N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[norseman]

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. 

 

****Covered in Troll and Hobgoblin blood  , holding tightly to my battle axe****

 

Ummm? So? Where ya been?  Did you leave the castle for a latte or something?

[Guest DWA]

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. 

And there it is, folks, bigfoot research.  Scientists constantly combing the woods of America, 24/7.  No letup, no vacation.  One wonders why we don't have proof.  Sheesh.

 

It's Patterson and Gimlin and these guys...and a bunch of weekenders.  It's hard to confirm a fox you know is there in three days.  If, that is, your weekender is spending three days...and not one or two.

 

 

[the parkie]

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. 

 

 

Your frustration is almost palpable! I hope you get a chance.

 

Has NAWAC investigated using the new Light Field cameras - the ones that enable you to focus any time after you have taken the picture? I've never used one and my guess is that this first iteration in the technology may not be that good, but I would imagine that once the technology improves that they would put an end to blobsquatches once and for all. I know it's not your primary focus (see what I did there?) but anything that can add further data and improve your chances would obviously be of benefit.

 

Has anyone?

Edited July 16, 2013 by the parkie

[Drew]

 

  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

 

 

I would maintain that Jeff Meldrum's Bigfoot budget is 10 times what the budget of a typical species gathering expedition would cost.  A grad student in the mountains of Peru, searching for an elusive species of torrent frog, would have a much smaller budget, and it's quarry would be infinitely more difficult to find than a 800 pound upright mammal.

 

And there it is, folks, bigfoot research.  Scientists constantly combing the woods of America, 24/7.  No letup, no vacation.  One wonders why we don't have proof.  Sheesh.

 

It's Patterson and Gimlin and these guys...and a bunch of weekenders.  It's hard to confirm a fox you know is there in three days.  If, that is, your weekender is spending three days...and not one or two.

 

 

Above is from DWA in post #347

 

Why doesn't Jeffrey Meldrum take some of his Blimp Budget, give it to a Field Biologist from ISU, and send him down with a pair of grad students to confirm this?

Surely Area X is going to provide far more tangible results than a flying Blimp with a camera array.

 

Would BIPTO and the NAWAC be open to an actual University Field Biologist conducting a site investigation at Area X?

 

I would guess the answer to be 'no'.

[Cotter]

"I would maintain that Jeff Meldrum's Bigfoot budget is 10 times what the budget of a typical species gathering expedition would cost.  A grad student in the mountains of Peru, searching for an elusive species of torrent frog, would have a much smaller budget, and it's quarry would be infinitely more difficult to find than a 800 pound upright mammal."

 

How could anyone possibly know that? 

[Drew]

We know that the Kickstarter project was asking for $355,000

 

That is far more than a budget for a collecting expedition in Peru.

 

Why should a giant mammal be easier to find evidence of, than a torrent frog?

 

Because giant mammals should show evidence of foraging, passing, and pooping.  Large mammal studies consist of the following:  Find where they cross a road, follow their trail until they find hair, get DNA from hair, develop individual DNA profiles for the population.

 

Torrent frogs don't leave the creek or river, they are often very small.   Bad weather or dry conditions can mean they are not at their location.

 

We have a spot in Area X where the creatures are there all year round.  This should be a slam-dunk for a field Biologist.

[Guest]

Has NAWAC investigated using the new Light Field cameras...

 

I'm familiar with the tech, but it's not on our radar right now. I think it's too green. Maybe someday. 

Would BIPTO and the NAWAC be open to an actual University Field Biologist conducting a site investigation at Area X?

 

I would guess the answer to be 'no'.

 

It all depends. I can't answer a hypothetical, but we've reached out to willing academics many times and would be open to hearing any and all proposals. 

We have a spot in Area X where the creatures are there all year round.  This should be a slam-dunk for a field Biologist.

 

You would imagine. 

[WSA]

I've come to see Drew that your argument (and that of many others) is frequently based on what I'd characterize as an erroneous premise. It is: A bigger animal should always be easier to find than a smaller one. Most often, the skeptics point of view is premised by the boilerplate description of a "800 lb. primate", or some such similar description. The impression intended, I think,  is this critter is so big you couldn't HELP but stumble on it if it were real. If so, this focuses on the wrong characteristic, and it assumes no large animal could also have the ability to be stealthy, good at evasion,  furtive or quick....but these are the very characteristics Bipto and his colleagues are reporting. A 1 to1 comparison of this animal to a frog, on mere size alone, is a rather reductionist approach, don't you think so? 

[southernyahoo]

 

Why doesn't Jeffrey Meldrum take some of his Blimp Budget, give it to a Field Biologist from ISU, and send him down with a pair of grad students to confirm this?

Surely Area X is going to provide far more tangible results than a flying Blimp with a camera array.

 

Would BIPTO and the NAWAC be open to an actual University Field Biologist conducting a site investigation at Area X?

 

I would guess the answer to be 'no'.

 

 

Are you going to believe what the University Field Biologist says? Would "he/she" need to drag one out of the woods to make any difference?

[dmaker]

I've come to see Drew that your argument (and that of many others) is frequently based on what I'd characterize as an erroneous premise. It is: A bigger animal should always be easier to find than a smaller one. Most often, the skeptics point of view is premised by the boilerplate description of a "800 lb. primate", or some such similar description. The impression intended, I think,  is this critter is so big you couldn't HELP but stumble on it if it were real. If so, this focuses on the wrong characteristic, and it assumes no large animal could also have the ability to be stealthy, good at evasion,  furtive or quick....but these are the very characteristics Bipto and his colleagues are reporting. A 1 to1 comparison of this animal to a frog, on mere size alone, is a rather reductionist approach, don't you think so? 

