Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 The Wood Ape thing just feels like it is in spite of other evidence , observations and perceptions. Except ours. It's like somebody changing their legal name, they do it because they want to hide something. Yeah, if only we had...I don't know...explained our decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 The Wood Ape thing just feels like it is in spite of other evidence , observations and perceptions. 1- I guess I'm just really struggling to understand why anyone really cares so much about a change in SOMEONE ELSE'S name / brand / terminology. 2- As I see it, the "other evidence , observations and perceptions" that ANYONE has accumulated to date has really led to nothing more than a few cable tv show, some books, a few websites, some hoaxes, whole lot of drama, a dubious public and an ardently skeptical scientific community. Net result- "No Resolution" to this mystery. I say BRAVO to the TBRC / NAWAC for actually - as it would appear from the outside looking in anyways- taking real and assertive steps to try to achieve said resolution as opposed to simply proliferating a never ending weekend hobby. They - in my mind- fall into a very small group of various people around the country who actually stand a chance of solving this mystery ...assuming there is anything to actually solve in the first place. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Great post slabdog. Wood Ape sounds like a real animal. "Bigfoot" is so kitschy sounding. "Bigfoot" conjures images of that one solitary mythological creature who spent most of his time making cameo appearances in bad 70's TV shows. I'd venture to guess that most of the folks who disapprove of using the name "Wood Ape" are firmly in the "we think they're people" camp. I say relax, if they turn out to be some kind of hairy person, the term Wood Ape won't stick anyway. I heard a bit of media coverage of the conference where someone was whining that "they wan't to call them a wood ape so they can shoot one". You can call them Santa Claus if you want, it's still going to take a body on a table. If you are so concerned with saving "human" lives, there are certainly more productive ways to do that than campaigning against someone else using a term you don't agree with on a technicality. Thats the hard cold reality of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Not being a member or having any association with this group I have no dog in this hunt, but personally I think it is a good move. Particularly since I think this group is an objective driven one trying to be taken seriously without all the nonsense seen in so many people engaged in the game "woods and wildmen" as the scofftic Kitakaze used to refer to it. Let's be honest with ourselves folks, mention the term "bigfoot" to most people in society at large and the snickers, smirks, and scoffing begins. You bring that word into the discussion and overwhelmingly I can guarantee you, your credibility will go down. I've seen it happen personally and I know every one of you enthusiasts out there have too. I'm not saying that amongst fellow enthusiasts that it has a detrimental effect because it is such a part of enthusiast vernacular, but outside of that circle it most certainly does. Seems to me the (formerly) TBRC would like to get away from the stigma that term brings, so at least they can get a bit of a fairer shake at the onset of any discussions with those who are outside the circle of enthusiasts before the eyes start rolling. Proud as you may be of it, if you come swooping in with "Bigfoot Hunter" claims, shirts and hats, bumper stickers and signs on vehicles, your credibility is shot from the get go without even opening your mouth. Try to defend it if you will, but those are the facts. There's a lot of bad baggage attached to that term and if the study wishes to advance in a serious fashion, the less baggage the better. To be honest, wood ape sounds a bit wonky to me as well. Does forest ape sound any better? I don't know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest txbigfoot52 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I wonder if joining Meldrum in calling it a relict hominoid would work better or would it be too humany? The Wood Ape thing just feels like it is in spite of other evidence , observations and perceptions. That's a silly thing to say. Anyone comfortable calling them 'wood apes' would be comfortable calling them 'relict hominoids' as well, because all apes are hominoids. Do you know what the term 'relict hominoid' denotes? Relict - An organism or species of an earlier time surviving in an environment that has undergone considerable change. Hominoid - Of or belonging to the superfamily Hominoidea, which includes apes and humans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I've heard folks refer to them as Reclusive Forest Primates (RFP's). Always liked that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Given what the culture has done to "bigfoot," and given the regional nature of "sasquatch" - never mind the possibility that there might be multiple species of these animals in the first place - I see why they did it, and I'm good with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 A rose by any other name, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I kind of like forest giants myself, but for some reason that name has a sort of stigma attached to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I wonder if joining Meldrum in calling it a relict hominoid would work better or would it be too humany? The Wood Ape thing just feels like it is in spite of other evidence , observations and perceptions. That's a silly thing to say. Anyone comfortable calling them 'wood apes' would be comfortable calling them 'relict hominoids' as well, because all apes are hominoids. Do you know what the term 'relict hominoid' denotes? Relict - An organism or species of an earlier time surviving in an environment that has undergone considerable change. Hominoid - Of or belonging to the superfamily Hominoidea, which includes apes and humans. Of coarse I know what it means, which is why it would be a fit for the group and bigfoot, but since this group attempts to remove any perception of any human quality in bigfoot, the fact the term includes humans, I had to ask if it was too humany. So it's only silly, if you object to it. The descrptor "wood ape" actually doesn't fit all the TBRC's observations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Ape Appellations: http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/228-apeappellations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 The Wood Ape thing just feels like it is in spite of other evidence , observations and perceptions. 1- I guess I'm just really struggling to understand why anyone really cares so much about a change in SOMEONE ELSE'S name / brand / terminology. 2- As I see it, the "other evidence , observations and perceptions" that ANYONE has accumulated to date has really led to nothing more than a few cable tv show, some books, a few websites, some hoaxes, whole lot of drama, a dubious public and an ardently skeptical scientific community. Net result- "No Resolution" to this mystery. I say BRAVO to the TBRC / NAWAC for actually - as it would appear from the outside looking in anyways- taking real and assertive steps to try to achieve said resolution as opposed to simply proliferating a never ending weekend hobby. They - in my mind- fall into a very small group of various people around the country who actually stand a chance of solving this mystery ...assuming there is anything to isactually solve in the first place. The biggest single piece of evidence that I can point to that bigfoot skeptics just flat don't pay attention is their presumption that all proponents have the same thesis. There are more schisms in bigfootery than in the whole history of that-topic-we-don't-discuss-here-and-good-for-that. What really makes me chuckle is all the attention proponent groups pay to other proponent groups, rather than to confirming whatever the heck they think it is! Could you kind of focus on that? Wow. Onward NAWAC. "Wood ape" is actually closest to what the bulk of the evidence seems to be saying. (Feet big? Not really so much. Sasquatch? A local name, really, that may not describe all the higher primates we might have here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I have to wonder how long after Bigfoot, or one of the other 14 names given for the same thing are proven to exist, will it take to prove a "Wood Ape" exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Huh? I have always had a high degree of respect for you and yours contributions in the Bigfoot arena, so I mean no disrespect. What I was saying is we already have many names to describe the same thing, a Sasquatch, so in my view the name dilatation is just semantics. I thought it obvious I was just poking a little fun at the idea, as to say when SSq is accepted and proven how long will we have to wait until the Wood Ape is also proven. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts