N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Airdale]

"...require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests"

 

Which would mean: More poop/square mile,  more hair/ square mile,  much easier to capture on camera traps.

 

Bipto has previously addressed the issue of trail cams and other electronics vis-a-vis the prevailing climatic conditions in X . With nearly 50 years experience using photographic and electronic gear in weather conditions ranging from -40 F in Montana to 115 F in California's central valley and humidity levels from S.E. Asia monsoon to sub ten percent, I don't see any holes in his analysis. WRT scat and hair samples NAWAC members have gathered in X, am I to understand that you would now accept these as evidence in lieu of a "monkey on a slab"? Please elucidate.

[Guest DWA]

"...require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests"

 

Which would mean: More poop/square mile,  more hair/ square mile,  much easier to capture on camera traps.

They're finding tons of footprints and being bombarded with rocks; and most folks in X have seen one.

 

As I said:  we await the proof.

Interesting thing about the correlation of rainfall to reported sightings and purported activity. I live in one of the wettest states, possibly THE wettest state in the country. The majority of Alabama counties receive as much as 50+ inches of rain a year. In one of our driest years, we still received an annual average exceeding Seattle!

 

When I overlay the rainfall map with the sightings databases for AL, I also see a correlation for some of the wetter counties. I suppose though, if you are confined to the house by more rainy days, you'll be more eager to hoax Bigfoot sightings? Right...nevermind.  :-)     

Or the moral equivalent.  To paraphrase John Green:  people's imaginations seem to dry up in areas receiving less than 17 inches annual rainfall.

[Cotter]

Bipto,

 

How long has it been since one of your group has had a confirmed sighting?

Thx.

[Guest DWA]

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/85-a-sasquatch-field-project-in-northern-california

 

Read particularly the first four paragraphs.

 

Why isn't the entire scientific community on tenterhooks about X?

 

We know why.

 

Also read this from the end (and do read everything in between):

 

"Thus, in order to adequately explain these occurrences, we are forced, by a process of elimination, to invoke the probability that a large bipedal primate — one that has been continually reported by thousands of witnesses for over a century, and is known today as Sasquatch or Bigfoot — occurs in North America at the present time quite unknown to science.

 

"We realize that this hypothesis is not one that is readily acceptable to zoologists or anthropologists, as the existence of such a primate in North America is not encompassed by conventional theoretical propositions or supported by probative physical evidence. We also realize that the evidence we have produced is not definitive or conclusive, being, in many instances, subjective.

 

"Nevertheless, we consider ourselves to be cautious, sensible, and objective individuals, and, as the ones who were exposed to the evidence described above, it is our opinion that future fieldwork of this kind is certainly warranted."

 

OK, here is another similar research effort, in a widely separated part of the country, running into very similar kinds of stuff, for a similar amount of time.

 

So much for "it can't happen anywhere but the PNW."

 

Someone needs to explain to me why we need to pepper this effort with pointless questions, and not just wait for what it brings back.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^

" As a consequence of such self-imposed insulation, a curious situation exists today, one in which most biological scientists remain almost totally ignorant of the nature and extent of the evidence involved, assuming all of it to be spurious. This situation is not likely to change in the foreseeable future unless persuasive new evidence is produced by highly reliable investigator"

 

 

So in the absence of persuasive new evidence, what should be compelling mainstream science to investigate further?

[Painthorse]

"...require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests"

 

Which would mean: More poop/square mile,  more hair/ square mile,  much easier to capture on camera traps.

This is a pic of just an iota of the Ouachita mountains from my front yard ( sorry about the dead fall in the pic, we're land clearing). One of the posters above mentioned the Talimena Drive, that would be on the highest ridge in the pic. As mentioned previously by several other posters, the Ouachita's cover an immense area.

As far as game cams go, the argument is ridiculous. It's been covered over and over again especially in other threads that cams only cover a small viewing range. A good example would be how many cams would it take to completely cover one lousy acre with a 360 degree view? Multiply that by over a million acres. JMO, the same goes for hair and poop, it's a waste of time and energy trying to navigate the area. There needs to be a bigger target approach and it appears to be in the works. For many years I was no kill, big mistake. Personally I DON'T CARE anymore what the skeptics think about if these animals exist, because they do. My son tried to shoot one a couple years ago and it just about turned into a knock down drag out as I was trying to grab my camcorder and he was trying to grab the rifle.

 

As far as area X goes, JMO they are onto something and I wish them GREAT success.

[Airdale]

Good find DWA, and quite reasonable conclusion IMHO. Plussed!

[Guest]

 

Or the moral equivalent.  To paraphrase John Green:  people's imaginations seem to dry up in areas receiving less than 17 inches annual rainfall.

 

 

The only hole in that argument are the number of sghtings, etc. in the mountainous portions of Arizona and New Mexico. I am pretty sure that those entire states average less than 17 inches of rain per year. Granted, the sightings are less numerous than elsewhere... but they are still there.

[Guest]

How long has it been since one of your group has had a confirmed sighting?

About two weeks. Via thermal.

[WSA]

The mountains of AZ can get as much as 30+ inches, annually. Not saying these correspond to areas of reported activity, exactly, but parts of AZ are surprisingly verdant. Ditto as to NM.  Doesn't prove a thing, I know, just sayin'.

