N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Guest]

NAWAC takes the official stance that they are dealing with nothing more than a new species of ape in the hills of SE Oklahoma. They claim their wood apes exhibit behavior very similar to chimpanzees and gorillas. I'll suspend my doubts about all of this in order to inquire about the nature of these apes.

While it is true these purported creatures appear to be apes and exhibit ape-like behavior, they also seem to behave in ways very un-apelike. For instance, none of the great apes are nocturnal.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20121101/Humans-and-apes-do-not-bare-the-imprint-of-nocturnal-life-in-their-eye-structures.aspx

Also the purported long "howling" heard and associated with Bigfoot by field researchers is indicative of monkey behavior. Do apes howl? Even NAWAC uses monkey call recordings (Howler monkey) in attempts to bring wood apes closer in (if I remember their adventures in southeast Texas correctly.)

The conclusion I would draw is that these apes are seriously non-typical (and not just unknown) apes.

[Guest]

About like if you put a Howler Monkey, King Kong and Bear Gryllis in a blender  = WoodAPe

Edited March 21, 2014 by GEARMAN

[Guest]

Do they look like the kind of tracks NAWAC has discovered?

 

We aren't presented with too many places where tracks could be recorded with such clarity as those. 

While it is true these purported creatures appear to be apes and exhibit ape-like behavior, they also seem to behave in ways very un-apelike. For instance, none of the great apes are nocturnal.

 

We don't believe they are exclusively nocturnal. I don't have the breakdown of day/night encounters, but we've had enough during the day to make us understand they will be active at all hours of the day. I know that many in the community think bigfoot are nocturnal and there is reason to think, in general, they use the cover of night to stay concealed, but at least in our area, we've found them to be active during the day as well. 

 

Also the purported long "howling" heard and associated with Bigfoot by field researchers is indicative of monkey behavior. Do apes howl? Even NAWAC uses monkey call recordings (Howler monkey) in attempts to bring wood apes closer in (if I remember their adventures in southeast Texas correctly.)

 

They seem to make many kinds of vocalizations. We've experimented with different kinds of primate calls over the years with varying degrees of success. 

 

 

 

The conclusion I would draw is that these apes are seriously non-typical (and not just unknown) apes.

 

Many things about them is atypical when compared to known great apes (location, locomotion, etc.) but, I've found that the more I learn about great apes the more I find parallels between them and their North American cousins. 

[Cotter]

The conclusion I would draw is that these apes are seriously non-typical (and not just unknown) apes.

 

I think that is the conclusion that most everyone draws.  And IMO, it is a correct one.

[Drew]

Do you think the North American apes are a case of recent migration to North America? i.e. crossed the land bridge?

 

Or do you think they came here long before they were apes, and evolved here in North America?

 

i.e. Are they a case of covergant evolution? or was most of their evolving done on the Steppes of Siberia as they journeyed from SE Asia or Africa?

[southernyahoo]

jerrywayne, on 20 Mar 2014 - 7:04 PM, said:

The conclusion I would draw is that these apes are seriously non-typical (and not just unknown) apes.

 

[Guest]

In the winter they may be harder to pick up on FLIR because of the insulating factor holding in some of the heat signature.

 

They would still light up like a Christmas tree in a dark forest.

[bipedalist]

Make that a dark cold forest background. 

[Guest]

Do you think the North American apes are a case of recent migration to North America? i.e. crossed the land bridge?

 

Or do you think they came here long before they were apes, and evolved here in North America?

 

i.e. Are they a case of covergant evolution? or was most of their evolving done on the Steppes of Siberia as they journeyed from SE Asia or Africa?

Interesting questions to ponder.

I'll throw this out for consideration. At least one theorist on Sasquatch lore believes the creatures are not apes at all but are instead anthropoid monkeys. He thinks they migrated up from South America and not from Asia. He notes that some monkeys, such as the spider monkey, have long upward sweeping hair on their heads causing the signature "sagittal crest" look of the classic Bigfoot. The monkey in question would be related to the Mono Grande: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_Grande Or to this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/2012/10/07/de-loys-ape/ The theorist is Gian J. Quasar.

[Guest]

Many things about them is atypical when compared to known great apes (location, locomotion, etc.) but, I've found that the more I learn about great apes the more I find parallels between them and their North American cousins.

Don't you find the Area X apes almost benevolent compared to gorillas and (especially) chimpanzees?

In your view, Bipto, what are the similarities and differences in your organization's experiences in Area X in Oklahoma and the experiences said to occur in much maligned "habituation" locations of, say, Janice Carter or others in Kentucky and elsewhere?

jerrywayne, on 20 Mar 2014 - 7:04 PM, said:

 

Just for you, old friend: http://www.georgiabigfootsociety.com/

[Guest DWA]

Jerry:  since I hate waiting for somebody to answer a question when I have something to say, here's my take on "habituation" scenarios and "habituators."

 

There is no way I can say that is not happening.  How would I know?  I would have to take their word on it.  But "word" is not "proof," and just like a report on the NAWAC website, a "habituation" story - whether or not it is in book form - is only one story.

 

The only reason I take this topic seriously is the weight of the evidence, its volume and its consistency, both factors of which imply many, consistent stories.  Anyone telling me one single story - particularly a story that goes well outside the mainstream of what a huge volume of consistent encounter reports is telling me - I just have to go, well, nice story.  I'm certainly not shelling out buckage to read it, when there are thousands I can read for free.

 

(The books I do buy are books in which scientists discuss the volume and consistency of the overall evidence, in other words, the scientific approaches to the topic.)

 

There's one more thing.  NAWAC appears to be encountering an animal of the kind the reports are describing to me, one difficult to see for long much less photograph or shoot in dense cover that it appears to use well.  Now, humans have habituated darn near everything; there is no reason we could not have habituated sasquatch.  But  habituators are describing situations conspicuously amenable to proof.  Their subjects are apparently conducting long interactions in the open; proof should be easy to obtain.  And if you are gonna publish a book ferpetesake about it, I would expect the proof to be in that book.

 

Otherwise, it's like any story.  Just a story.  And harder to swallow than the vast majority of the ones I have read.

[Guest]

Understand your point of view, but your position is not one that would come from a person with first-hand experience in my view. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^Not my issue.  Their experience is their experience.  It is, unfortunately, not mine, and not adequate for the society at large as ...well, the existence of The Bigfoot Forums has made plenty clear.

[Guest]

DWA,

I agree that habituation sites ought to have proof of the existence of Bigfoot, if what is claimed is in fact occurring. And I would think that NAWAC ought to be further down the proof-road than it is, given their claim of virtual nightly ape visitations.

As to the consistency of sighting reports. I'm curious about this: what if Bigfoot sightings are actually reported more often than the database would suggest? What if a lot of reports are rejected because they fall outside what you and others would consider supporting evidence, that is, the "correct" sighting description of Bigfoot. Do you think such a paring down of the sighting pool to include only those that fit a preconceived idea of Bigfoot would skew the database towards "consistency?" Since I do not operate a website asking for sighting accounts, I do not know how many sightings, if very many at all, are in fact thrown out.

One other question: do you think most people who report seeing a Bigfoot are ignorant about what a Bigfoot is supposed to look like, before they claimed their sighting?

[Guest DWA]

^^^I might say that I might expect NAWAC to have proof by now.  But I also recognize their extremely restrictive rules of engagement and the reasons for them, all good, and that suffices to explain the difficulty to me.  Provided things are as they say they are, which I have no significant reason to doubt.

 

I think that the continuing problem of this science is establishing appropriate search parameters.  Consistency of reportage is one of the most important ways to recognize what searches are worthwhile.  If people were reporting, say, unicorn sightings, and couldn't get anything consistent (horns vary, lengths vary, colors aren't found in nature, looks like a rabbit/horse/loon/duck etc....which, hmmmmmmmmmmmm, sounds something like Nessie sightings, that last one), then I'm not looking.  If every single one is horse, duh, white, one horn, with no additional details to make me think they actually saw an animal but are just parroting from the standard, I'm equally suspicious.

 

What makes sasquatch reports different, to me, is that when taken together they have the feel of authentic wildlife encounters, with all the individual nuance that one would expect from different people, but all the consistency one would expect from those people seeing the same thing.  It strikes one both intellectually and through the "bootsole cred" evident to people who have been outdoors, a lot, consider themselves pretty decent students of human behavior, and know how wildlife encounters tend to go.  I have said that virtually every single conceivable nuance of wildlife encounter is present within the sasquatch reportage.  That is so difficult to concoct that I would rather toss a penny in the leave-one-take-one cup than bet it against a million bucks on a 100% concoction.  My profit will almost certainly be higher helping someone out than tossing the penny on a bet I don't see a reasonable chance I'd win.  Evidence is about the way to bet, not about what is conceivable; and there is no way I could see this being a 100% false positive given what I know.  Is it within the realm of possibility?  Sure.  So is Elvis and **** Jagger and Michael Jackson being the same person.  Bet that?

 

You toss outliers because they give you nothing I'd consider it sane to search on.  Five-foot purple polka-dotted white Bigfeet are taking a back seat to the animal (juveniles, up to six feet; females, up to about seven; males in the seven to nine range, with most between six and one half to 7 feet, with rare ones ten feet or even taller) with color variations similar to those of, say, black bear or gray wolf and otherwise very consistent features and behavior, that the mass of people seem to be seeing.  Remember:  that "preconceived idea" is coming from the reports.

 

I think that once again the template the society holds - based again as it is on sighting reports - is more than enough for anyone seeing a bigfoot to recognize what they're seeing.  As one Canadian put it:  it's like seeing a horse in a field.  It's a horse; you just know it.