Guest DWA Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) ^^^Illegitimus non carborundum, dude. Bears repeating. Know that most of us have read up on this, and nothing you guys are experiencing comes as a particular surprise. Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I think some people just can't fathom a creature being this difficult to observe or kill. They don't realize that we are dealing with the perfect storm of the animal world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I think some people just can't fathom a creature being this difficult to observe or kill. They don't realize that we are dealing with the perfect storm of the animal world. And there you have it. The foremost reason BF is yet to be discovered. Their intelligence severely underestimated!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) Well, I've always kinda thought it was our intelligence being severely overestimated. I mean, how does anyone think science can confirm anything when no one believes anyone who says they saw one? Edited January 3, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Hunting any animal can be difficult. Hunting an elusive animal versus one that isn't is even harder. Hunting an elusive and very rare animal harder yet. Hunting an elusive, rare, relatively intelligent, massive, and very fast animal in practically jungle-like conditions is probably the hardest hunting you're going to find. Layer on top of that the fact that this animal walks as people do cutting spit second reaction times down by the additional time required to positively ID your target (contrary to the opinion of some, we're not blasting at rustling bushes out there). It's really easy for someone without specific knowledge of the quarry or the environment to ask, "Why don't you just shoot it?" It's really hard for someone to put themselves in the position to fully understand why things aren't that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Put another way: the urban objections show a pretty comprehensive lack of understanding of what's happening on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) Hell, I know hunters who have spent years trying to bag specific types of migratory waterfowl to complete taxidermy collections, even though they see them year after year. I agree with Bipto and DWA here. Far easier said than done. Even the most accomplished hunters in the world will admit that sometimes it is simply a matter of opportunity as opposed to lack of skill or effort. Until opportunity presents itself, all you can do is continue your efforts. There are also jaguars in Texas. Go out this weekend and bag one for us. No need to bag a whole pile of them, just one will do. Chances are that even if you were within range of one, you would never have even known it..........and a jaguar doesn't have the nearly the intellect that these animals apparently have. Jaguars aren't going to imitate other animals, and knock on trees to warn other cats that you are lurking. Even back to the initial hunting apes comment...........I've read that researchers have spent days to weeks trying to locate gorillas in an area where they are known to definitely be living. Until they decide to reveal themselves, they are quite well adapted to remaining unseen, and I wouldn't necessarily cite stealth as any particular evolutionary specialty for Gorillas. Edited January 3, 2013 by Irish73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 And while we're on this hunting tack... OK, you're driving home, you see a red fox. You get home and tell me, expecting, cool, I know they're here, seen one or two...instead I go "really? You must be kidding me. Prove it." Now I'd tell you to go soak your head were it me; but let's say you think: dammit, he doesn't believe me! We go back to where you saw the fox. What do you think are the odds that you will produce piece of evidence one that will convince me you saw a fox? (right up until I smack you upside the head and laugh, didn't you see I was going on with you, ya yutz!?!?) The urban objection that I have the least patience with is the one that goes: thousands of authentic sightings = proof, long ago, which means they aren't real. Real? To whom? To the people who had the sightings? Yes, it's proven, to them. To you? Probably not, right? If no one follows up on sightings, it matters not whether there are millions of these. Proof never happens until science gets interested enough in the evidence to devote full time to confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 There is something wrong with this scenario: large manlike primates in dense jungles, in deepest Africa and darkest Sumatra and Borneo, a world away, requiring great travel, rigorous hiking and survival skills just to find yourself in their proximity, are, and have been, caught and captured, clearly photographed in their habitat, studied endlessly in their home territory, killed, butchered, have become zoo and museum exhibits, have become pets and even movie stars, kept in captivity for mating and research, etc., and yet native, wild Oklahoma Apes are completely exempt from such fates. Is this a great country, or what! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I'd have to go with, great country. