N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Cotter]

But how would we know that the scat came from a BF?  Could be a hoaxer, no?
 

[Drew]

No.  If the DNA shows an Ape that doesn't match any known ape, I could send the sequence to Dr. Hawks and he could place it.  It's just a fact.  He could tell you what percentage of Neanderthal DNA is in the sample if you asked him to compare it.

[Guest]

Perhaps as a placebo of sorts you should eat a large portion of hickory nuts and raw venison and submit your own sample?

[Drew]

Anyone can.  DNA is not affected by nutrition however.

 

It's called the Human Genome Project, you can send in your DNA and they can tell you how much African DNA you have, how much Neandertal, and how much Polynesian islander DNA you have in your DNA sequence.

 

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/hapmap-introgression-neandertals-2012.html

 

 

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......

 

;-)

 

 

Just cover that powerline right of way with cameras, forget that #/acre statistic, you don't have to cover the whole place, just cover the open areas that they have to cross.

_______________________________________________________________________

Bipto, if you have trail cams, have you captured any humans on any of the cameras?

[Guest DWA]

^

" 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?

That's not the point of the quote, which is actually saying, about as nicely as it can be said:  gotta hit ignoramuses in the head with a bigfoot to turn 'em.

The quote is saying:  scientists dismiss all the evidence out of hand rather than examining it.  Not much one can do with such people other than go for proof.

Edited July 17, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I was kidding Drew

[Guest]

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

 

Thanks! We appreciate it. 

[Guest DWA]

_{For folks who can't quite get how NAWAC doesn't have like ten apes in custody right now, a read of this article might be in order:}

 

_{http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-17386019/quest-for-the-kouprey}

 

 

_{Yeah, gotta jump through a hoop or two.  But the part you can read up front should give you an idea.  And I have read the whole thing.  More than once, it's that amazing.}

 

_{This is a cow - A COW FERPETESAKES - in a place that has been pretty much continually bombed over and otherwise covered with people for like sixty years.  It's an acknowledged animal with well-funded mainstream searches going for it.}

 

_{Read more here.}

 

_{http://www.arkive.org/kouprey/bos-sauveli/#speciesFactFile}

 

_{This should be, the author says, "like fishing for whales in Walden Pond."  In other words:  far easier than confirming wood apes.}

 

_{(Devilish font problems.  Sorry there.)}

[Guest]

 

 

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?

 

It was a visual of a warm body (silhouetted in white on the thermal screen) with a pointed head and no visible neck, powerful trapezius muscles evident, approximately eight feet tall and four feet wide, seen from about the mid-chest level up. That sighting followed another from a different member that was quite similar and in the same area a few days earlier, only that time the figure was seen walking along a trail behind some foliage. Same proportions so we assume it was the same animal, though we don't know for sure.If not a wood ape, then I don't know what else it could have been. 

Absolutely I would think that Scat from an Unclassified Ape would be evidence. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dung_beetle

 

There are a lot of these guys crawling all over the area. We find little scat of any animals, relatively speaking, considering how many different types of critters there are around there and in such quantities. In all the times I've been there, I can only recall seeing scat twice. Once was relatively fresh and likely from a bear and the other time was old and appeared to be from a large cat. 

 

Just cover that powerline right of way with cameras, forget that #/acre statistic, you don't have to cover the whole place, just cover the open areas that they have to cross.

 

We were just that ignorant about how simple it sounded at one time, too. Just put them where the monkeys are. As many as you can buy. And we bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of camera over five years. We had dozens of them deployed. What we found, as I have said many times already, is that the cameras are not reliable. They fire when there is nothing but leaves and wind present and don't fire when large warm animals like ourselves walk right up to them. They're not magical. They're fussy and time consuming to maintain. Plus, at the end of the day, they won't produce proof. 

Bipto, if you have trail cams, have you captured any humans on any of the cameras?

 

I have said before several times, I am only aware of one photo of a person taken in that area who wasn't one of us or one of the family members who are sometimes present. We think he may have been a poacher. 

That was from the Forest Vigil operation that had cameras in the area for five+ years. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by bipto

[slabdog]

It was a visual of a warm body (silhouetted in white on the thermal screen) with a pointed head and no visible neck, powerful trapezius muscles evident, approximately eight feet tall and four feet wide, seen from about the mid-chest level up.

Fascinating.

Really dumb question alert!

Do you have recording functions on your therms?

If not, are they bino / mono style? Or hand held screen type?

[Guest]

Do you have recording functions on your therms?

 

The models we use have video-out but do not record themselves. Due to how we have them deployed, we have chosen not to encumber them and the members using them with cables and video recorders (and the associated power needs, etc.).

 

If not, are they bino / mono style? Or hand held screen type?

 

They're both monoculars. 

The models we use have video-out but do not record themselves.

 

I should say at least one does. Not sure of the other. They're not the same model. 

[WSA]

Re: Kouprey. This fact always makes me cringe: "The only significant scientific observation of the kouprey was made in 1957 when zoologist Charles Wharton studied and filmed the animal in the wild."

 

Why? Because I knew Charlie Wharton for many years, and spent lots of time in the cabin he built by hand in N. Ga., picking music, sharing a glass and cutting up. I knew he was a biologist of wide renown and experience. We had many conversations on that topic. But, I  had no idea he had made this discovery the year before I was born. He has since passed away, and I'll never get to have the conversation, OR his thoughts on the likelihood of BF, which, based on some sighting reports on the very property he owned, make it a very intriguing question at present. Oh well, c'est la guerre.

 

Then again, how could a guy who had done this doubt the evidence needs further investigation ? In one sense, I didn't need to have asked him.

[Guest]

That whole article is definitely worth a read. Here's a link to the entire text: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=dea40754-6f3f-4e5c-b778-f3feaea33679%40sessionmgr10&vid=1&hid=25&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPWdlbyZnZW9jdXN0aWQ9czM2MTM5MDQmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=f5h&AN=9508240055

 

Really neat that you knew him, WSA. 

[slabdog]

Here's a potentially morbid question:

 

Has there been discussion in the NAWAC about where *anatomically* the preferred shot placement will be for harvesting a specimen?

 

When the time comes, that will be a pretty valuable shot.

 

It's gotta count.

[Guest]

Has there been discussion in the NAWAC about where *anatomically* the preferred shot placement will be for harvesting a specimen?

 

Oh sure. A lot. Center mass seems to be the prevailing opinion, if I recall. I'm not a shooter so I haven't been following all the conversations about that. We'd really like to preserve elements of the head (including the eyes, vocal tract, and the brain) though the top priority is to collect the sample in whatever way possible. If a viable shot presents itself, we have to take it. 

Of course, concurrent with that conversation has been much discussion about the type of round, etc. Again, I'm not the expert in that.