N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Sunflower]

They have hair, not fur and we don't believe they shed.  However, any being with hair loses some every day.  Just look at your hairbrush.  They hang around water in the summer like you and I at the pool in order to cool off.  Humans body temperature can go down considerably if you are sitting in just a small amount of water.

 

Good luck on your dog chasing them........most tracking dogs won't follow and seem very upset when they get a whiff.

[Guest Stan Norton]

One thing I've always been interested by: have any NAWAC members ever managed to get a look at a wood ape through binoculars? As a lifelong birder I generally tend to have a pair of decent bins round my neck whenever out in the field which, in an involuntary movement, are up at my eyes at the first sign of a flash in the undergrowth. But also having birded in some dense rainforest habitats, I know how tricky it can be to see clearly. Has there been an instance where a team member has had time and/or the wherewithal to take a look through optics, even if for a split second?

 

Or if not, there must be some nice bird species about in the Ouachitas! Anything special seen?!

[Incorrigible1]

As a birder and naturalist (and hunter, they all go together), great question, Stan.

[Guest]

Excellent example. I have said repeatedly that we've found tracks. I've even posted pictures/videos of one or more of them, if I recall. I've also said repeatedly that the terrain is not suited to recording tracks so they're rare. You said, "I must confess that I haven't followed this thread closely for quite a while." So you're another one of those who swoop in, ask an already answered question, are displeased with my response, and assume I'm not willing to suffer "skeptics." Tell me what percentage of your life you would dedicate to answering questions you've already answered a six times. How much answering questions you've answered a dozen times? Two dozen times? 

 

Bottom line, a track wouldn't prove anything to a "skeptic." They never have. That's why we don't bother casting them when we find them anymore. Track finds are, when trying to use them to sway "skeptics," a lose-lose scenario. I don't need to waste time having conversations about them. That's not my purpose for participating on this forum.

Bipto,

I followed this thread for quite a while and only abandoned it when I realized the purpose of it was not conducive to an open dialog on the NAWAC’s narrative about “wood ape†activity in Area X, Oklahoma. Instead, the thread is basically for those wanting to hear about your adventures and ask questions, and not for ones challenging the reality of such adventures. This is fine, and I understand.

However, if you had taken the time to reread your post before hitting the send button, you would have realized how evasive your reply is as it relates to my previous post. Last year, when I was following along, I noticed that the spring operations by NAWAC in Area X were met with heavy rains. Such a soaking would have optimized the condition for track lays. Any field researcher would have taken advantage of such conditions and scoured the area for ape tracks and track ways. Given that miles of dirt road dissects Area X, the road would have been a good place to start looking for an extended track way, one that could give you possible details about individuals, direction of travel, return direction that might clue you to where the apes are currently habituating, etc.

Even though I doubt you have wood apes in Area X, I can “suspend disbelief†for a while and do the “what ifs.†What if you found a great extended track way? Also, the skeptic in me knew that such wet conditions should give you tracks somewhere and that the absence of tracks, like the absence of trail cam documentation, is suggestive of a no-ape narrative (although not definitive.)

I asked the question last year. Did NAWAC find any tracks given the passing of heavy rains? You didn’t answer the question. Instead of answering the question, you made some comment about tracks not proving the existence of wood apes. Then when I posted that fake tracks might prove something, your sarcasm erupted in a “here’s a skeptic’s ‘critical thinking†type of reply. Nowhere in all of this did you simply answer my question.

Given the opportunity to now answer my question, you instead reverted to evasion. I didn’t ask about previous track finds. I inquired about finding tracks in the optimal conditions after the recent spring rains. I didn’t repeat the question again and again. I didn’t ask you a question that you could not answer. I did not ask a question that you had answered 6, 12, or 24 times . I did not ask a question that would have relied solely on your word. In short, I did not ask the kind of question that you insist is the skeptic’s MO here. Still, you did not answer. I do not think this is an isolated example.

Let’s move on and consider your argument (not answer) stated above: “Bottom line, a track wouldn’t prove anything to a ‘skeptic.’ They never have. That’s why we don’t bother casting them when we find them anymore.†This is why, you say, you do not discuss tracks here; it serves no purpose.