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) ... have been, caught and captured, clearly photographed in their habitat, studied endlessly in their home territory, killed, butchered, have become zoo and museum exhibits, have become pets and even movie stars, kept in captivity for mating and research, etc., and yet native, wild Oklahoma Apes are completely exempt from such fates. Is this a great country, or what! It's not the only great country. See also Yeti, Almasty, Yeren, Orang pendek. ETA: How could I forget Yowie!? Edited January 4, 2013 by Oonjerah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 There is something wrong with this scenario: large manlike primates in dense jungles, in deepest Africa and darkest Sumatra and Borneo, a world away, requiring great travel, rigorous hiking and survival skills just to find yourself in their proximity, are, and have been, caught and captured, clearly photographed in their habitat, studied endlessly in their home territory, killed, butchered, have become zoo and museum exhibits, have become pets and even movie stars, kept in captivity for mating and research, etc., and yet native, wild Oklahoma Apes are completely exempt from such fates. Is this a great country, or what! Rigorous survival and hiking skills for who ? Do you think it is looked at as exceptional skills for an African to be able to move and survive where they live ? For Sumatrans ? Shoot I can take one look at shoes and tell with a very high degree of accuracy who will be tripping and falling and making a god awful din right here where I live . Let me ask you . Was it before or after science took the possibility of those apes existing , that all of this capture,kill,study ,etc took place ? How long did people try to get a Panda before it happened ? You know another animal just like the Gorilla that western science said could not exist . Despite what local people "believed" . I know you have heard all this before . I would not feel the need to bring it up again , IF, skeptics would recognize the parallel . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 There is something wrong with this scenario: large manlike primates in dense jungles, in deepest Africa and darkest Sumatra and Borneo, a world away, requiring great travel, rigorous hiking and survival skills just to find yourself in their proximity, are, and have been, caught and captured, clearly photographed in their habitat, studied endlessly in their home territory, killed, butchered, have become zoo and museum exhibits, have become pets and even movie stars, kept in captivity for mating and research, etc., and yet native, wild Oklahoma Apes are completely exempt from such fates.Is this a great country, or what! At the time that Chimpanzees were first documented by the Western scientific establishment, they probably numbered in the millions across Africa. Probably at least hundreds of thousands for Gorillas. Western hunters and researchers also had the advantage of relying on assistance from guides that belonged to (at that time) more primitive human culture that lived practically alongside these animals in many areas, maybe even competing for some of the same food sources. Sasquatch (if in fact they exist) are possibly far more intellectually evolved than other non-human apes. I think it is faulty logic to assume that they do not exist, simply because they have not been officially documented yet by scientific academia. There are many (otherwise very credible) individuals who are sure beyond a doubt that they do exist because they have had clear visual encounters. I would like to point out again, how sparse the evidence for Gigantopithicus was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 A recent show on PBS called Wolves in Wisconsin, broadcast first in 2012, had an interesting segment in it. It discussed how the photographer obtained the footage. Discussed how the wolves were EXTREMELY aware and wary of 'silent' trail cams, and would react to the photographers zoom lens at great distances. It took this photographer 4 years, full time in the field, to obtain 14 minutes, yes 14 minutes of clear footage. This, in an area where a population of wolves was known to exist. A bit of perspective there..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Yes, Cotter, I completely get your point here, but they still got the footage. It took them a while, but they got it. I think Sas is a likely real animal. I also think it would be highly intelligent and highly elusive. I expect it does avoid humans as much as possible. Does it know what cameras are? Game cams? It possibly may know they should avoid them. I just don't get the comparisons that "such and such an animal was really hard to get on film therefore". Maybe so, but they got footage of it in the end. Why? How? Even the most elusive and shy animals in the world have been captured on film. Is it a just a case of persistence with trying to film one of these creatures? (I guess so, given the Operation Persistence name of this thread). In other words, does someone need to spend, say, 4 years full time in the field, to get a few minutes' decent footage of one? Is that even feasible? Or are we saying - "Actually, we know they are here but we may not get ever footage at all because of the nature of the animal"? If this is the case, told to me by people who know these creatures as well as anyone, then that would be difficult for me to accept and maintain my belief. Or, are we saying that we may get decent, irrefutable footage one day - but it will largely be down to luck? Finally, are there any animals in the wild that we know exist, but we don't have any footage of? I have no idea. Best regards, Lee Edited January 4, 2013 by dopelyrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts