more skeptics. There is always somone who believes they are superior in their discernment and second guessing (throwing under the bus) the previous skeptic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Yah, and if it's a real hardheaded skeptic, if there's activity it's "too convenient" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) You need to get a long distance runner. Maybe someone who competes in the 5000m. You then send that person out after one of the beasts. It would be similar to an African Persistance Hunt. The runner has a sidearm, chases one of the apes, when it hides, he chases it some more, over and over, until either the ape gives up, or charges, then the runner pops them with the hand gun at close range. This method has been used for thousands of years to kill animals faster than us. (minus the handgun) Edited November 5, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Ever had an insightful thought, like why that technique was developed on the plains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Because they lived on the plains? You don't think he'd follow that Kudu up a hill? Not to mention that the African Bush can be thicker, and far more treacherous than any forest in North America. Edited November 5, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Mo Farah is looking for a new challenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Can be, but on average for the area they hunt in, isn't... although he can track sign, the key to speed here is keeping it in sight. I can see no flaw in your theory that if you got one out on the prairies, you could probably get a Kenyan to run it down.... but we don't need Kenyans where we have open territory suitable for dirt bikes, ATVs, or horses, in the woods those use trails. Personally, I'd be more inclined to go with these guys... http://youtu.be/1gOLn7RqqLo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 ^^I'd rather go with these guys too.... Really great video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Bipto, If I believed Wood Apes (or any apes) are native to Oklahoma, your accounts would be very exciting. However, there does not appear to be any reasons to think that apes do live in wilds of Oklahoma, there being no historical, biological, or paleontological evidence to suggest otherwise. Not true, there are historical accounts of such in OK. One of the nastier accounts of man-eating came out of OK http://www.network54.com/Forum/61862/thread/1001354386/last-1027853702/THE+LEGEND+OF+SACRED+BABY+MOUNTAIN+By+Dr.+Tuklo+Nashoba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Long range hunting of a more mundane creature. No Father Christmases from Finland unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Mulder is that supposed to be serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Not to mention that the African Bush can be thicker, and far more treacherous than any forest in North America. Um, ever been to Canada? Edited November 6, 2012 by Kerchak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Long range hunting of a more mundane creature. Yes, it would be nice if they were seen in the open more reliably/predictably... before we get the inevitable report of one in a field etc, I'd point out that a skeptic using this to "prove" that they are so very often cavorting in the fields is making a logical error proportionally equivalent to saying that if one Texan is found guilty of a capital crime, we should nuke the state of Texas, because Texans are proven homicidal maniacs..good point Kerchak, I'd say in this "civilised" part I'm in, that unless you randomly strike a road alignment, it would be impractical to traverse a randomly selected 20 mile straight line course without use of a machete, boat, waders and rope...3 seasons out of 4 (well okay if you're an ironman triathlete who is accomplished at free climbing you might try it...) the other season, if the freeze is hard enough, and snow cover suitable, you can snowshoe it more easily, so less requirement for boat or waders. i'd imagine that if you were running down a whitetail, it would mostly avoid the wet and boggy stuff, but it would keep going for dense thorny thickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts