Guest Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 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. This is my fault because I didn't elaborate. But let's back up first. I saw from your pictures that the conditions for finding tracks were probably optimal this spring. If apes were all about the area, one would hope to find tracks in the muddy areas from the spring rains. Although I don't think there are apes there, I can compartmentalize enough to think the "what ifs." Your reply was muddy as the road in the picture, however. You didn't answer the specific question but volunteered that you have lots of track pictures from the area. And you chose not to post them on this thread because it would not prove anything to skeptics. Far enough. The point of "unless the tracks are obviously faked" is this: if you found tracks in the mud during this time (muddy spring) that were "obviously faked," meaning that NAWAC would consider them fake or hoaxed tracks, then you would know that someone there was trying to hoax your organization. Yes? You are right to note that trackways are not conclusive evidence, but an "obviously faked" trackway would be --- conclusive evidence that hoaxer or hoaxers are about. See what I mean?
norseman Posted July 15, 2013 Admin Posted July 15, 2013 ^^^^^^^^^I'm not going to speak for the NAWAC. But obviously if I was being hoaxed I absolutely would want to know about it. And I would do my very best to "vet" the track way. Hence the reason I'm seeking some professional tracking tutelage, and not just relying on what my father taught me. I have purposefully avoided posting in this thread (or reading much of it) because I don't feel that I have much to contribute to it. Either the NAWAC folks are trying to obtain a specimen (which is what I would be doing if I thought bigfoots were real [though I would be silent about it until I had one]) or they're intentionally creating the impression that they're trying to obtain a specimen but they actually have no intention of doing that (which I cannot know). Regardless of intent, they will either be successful in producing a specimen (proving bigfoot) or they won't. I've been waiting my whole life for someone who claims to be encountering bigfoot to prove that claim, so I'm not holding my breath that such proof will come from "Area X" or wherever this ongoing activity is allegedly happening. So far it's been at least 13 years of high bigfooty stuff happening in a part of the country where just about everyone is armed. Despite the stories there've been no bigfoots collected yet. It's difficult for me to wish bipto & co. a blanket "good luck" because I'm convinced that there is no bigfoot to collect, therefore, whatever they might be shooting at will not be a bigfoot. I can, however, wish that they be safe in the field (as I do norseman and his project) and then sit back and wait to be amazed or for the project to fizzle. I'm pretty patient about this stuff. Be safe, bipto. I tried that for a couple of years, it's like trying to eat a cow by yourself in one sitting. In order to garner support and illicit help, you have to become more proactive in leading a charge. Or become more proactive in joining a existing organization if there is one in your area that is pro kill.
Guest Posted July 15, 2013 Posted July 15, 2013 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. You also said that wood apes have been sighted there for as long as people have been there. Of course I did not substantiate your claim. I noted the paucity of reports "for years and years." Even the 3 reports I noted were ambiguous as related to giant, bipedal apes. Your claim about sightings is unsubstantive, probably impossible to substantiate. You realize that contemporary, lightly vetted reports from Bigfoot websites or undocumented, generalized statements about "Native American experiences and lore" are more lore-like than objective fact? Yes?
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 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. sy, I remember a previous post of yours that offered the intriguing notion that local folks do know and accept the existence of "the locals." This is interesting. I'm guessing that you have talked with people in the area in order for you to make that claim. Are they definitive in identifying their sasquatch neighbors as fellow humans? One problem I have with the scenario, though, is that if we are to accept sighting reports unquestionably, then the rural folks have some very, very large and powerful uncivilized neighbors that best ought be relocated. Also, given how we humans are always finding other humans different and "unacceptable" to sometimes tragic results, I can only imagine your scenario someday playing out like a scene from Karloff's Frankenstein, with the locals, with torches and pitchforks, or flashlights and deer rifles, chasing the poor souls out of the county. Fortunately, the unacceptables move faster than Shelley's monster.
norseman Posted July 16, 2013 Admin Posted July 16, 2013 ^^^^^^^^ So by saying the term "report"? What your really asking for is some sort of Police investigation report? Something with the weight of a authoritative body? Cuz, I cannot speak for Bipto, but I took "report" to simply mean that somebody said they saw something, whether to family members, fellow townsfolk, the newspaper, whatever.
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 What silly thing have I said? I've said I cannot accept stories and rock-throwing as proof of a creature. What is silly is that in this thread? Nobody is asking you to accept stories and rock throwing as proof.... The proponents in this thread are very committed to getting you that proof. Is there some confusion here with this point? But there is a process involved with getting proof, it just doesn't happen out of thin air. True. I think we all want the truth. Enthusiasts and skeptics alike. Of course, we could all be supportive of NAWAC because they are working to provide the definitive evidence. I have not been supportive, though. I'll give you my reason. NAWAC has built up a catalog of events that it says indicate the existence of giant, bipedal apes in SE Oklahoma. This itself is a claim that may be supported or challenged. I challenge it. But why not wait until they have concluded their field work? Because, one, the field work may never be concluded, and two, NAWAC's adventures in Area X will be used as evidence for the existence of giant, native apes regardless of the final outcome, with or without a body. Best challenge it as it moves forward. If you care about the truth concerning Bigfoot, then you must stand were your heart and mind take you. It ought not be a deferred option.
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) ^^^^^^^^ So by saying the term "report"? What your really asking for is some sort of Police investigation report? Something with the weight of a authoritative body? Cuz, I cannot speak for Bipto, but I took "report" to simply mean that somebody said they saw something, whether to family members, fellow townsfolk, the newspaper, whatever. If "somebody said they saw something, whether to family members, fellow townsfolk, the newspaper, whatever" then the chances of you or me or Bipto knowing about it would be slim to none in most cases. So, stating that this is indeed the state of affairs, although one would not truly know it, is lore or hearsay unless documented. Hence, unsubstantiated. And I would not look to Bigfoot websites for relief on this issue. If wood apes were sighted often enough, for "years and years" and since people have lived in the area, the data ought not be weighted heavily in favor of the last few decades, when the Bigfoot meme spread. There would be many reports in various venues through recorded history of the area. This does not seem to be the case For instance, look at such report sites and you will find more and more reports of "wood knocking" of recent vintage, once that meme began spreading. Edited July 16, 2013 by jerrywayne
norseman Posted July 16, 2013 Admin Posted July 16, 2013 I see what your trying to do here. Your attempting to show the Sasquatch mystery in a "post bluff creek heavy media" light, correct? What if Barack Obama came out and shared a Bigfoot story? What would you say to that? And what if it was 100 years ago? Teddy Roosevelt did just that..........so is that vetted in your mind? Obviously Sasquatch like any mystery today gains a foot hold in the homes of millions like it never has before. The simply fact that you and I are debating on the world wide web is an amazing thing......... one hundred years ago this would have been done by pen and stamp and many weeks to months. Drew and I were just debating the wood knocks, I brought up the fact that I have experienced a similar phenomenon come Elk hunting season. Heavily hunted areas usually has hunters "bugling" each other in, thinking the other is an Elk. I pointed out this doesn't make Elk any less real just because two silly Human hunters call each other in with Elk calls. Without a doubt with TV shows and the internet that people are getting off the couch and going into the wood to try a few wood knocks. With the Smith family just over the ridge with the same idea............ABSOLUTELY. What your confusing is human impressionability with the possibility of a living creature. Bobo doing hand stands while making Squatchy calls and millions of impressionable viewers responding in kind doesn't have anything to do with a Sasquatch. Anyhow, I think your confusing modern media with a myth creation. Whether Sasquatch is real or not, there is no doubt that the myth was with us WELL before the 1950's. Your mileage may vary.
MIB Posted July 16, 2013 Moderator Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) 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. That is not my perception. The level of evidence necessary to get mainstream science to seriously investigate the question of bigfoot, to put enough resources into the quest to have any chance of confirmation, would be more than adequate to prove those other discovered species. In other words, it appears that it is indeed a catch-22 situation ... to get science to seriously look at whether there is proof of bigfoot, you yourself must first prove bigfoot to them. MIB Edited July 16, 2013 by MIB
southernyahoo Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 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. sy, I remember a previous post of yours that offered the intriguing notion that local folks do know and accept the existence of "the locals." This is interesting. I'm guessing that you have talked with people in the area in order for you to make that claim. Are they definitive in identifying their sasquatch neighbors as fellow humans? One problem I have with the scenario, though, is that if we are to accept sighting reports unquestionably, then the rural folks have some very, very large and powerful uncivilized neighbors that best ought be relocated. Also, given how we humans are always finding other humans different and "unacceptable" to sometimes tragic results, I can only imagine your scenario someday playing out like a scene from Karloff's Frankenstein, with the locals, with torches and pitchforks, or flashlights and deer rifles, chasing the poor souls out of the county. Fortunately, the unacceptables move faster than Shelley's monster. You'd be surprised what Local folks know and will tell you about once they know you are open to the subject. I think you would also be absolutely fascinated to sit in while investigators are talking to a witness or complete family of witnesses for the first time. Accepting their existence, and squaring that into something that fit's everyones belief system is two different things. That's what I mean by unacceptable .It means in reference to the mass public.That's the one thing that would concern me about proving they exist. Which would drive people to pitchforks and torches?, The 800 pound bipedal Gorilla with a bad attitude or the Giant freaky hairy man of the woods that doesn't seem to be all that confrontational with the local folks? Nice folks as Mr. Branson would call them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not that persuaded they could be trusted in close proximity, but attacks don't seem to occur that often.
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Wow, you guys don't even need me anymore. For the time being, I'm going to go back into "ask and answer" mode. That is, someone asks a direct question and I will, to the best of my ability, answer it. I will not waste any resources "debating" those who think I'm mistaken, lying, being hoaxed, or otherwise will not and cannot accept the possibility that wood apes are real. It's pointless and a total waste of time.
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 It was probably asked befor but are hunting dogs used?
the parkie Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Magic. Probably. OK, seriously, probably the same way other animals are able to traverse the foliage without having all their hair ripped from their bodies. And magic. If it really is down to magic and super-powers, and you change your viewpoint on the ape/human debate, then you should really start referring to the creatures as "Area X-Men". Sorry, just a bit bored of the pointless back and forth. Are you personally returning to the area for another stint anytime soon?
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 It was probably asked befor but are hunting dogs used? Nope. We've had dogs in there on occasion, but nothing's come of it. Are you personally returning to the area for another stint anytime soon? Man, I'd really like to. I've already been down there twice for a total of 18 days this year. I just don't know if I can get another week away from home and work and do it. Also, it's a full day's drive each way from where I live. There's a chance I'll be back, but it's unlikely. Sorry, just a bit bored of the pointless back and forth. You and me both.
Recommended Posts