[Guest]

To paraphrase John Green:  people's imaginations seem to dry up in areas receiving less than 17 inches annual rainfall.

 

You need several things to be able to receive reports from an area and things like cover and food and water are among them, but also people. If there are no people, there are no reports. 

[Guest]

The mountains of AZ can get as much as 30+ inches, annually. Not saying these correspond to areas of reported activity, exactly, but parts of AZ are surprisingly verdant. Ditto as to NM.  Doesn't prove a thing, I know, just sayin'.

 

Don't know aboutt 30 inches.... But I am from mountains (Jemez) in northern New Mexico, and the rainfall was 16-18 inches, mostly snow. And there is quite a bit of documented activiity there.

 

To paraphrase John Green:  people's imaginations seem to dry up in areas receiving less than 17 inches annual rainfall.

 

You need several things to be able to receive reports from an area and things like cover and food and water are among them, but also people. If there are no people, there are no reports. 

 

 

Yep. And a lot of people don't elect to live in remote, near desert areas...

[Guest DWA]

 

 

Or the moral equivalent.  To paraphrase John Green:  people's imaginations seem to dry up in areas receiving less than 17 inches annual rainfall.

 

 

The only hole in that argument are the number of sghtings, etc. in the mountainous portions of Arizona and New Mexico. I am pretty sure that those entire states average less than 17 inches of rain per year. Granted, the sightings are less numerous than elsewhere... but they are still there.

 

Actually, a standard feature of sightings in those areas is their proximity to local waterways.  There aren't many, but sightings in drier areas tend to take place along, or very near, them.

 

To paraphrase John Green:  people's imaginations seem to dry up in areas receiving less than 17 inches annual rainfall.

 

You need several things to be able to receive reports from an area and things like cover and food and water are among them, but also people. If there are no people, there are no reports. 

 

But a compelling aspect of the report literature is that the reports don't happen where (lots of) people are; they happen where one would expect an animal like this to be.  In fact the relationship is almost inverse:  the sightings happen where people (generally) aren't, not what one would expect for something that is solely driven by human variables (desire to hoax; tall tales; hallucinations; mental infirmities; misidentifications; etc.)

 

And, of course, there's another inverse relationship:  sightings have a pronounced tendency to happen at night, when many fewer of us are out and about, particularly in the places where sightings are happening.  And those sightings describe what one would expect:  an animal with visible nocturnal propensities and adaptations (e.g., eyeshine).

 

And this is happening, it appears, for two reasons:

 

1.  People are seeing an animal, where it lives; and

 

2.  The kind of people one would expect to see one are the kind of people that are seeing them, i.e., people that go where the rest of us don't, or people (motorists) who pass through where the rest of us aren't.

[Cotter]

 

"...require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests"

 

Which would mean: More poop/square mile,  more hair/ square mile,  much easier to capture on camera traps.

This is a pic of just an iota of the Ouachita mountains from my front yard ( sorry about the dead fall in the pic, we're land clearing). One of the posters above mentioned the Talimena Drive, that would be on the highest ridge in the pic. As mentioned previously by several other posters, the Ouachita's cover an immense area.

As far as game cams go, the argument is ridiculous. It's been covered over and over again especially in other threads that cams only cover a small viewing range. A good example would be how many cams would it take to completely cover one lousy acre with a 360 degree view? Multiply that by over a million acres. JMO, the same goes for hair and poop, it's a waste of time and energy trying to navigate the area. There needs to be a bigger target approach and it appears to be in the works. For many years I was no kill, big mistake. Personally I DON'T CARE anymore what the skeptics think about if these animals exist, because they do. My son tried to shoot one a couple years ago and it just about turned into a knock down drag out as I was trying to grab my camcorder and he was trying to grab the rifle.

 

As far as area X goes, JMO they are onto something and I wish them GREAT success.

 

Oh C'mon Painthorse, you and I both know that every square foot of that place gets covered every weekend by hikers and hunters with cameras and rifles at the ready......

 

;-)

[Drew]

 

How long has it been since one of your group has had a confirmed sighting?

About two weeks. Via thermal.

 

 

Confirmed? really? as in confirmed to be a Wood Ape? or as in confirmed that he/she thought he/she saw a Wood Ape?

 

"...require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests"

 

Which would mean: More poop/square mile,  more hair/ square mile,  much easier to capture on camera traps.

 

Bipto has previously addressed the issue of trail cams and other electronics vis-a-vis the prevailing climatic conditions in X . With nearly 50 years experience using photographic and electronic gear in weather conditions ranging from -40 F in Montana to 115 F in California's central valley and humidity levels from S.E. Asia monsoon to sub ten percent, I don't see any holes in his analysis. WRT scat and hair samples NAWAC members have gathered in X, am I to understand that you would now accept these as evidence in lieu of a "monkey on a slab"? Please elucidate.

 

 

Absolutely I would think that Scat from an Unclassified Ape would be evidence.  A monkey on a slab would be necessary for cataloging the creature, but it would fantastic to have DNA evidence of such a creature.  Genetic Anthropologists could quickly place the exact spot on the Phylogenetic tree that the creature fits, they could tell you how many years ago it split from it's last common ancestor, it would be a fantastic piece of evidence.   Of course all that is conjecture, since finding scat and camera traps are out of the question in Oklahoma's rugged Ouachitas.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Drew