Cotter Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 ^well of course that is. but it doesn't take a trail to set up targets with foolish backstops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) As it stands it looks like a bunch of friends camping in the woods and having a good time. Some of the bill is covered by donations and tax deductions something most can't do when they go camping with friends. Its a good excuse to get away from the family and have fun in the woods some guys in the group might want to keep the game going a little longer. It's often *not* a good time, though. There are times when it's good to be with friends, but it's hot (or cold) and dirty and tick-infested and generally uncomfortable and has genuinely dangerous terrain (*multiple* members have sustained serious injury there, some leading to chronic medical issues today). "It's a good excuse to get away from family" is cute, but for many of our members, their time in X consumes *all* of their vacation and personal leave, and not just in the summer during our continuous operations. They go nowhere else. Do nothing else. No Spring Break trips to Mexico. No long weekends out of town. Your interesting fantasy of what this kind of research is like is all well and good, but it's nothing like you think. You honestly have no idea what you're talking about. We are there because that's where the apes are. We are there to accomplish a goal. Everything else is secondary. Edited January 24, 2014 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Its a hobby not a job come on. I homebrew its hard work,i get burned people get injured from broken carboys. I could be spending my time and money on other things. But i enjoy it and like im sure the nawac members enjoy their hobby also. You are asking for donations to support your groups hobby/vacation/camping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) We are a non-profit conservation organization asking for donations to document and protect the North American Wood Ape. I do hope that Bipto has not forgotten about the ignore function. 'Tis a wonderful thing. Edited January 24, 2014 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 How often have you had impartial, third party observers to area X? For example, journalists or scientists? Preferably scientists with no prior bigfoot affinity. Were they able to document anything during visits? Has anyone outside of bigfoot enthusiasts visited and offered objective commentary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Having not forgotten about Ignore myself (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh), I'd just like to say to those who think looking for something that "isn't real" is a lark to try it yourself, for one week of your allotted time off. See how many more you try. Seriously. Unless you take no time off at all and we all know what they say about Jack then, look at your vacation pattern. How often do you go to the same place more than a very limited number of days a year? You'd never do this. Most wouldn't. Including most field scientists. 'nuf sed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I go to my family cottage dozens of times per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 How often have you had impartial, third party observers to area X? For example, journalists or scientists? Preferably scientists with no prior bigfoot affinity. Were they able to document anything during visits? Has anyone outside of bigfoot enthusiasts visited and offered objective commentary? Last year, we had a well-known figure in the field of natural sciences down there. We have had, in the past, others like them. We continue to remain open to bringing others. However, there are very few professionals of any kind beating down our doors without bigfoot "affinity" asking for an invitation. Whenever we bring others down there, the first and most important question is how can they help us attain our goals? We're not interested in eco-tourism or satisfying curiosity. There has to be a benefit to the group and the accomplishment of its objective. There are no benefits for us in answering the demands of "skeptics" so we tend not to bring outright bigfoot denialists along for the trip. Seriously. Unless you take no time off at all and we all know what they say about Jack then, look at your vacation pattern. How often do you go to the same place more than a very limited number of days a year? And it's not just repetition, it's activity. We're not just chillin' and drinking beers with our buds. We're documenting every waking hour, looking for evidence in the surrounding woods, pulling all-nighters in Overwatch (which, all by itself, a kind of torture chamber). What most normal people do while camping doesn't look at all like what we do. Our "vacations" down there often require vacations to recover from. But it doesn't matter what I say. Some will carry their notions and prejudices around regardless. It does nothing but motivate us to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 How often have you had impartial, third party observers to area X? For example, journalists or scientists? Preferably scientists with no prior bigfoot affinity. Were they able to document anything during visits? Has anyone outside of bigfoot enthusiasts visited and offered objective commentary? Why would that be their priority? It's already been clearly stated that the members of NAWAC feel no obligation to provide continual commentary and reassurance to the so-called sceptical view. What possible benefit would that have in any way? To satisfy a few individuals on the BFF? Do research teams routinely take along doubters on their field surveys? I think I'd get a bit cheesed off with that personally! Can't you just wait and see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 ^^ Who said anything about a doubter? I said impartial I believe. If you take some folks opinion here, you will believe that " cutting edge science" is happening down in the Valley of the Wood Apes. This seems to me the type of thing that might attract some attention from some objective observers. Especially if one's goal as a group is that of " ...a non-profit conservation organization asking for donations to document and protect the North American Wood Ape." Seems like a lofty and worthwhile goal. If some unbiased attention were gained then perhaps one might be more successful in the stated objective. It seems counter productive of a donation funded conservancy to maintain a closed door policy to curious observers. How can you drum up interest and funds with that approach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Just from what I've seen from bigfoot skeptics which I think is everything, I can't imagine one thing one of them would add. Objectivity? Least of all. Other than the scientific slant, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 ^^ Again, I never said bigfoot skeptics, I said impartial and unbiased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 ^^ Again, I never said bigfoot skeptics, I said impartial and unbiased. Ok but your assumption is that, because it involves a creature that you think is imaginary, none of the folks there have any objectivity. That would seem to be an odd assumption. Perhaps any impartiality has been challenged by the reality of the experience? Shall there be an endless supply of newbies until someone comes out of Area X with a viewpoint you find acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) Impartial and unbiased people outside of the organization. That would seem to be a decent way to get attention and perhaps more funding to better establish the conservancy and save these wood apes from any undue harm thanks to the protection of the NAWAC. What is wrong with that? Don't you want the wood apes protected? The more attention the conservancy can get could only help it to achieve it's goals and allow us all to hope that the wood apes will receive the proper protection they need. Aside from being shot at by NAWAC that is... But that is understandable as a specimen is required for species confirmation, correct? Though I think a decent biological sample would serve the same purpose and spare the life of an innocent wood ape. It would at least, I think, raise the level of mainstream interest and possibly make lethal collection unnecessary. Would that not be preferable? There was a blood sample at one point, wasn't there? But it got lost or something...? Edited January 24, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted January 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2014 Boy, how to go to anyone in the general public and ask for funding to find a creature that most people think is mythology or fantasy at best? It would seem like a no-brainer why the NAWAC is mostly relying on its own members for support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts