N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Guest]

 

Apes mature slower and reproduce at slower rates than Bears. They also care for their young for much longer than a Bear.

 

This. Different animals have different gestation periods and maturity rates. Typically, the smaller the animal, the faster it reproduces (though not always). 

We had the pleasure of being in the field before and during an ice storm in late January, and I was suprised at the hardiness and abundance of the critters in the cold weather. 

 

We have them pretty bad here in Minnesota, too, but at least the little bastards die off in the winter. They're immortal in the Ouachitas. 

If there were giant apes living in the mountains/hills of Oklahoma it would not take a NAWAC to demonstrate that fact. It would have been verified a long time ago. Tired, or not.

 

People have been seeing them there for years and years. Probably for as long as there have been people there. I have seen them. The only thing no one has done (yet) is drag out a dead one to make folks like you satisfied. We're working on that as we speak. 

 

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Consulting Arment's The Historical Bigfoot: Early Reports of Wild Men, Hairy Giants, and Wandering Gorillas in North America, we find the following for SE Oklahoma: 1859, a "strange critter" that Arment says "matched that of a hairy primate" was seen by a hunter in McCurtain County: 1926, a doctor from the Goodwater area reported seeing a "thing" run across the road in front of his Model T; 1926, two hunters saw a "manbeast" who later killed their dog. 

 

That's it.

[Guest DWA]

Well, substantiation can be a squirrely thing when one is perusing historical records.  Or compiling them.  It would seem that Arment missed some.

 

I'd say that the reports you cite are substantiated by the experiences of others since then, including at least one wildlife biologist who is working Area X now.  And, of course, there are others, around the country, enough that by 1871 the New York Times was editorially wondering when this was going to get resolved. 

[Guest asuato]

A good place to start in any discussion of the NAWAC's ongoing field research with Operation Relentless is episode 51 of The Bigfoot Show.

 

Here's a few images of the presumed hickory nut crushing rock and boulder we found earlier in the year.

 

Here's every episode of the BFS in which X and the NAWAC's activities there were discussed (the second half of 38 and all of 39 are the main X episodes from 2012).

 

Here's where you can listen to the presentation I gave at the Texas Bigfoot conference regarding 2011's Operation Endurance.

 

Here's where you can watch the presentation I gave at the Texas Bigfoot conference regarding 2012's Operation Persistence.

 

Here's the NAWAC's published report on Endurance and the Echo Incident.

 

And about a possible wood ape hair we collected and which was subsequently sent to Brian Sykes for analysis.

 

Finally, here are the archived BFF discussions about Operations Endurance and Persistence and the Echo Incident.

I was there in Fort Worth and loved the presentation you gave! 

I will be in the Ouachitas for about a week in October. I plan on doing a bit of backcountry walkabouts. Maybe I'll get lucky.

[Guest]

Good luck!

This is an unsubstantiated claim. Consulting Arment's The Historical Bigfoot: Early Reports of Wild Men, Hairy Giants, and Wandering Gorillas in North America, we find the following for SE Oklahoma: 1859, a "strange critter" that Arment says "matched that of a hairy primate" was seen by a hunter in McCurtain County: 1926, a doctor from the Goodwater area reported seeing a "thing" run across the road in front of his Model T; 1926, two hunters saw a "manbeast" who later killed their dog. 

 

That's funny. I said, "People have been seeing them there for years and years," and you posted reports of people seeing them from many years ago and my claim is then somehow unsubstantiated. Even though you substantiated it. I see.

 

Two things. First, in my experience, wood ape encounter reports are like mice in your house. One usually means many once you start looking for them. Second, you're ignoring completely the Native American experiences and lore. They're people, they've been there for years and years, and they've been seeing them. 

[Guest]

Also, the reports we've published and those found on the BFRO website. 

[southernyahoo]

DWA,

 

The claim is that the SE hills of Oklahoma offer concealment that hide the existence of a troop of giant apes. But then we have the additional and contrary claim of apes living in prairie land that aren't afforded such protection, and they are supposed to exist unmolested and unfound by the local population as well. Anything goes, right? Good gravy.

 

We will see, DWA. We will see if Area X provides the long sought after proof. I will cook and eat the crow you send me if they drag an ape out of the Oklahoma hills. If not, will you shine my shoes? I'll send you my Doc Martins. Spit polish, amigo. 

I asked the question metaphorically since, of course, tracks wouldn't make any difference in the world. Not one, not a thousand. There already are a plentitude of images and casts of tracks and they don't amount to anything in the minds of far-right sceptics. 

 

We've posted images in the past and included a track find in our Texas Bigfoot Conference presentation (link at the top of this thread).

Unless the tracks are obviously faked. BTW, I'm a far-left skeptic.

 

Jerrywayne, I hope you noted that I did say the evidence was easier to find there on the prairie, and how would it be that they were unfounded if the reports of sightings persisted, tracks still found and the biological samples are still deposited there?

 

Metaphoricly, it's like hunting fish in a barrel compared to area X. The only reason I can think of as to why Science hasn't proven them is because they are both "human" and "unacceptable" as members of our society. What else would we do with a being like that but to turn a blind eye?, particularly one who could sustain itself in the wild without modern implementations.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The only reason I can think of as to why Science hasn't proven them is because they are both "human" and "unacceptable" as members of our society.

But that's suggesting there are scientists who believe these things are human and are covering it up. What if the proof simply hasn't come along yet?

[Guest DWA]

Well, actually, I think that what SY is saying could be expressed as:

 

Science hasn't proven these because as a society we just have serious problems with thinking things like this are real.  Evidence doesn't even get considered by the scientific mainstream because they let their incredulity and the general repellency of the idea get in the way.

[Guest]

 

I asked the question metaphorically since, of course, tracks wouldn't make any difference in the world. Not one, not a thousand. There already are a plentitude of images and casts of tracks and they don't amount to anything in the minds of far-right sceptics. 

 

Unless the tracks are obviously faked. 

 

I missed this bit.

 

Isn't this the rub? Isn't this how it always works? Skeptics demand evidence, investigators present evidence, skeptics say it's not good enough/faked/unsubstantiated/contaminated/fill in your issue. Rinse. Repeat.

 

It's like you're Lucy and we're Charlie Brown and you expect us to try and kick that football again.

Edited July 15, 2013 by bipto

[Guest DWA]

It is the classic Catch-22.  You have to do this.  But it won't work.  Unless you do it, but if you do, it won't work.

 

Skeptics keep spitting at evidence as not proof.  That's not the point.  The point is following up.  Anyone who tells me that this doesn't even rise to the level of interesting enough to merit concerted mainstream attention...well, just isn't paying attention.

[Guest]

Skeptics keep spitting at evidence as not proof.  That's not the point.  The point is following up.  

 

Bingo. The mystery this animals represents won't be solved on a message board by those either pro or con. Only boots on the ground can do that. Only people talking to other people can do it. 

[southernyahoo]

 

The only reason I can think of as to why Science hasn't proven them is because they are both "human" and "unacceptable" as members of our society.

But that's suggesting there are scientists who believe these things are human and are covering it up. What if the proof simply hasn't come along yet?

 

 

They don't have to cover it up. All they have to do is assume contamination in the samples, or hoax and lies for the other evidence.. Now if one had been killed in an auto accident, then yes, you would have a cover up. Being human would mean it would be repatriated regardless of alternative perceptions.

[norseman]

Right, I think skeptics feel that if they concede too many pieces of evidence as being possibly real..........then somehow the animal will "spontaneously materialize" out of thin air.

 

It's as if this is a fight over who has more eggs in their basket.

 

I've said it a million times........the evidence leads to the animal, you have to follow it. Evidence is not proof and never will be, but evidence leads to proof.........absolutely.

[Drew]

 

 

I asked the question metaphorically since, of course, tracks wouldn't make any difference in the world. Not one, not a thousand. There already are a plentitude of images and casts of tracks and they don't amount to anything in the minds of far-right sceptics. 

 

Unless the tracks are obviously faked. 

 

I missed this bit.

 

Isn't this the rub? Isn't this how it always works? Skeptics demand evidence, investigators present evidence, skeptics say it's not good enough/faked/unsubstantiated/contaminated/fill in your issue. Rinse. Repeat.

 

It's like you're Lucy and we're Charlie Brown and you expect us to try and kick that football again.

 

 

No, not just skeptics.

Scientists would require more than squished nuts, thrown rocks, weird sounds, and the testimony of a dozen people who think they saw an UPRIGHT NORTH AMERICAN APE, in the once decimated forests of Oklahoma.  You know this, yet you make the skeptics out to be the bad guys.   You are claiming to be in the presence of the Ultimate Zoological discovery of the 21st century, and you get bent, when actual evidence is asked-for.   You are not Charlie Brown, and skeptics are not Lucy.  That comparison is invalid.  I am simply asking for the same standard of evidence that is used to catalog every animal that has been documented for the last 400 years or so.  Nothing more.  My request is as bland and simple as can be expected, considering the Enormity of the claim you are making.

[southernyahoo]

Well, actually, I think that what SY is saying could be expressed as:

 

Science hasn't proven these because as a society we just have serious problems with thinking things like this are real.  Evidence doesn't even get considered by the scientific mainstream because they let their incredulity and the general repellency of the idea get in the way.

 

Correct, for most of the scientific establishment atleast. I would expect some portion of them to be knowers like any other witness though, Yet ,they would'nt necessarily have the evidence to back their claims either. I've heard stories about biologists quitting right in the middle of their feild work because of an encounter while others just kept at their work. The one with the encounter is SOL because he can't tell his colleagues what he saw without being called crazy, and it is too disturbing to deal with by yourself.