This whole line is an outlandish non sequitur. Since when have you been concerned with proving anything to a skeptic? Are skeptic’s really the reason NAWAC doesn’t bother casting tracks anymore? Really?

As an American Great Ape field researcher, you should know that tracks are the only real tangible evidence we have for the existence of Bigfoot. You must know that tracks have always taken precedence over sighting stories in importance as evidence to researchers. You must know that the scientists Krantz and Meldrum first became convinced that Bigfoot exist because of individual tracks they examined. You must know all this.

You must know all this, a yet you want to put the blame on the skeptic for the fact that NAWAC has stopped documenting tracks. Incredible. Did you ever stop to think what a great track way, found criss-crossing a wet, muddy country road, would do for your relationship with Meldrum, for instance. Can you imagine how excited he would be, and others too, upon seeing a replay of Blue Mountain Road, circa the 60s? They would flock to your side and endorse unequivocally the efforts of NAWAC in Area X.

Instead, you “don’t bother†with tracks anymore. Because of skeptics.

Before I close, I’ll ask again. Did NAWAC find tracks around and about during or after the rainy spring last year? Were they documented in any way? Did NAWAC bother even to look? Let it be noted: this is the third request for an answer to this question. You have not answered it yet.

BTW, These are the kinds of discussion I would like to have, but such discussions just don’t seem to fit on this thread

[Guest]

I've never implied any such thing. You can ask questions, but that's not what's happening here. A question gets asked, the answer is considered to be inadequate by those skeptical of the endeavors, and the speculations of hoaxing and being hoaxed start. And they continue regardless of the fact they've already been answered.

 

How is questioning a tax exempt status, or implying it's undeserved, challenging the events in Area X? That seems to be aimed at the member's credibility in an attempt to besmirch their efforts.

 

You'll not imply anything on my behalf, just as you won't continue to badger Bipto about the activities in Area X. It's fine if you don't believe him, but make that case and move on. There's no need for the constant attempts to badger his efforts or to question his motives, i.e. - tax status. That has nothing to do with the activity. In fact, I'll go on the record to say that it's just an effort to call another member's integrity into question to tarnish their efforts, which is an attempt to antagonize and provoke the member. How this is seen as productive by the skeptical is beyond me, as it accomplishes nothing except to promote antisocial behavior.

 

If the skeptical believe that the creature's existence is an impossibility, why do they see the need to belittle and tarnish those that are searching for proof? To build up their own egos, to make themselves feel better, or to convince themselves that their stance is correct? Possibly, but I believe it's to discredit those that want to find evidence in an effort to make them look foolish in public, or to hinder their efforts by casting doubt on their motives and methods.

 

There, I've put it out there to remove the need to claim I'm implying anything.

See-Te-Cah,

You are very confused. I asked Hairy Man if she thinks we shouldn’t challenge NAWAC’s narrative about Area X at BFF, “as See-Te-Cah seems to be implying.†You ignored the “seems†qualifier and wrote, “I’ve never implied any such thing.†But then you write: “you won’t continue to badger Bipto about the activities in Area X.†So I take it back. You are not “implying†anything. You’re stating emphatically -- “you won’t continue to badger [read, CHALLENGE] Bipto about the activities in Area X.â€

It’s time to start a new thread and hopefully it will take the stress off this one. Just trying to be helpful.

(BTW. In a previous post I said “there ought to be a place where interested people can go to find skeptical responses to the Area X phenomena,†meaning of coarse a thread here at BFF.

S-T-C, your reply was “I agree completely. Feel free to start a Bigfoot skeptic’s forum to provide such an environment.†In other words, take your skepticism elsewhere. --- And you feel affronted because I made the obvious inference based on your comments!)

[MIB]

BTW, These are the kinds of discussion I would like to have, but such discussions just don’t seem to fit on this thread

 

If you could separate your accusations and innuendo from the questions you might get answers.   The "are you still beating your wife" questions and insisting on only yes or no just doesn't work.   But then ... you don't appear to be seeking answers, you seem to be trying to derail discussion.    With fair success, I have to add.  