I agree with you for the most part WSA, but size alone I do not think is the only factor being compared. At least not size as in stumbling across a live specimen as you say. Does it not make sense that a larger animal would leave more sign behind? More waste, more hair, more saliva, more tracks, more signs of passage such as bent or broken foliage, etc?  No doubt the Wood Ape is very ninja-like. But even forest ninjas must eat and poop?

[WSA]

And Drew, on this flying blimp thing.....I don't claim to know. Is Meldrum categorically stating the purpose of the Falcon project is to confirm the animal for science (not that even this is likely to do that, even if successful beyond all wildest dreams)? Or is it to observe the habits and behavior of an animal he and others already are convinced is there? If it is the second one, why would he not leave the specimen collecting to the NAWAC folks, who seem to be pursuing it quite capably? As far as I known, Bipto's group are the only folks in recently documented history to get off a shot at one of these animals, and have reported opportunities not taken, for stated reasons. That is a magnitude closer than any other researchers have come, as far as I know.  (To be taken seriously, I'm just going to omit any references to the alleged Sierra kill, RD and the attendant BF rodeo, if you don't mind)

[Drew]

I've come to see Drew that your argument (and that of many others) is frequently based on what I'd characterize as an erroneous premise. It is: A bigger animal should always be easier to find than a smaller one. Most often, the skeptics point of view is premised by the boilerplate description of a "800 lb. primate", or some such similar description. The impression intended, I think,  is this critter is so big you couldn't HELP but stumble on it if it were real. If so, this focuses on the wrong characteristic, and it assumes no large animal could also have the ability to be stealthy, good at evasion,  furtive or quick....but these are the very characteristics Bipto and his colleagues are reporting. A 1 to1 comparison of this animal to a frog, on mere size alone, is a rather reductionist approach, don't you think so? 

 

Terrestrial Mammals are much easier to locate than other creatures.

In North America, the abundance of roads makes this a simple matter of finding tracks and following them until they poop or leave hair.

 

It is a simple fact.  Unless you are applying magical abilities to the creature of course.

[Sunflower]

 

I've come to see Drew that your argument (and that of many others) is frequently based on what I'd characterize as an erroneous premise. It is: A bigger animal should always be easier to find than a smaller one. Most often, the skeptics point of view is premised by the boilerplate description of a "800 lb. primate", or some such similar description. The impression intended, I think,  is this critter is so big you couldn't HELP but stumble on it if it were real. If so, this focuses on the wrong characteristic, and it assumes no large animal could also have the ability to be stealthy, good at evasion,  furtive or quick....but these are the very characteristics Bipto and his colleagues are reporting. A 1 to1 comparison of this animal to a frog, on mere size alone, is a rather reductionist approach, don't you think so? 

 

Terrestrial Mammals are much easier to locate than other creatures.

In North America, the abundance of roads makes this a simple matter of finding tracks and following them until they poop or leave hair.

 

It is a simple fact.  Unless you are applying magical abilities to the creature of course.

 

 

 

Yeah, you would think so, huh?  Blimp Schimp.........What the bleep are they planning to do, drop a bomb on one????? 

[Guest]

Bipto, Have ya'll had any luck on possible scat finds? Also, I have heard others theorize that the BF may often do its deuce in the water perhaps to hide it from view rather than like the coyotes always love to put theirs out for everyone to see? But also not eliminating the thought of scat burial like a cat either?

[Guest DWA]

 

 

  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.

 

I would maintain that Jeff Meldrum's Bigfoot budget is 10 times what the budget of a typical species gathering expedition would cost.  A grad student in the mountains of Peru, searching for an elusive species of torrent frog, would have a much smaller budget, and it's quarry would be infinitely more difficult to find than a 800 pound upright mammal.

Well, actually, not; and this is one thing people don't understand about "how scientists find all this teenytiny stuff and can't find an 800-pound ape."

 

When scientists are looking for "an elusive species of torrent frog," they know where to look and they are pretty sure they're gonna find it if they keep looking in those places.  They'll search until they turn it up.  Why?  Science accepts that frog as real.  Same with anything else little:  scientists have search protocols honed in other areas, and when they enter a new one they exercise those protocols and surprise! they frequently find similar animals...but new species of them.  And of course they frequently find little stuff they missed before.

 

When scientists simply won't believe something is real three bad things happen:

 

1) Members of their own fraternity, when they see one, don't rock the boat, and those that do report, report anonymously just like anyone else; and

 

2) They don't investigate places where people are reporting sightings, and

 

3) They rationalize away all evidence.

 

When those three things are in play...well, 200-foot whales could be banking gracefully through cornfields in Kansas and they wouldn't be confirmed.

Bipto, Have ya'll had any luck on possible scat finds? Also, I have heard others theorize that the BF may often do its deuce in the water perhaps to hide it from view rather than like the coyotes always love to put theirs out for everyone to see? But also not eliminating the thought of scat burial like a cat either?

Wood apes have actually been observed pooping in streams.  So, yeah, it appears to happen.  But I'm sure other critters do too; and sasquatch poop has been found.  At least to hear from the people who have found it.

 

Point being:  if nobody recognizes the sign an animal leaves as being sign of that animal....they, um, won't.