 

MIB

[salubrious]

Sheesh! I have no idea what is so hard about this... so here you go:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/46403-activities-and-such-of-the-nawac-a-thread-for-skeptics/?p=823362

[Guest]

As I've said, skepticism isn't the problem. Creating a thread "for skeptics" suggests this thread is specifically not for anyone expressing an skeptical POV. I think this is a step in the wrong direction. 

 

I've seen countless threads opened by members here to discuss various aspects of any number of contentious subjects (Ketchum, Dyer, etc.) only to see them shut down by admins and mods because a thread already existed for that topic (I used to do the very same thing myself back in the day). Now we see a mod doing the exact same thing. And for what reason? Presumably so the rabble rousers and trouble makers who can't play nice here can go over there and make fun of people in this thread? Isn't that what the JREF is for?

 

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. 

Edited March 15, 2014 by bipto

[salubrious]

^^Perhaps I can explain then

 

I think what we will see is that the thread I created will sink rather rapidly, despite skeptics saying that they need exactly such a thing. Funny thing- I suggested that as an option quite a while back, as I see this thread being about the activities of the NAWAC, and it seemed to me that there were a lot of attempts to derail it.  Its not that hard to start a new thread. But no-one did it.

 

The reason why no-one did it is obvious- it really wouldn't do much, because all the action of import is on this thread. Its that simple. But it seemed to me that without the other to demonstrate that simple fact we would continue going around on the subject.

 

I'm new as a moderator and I am sure I have things to learn. But we have forum rules here that apply to all threads, and apparently in a way that the JREF does not. So I don't see it taking the same path. But we shall see.

[Guest DWA]

Bipto: right.  They can have that thread, fine with me.  But I'd have no reason to visit. 

 

That thread is for people who are flat done with the scientific method and prefer catcalling into silence things they're uncomfortable with.

 

It's simple.  If one has no evidence for one's position, continuing and continuing to reiterate it and call into question as deluded or worse anyone who disagrees is called, on the Internet, "trolling."

Edited March 15, 2014 by DWA

[Lake County Bigfooot]

jerrywayne, while not speaking for Bipto, it is my understanding that in regards to providing proof of the existence of the creature the NAWAC has

a specific goal, that being the collection of a specimen.  I agree that it would further validate their endeavor to document the creatures activities along

the way, but in reality time is money.  If they invest their time in searching out track ways of the creatures they know already frequent the location, they

will lose valuable time and energy and resources they have devoted to obtaining the ultimate goal.  By bypassing what has already been established

by Green, Da hinden, Jevning, Krantz, Meldrum, Barackman, and others too many to mention...they have opted to devote themselves to the task that

many of that latter group aspired to, namely taking a specimen.  If successful all the other questions will receive ample study as the world of science

breaks forth on the scene to tell us all what we have missed, I for one welcome such a day of illumination as well as the opportunity to speak freely about

the creature without ridicule.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest zenmonkey]

Can we just get on with it now?? I just want to learn about what's going on in my home state. Can we just get back to what bipto and the others have going on now??

[ShadowBorn]

Bipto

Thank you for your reply, I wish your team the best of luck.I do ask that if any thing strange does occur that you may send me a message privately. Like i have said that what ever you do say to me will be told me in confidence. I may even help you in obtaining a specimen.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Staff Advisory:

 

The "Activities And Such Of The NAWAC, A Thread For Skeptics" topic has been removed. Any and all discussion of the NAWAC and their endeavors will be conducted here according to the forum rules. There's no need for another topic on the subject.

 

Thanks,

 

See

[Guest DWA]

JREF is the place for people who have no interest in advancing this field.  Not sure the BFF needs to spawn a mini-JREF.  Sounds to me to run counter to what the BFF is about.

 

Fields advance on evidence in science.

 

Evidence so far giving anyone familiar with the evidence any reason to believe it all points to a false positive:

 

Big fat zero.

 

So far, now.  If anybody comes up with any it would surely be welcome here, as getting to the bottom of this (using evidence) is what the BFF is all about.