N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Sunflower]

Essentially every deer was killed, every wolf, every elk, every cougar.

 

But Bigfoot gets a pass.

 

 

Wow, they must have some kind of intellligence!  You know, more so than just a dumb animal.

[Guest]

10" barrel Ruger Super Blackhawk 44 mag with laser sight should work heck why not add a little HD camcorder to the gun too! LOL

[Guest Urkelbot]

Northern california is pretty much the pacific northwest though.  At least in terms of forest types and rainfall throughout the coast range.

[Airdale]

 

 

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.

 

 I would refer you to "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" Chapter 15 entitled "Splitting Hairs and Molecules: DNA and Physical Evidence" for a detailed overview of hair and scat evidence as it stood a decade ago. There is a lot of information out there for anyone in the related fields of science with a modicum of curiosity.

[Hairy Man]

Not to belabor a point, nor derail a thread, but I feel like I need to correct information presented in this thread.

 

I just spent the last few hours pouring over the logging history of Oklahoma and the Ouachita National Forest.  According to the facts that I found, of the original 13 million acres of forested lands in Oklahoma (as recorded in 1804), 8 million acres remained in forest cover by the time the National Forest preserve was established in 1908.  Commercial logging in OK began in 1880, but didn't enter many areas until 1898. In fact, the Indian Territories (including Area X) are described in 1898 as "vast unharvested timberlands." Logging in those areas didn't start until 1907. By 1908, the Forest Preserve that would become the Ouachita National Forest was established and protecting lands from over harvest.  I further found that only certain trees were ever harvested (mainly pine), leaving plenty of unmerchantable trees standing.  This is hardly the view that every single tree in OK was cut down and no habitat was available in the 1800s to the 1900s.

[Guest]

Plus for Kathy!

[Guest]

Quit clouding the debate with facts, Kathy.

[Guest]

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.

 

Sorry for this late reply.

 

I think you have retro activated “myth creation†as it relates to sasquatch. Look at your example of Roosevelt’s Bauman story. In your mind Roosevelt “came out and shared a Bigfoot story.†Yet, Roosevelt didn’t. Your example shows that the Bigfoot myth creation of the last few decades has incorporated old accounts that do not relate to Bigfoot. This is an erroneous case building to give Bigfoot a back-story, a history that it does not have. Roosevelt’s story is relevant only because it puts a two-legged culprit at the center of an old-timer’s campfire story. The future president does not relate it to an ape. Only Bigfoot enthusiasts, cryptozoologists, and Forteans see this story as an endorsement of an 1800’s sasquatch.

 

In his book, BIGFOOT EXPOSED, anthropologist David Daegling noted the Bauman story is “unmistakably mythological in structure.†Furthermore, “Roosevelt was inclined to think the offender was a known, but unidentified, wild animal, and Peter Byrne notes that the injuries suffered by Bauman’s unlucky partner fit the description of a bear attack. Roosevelt prefaced the account by suggesting that Bauman was susceptible to supernatural suggestion ’when overcome by the fate that befell his friend, and when oppressed by the awful dread of the unknown, he grew to attribute, both at the time and still more in remembrance, weird and elfin traits to what was merely some abnormally wicked and cunning wild beast.’ Roosevelt was decidedly noncommittal in his endorsement of the story and clearly skeptical of Bauman’s reliability as an eyewitness.â€

 

Daegling suggests that if the Bauman story really were a sasquatch event, “then we have an account suggesting that Bigfoot has a penchant for killing, and perhaps dining on, territorial interlopers.†This should give NAWAC team members pause.

 

Another erroneous Bigfoot back-story is the David Thompson account, supposedly showing an early 1800’s sasquatch track find. In truth, Thompson himself identified the tracks as those of large bear. He seemed a bit puzzled because others thought the tracks might be from a mammoth. Nowhere does he claim the tracks were from a bipedal animal. Here is a link to the Thompson track way and mammoth connection that does away with the story treated as a Bigfoot story: http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2860

 

Ever wonder why, with the Jacko story, no one at the time said “hey, this is a young sasquatch or the ape native to these parts?†The probable answer is that no one had any knowledge of indigenous apes.

 

Even if you look at the Jerry Crew incident which produced the term Bigfoot, at first no local folk had a clue as to who or what had left the tracks. Talk of a giant Indian kid, a runaway from a 1930’s CCC camp, bear, and even Lemurians from the caves of Mt. St. Helens were in the media. When John Green showed up, he linked the tracks to an animal he hypothesized existed in British Columbia too: a giant, bipedal ape, America’s version of the yeti. And the rest is …. history.

[Hairy Man]

 

Daegling suggests that if the Bauman story really were a sasquatch event, “then we have an account suggesting that Bigfoot has a penchant for killing, and perhaps dining on, territorial interlopers.” This should give NAWAC team members pause.

 

Yeah, Native Americans have been saying that since ethnographic information has been recorded.  The NAWAC are well aware of any dangers we may be facing - before, during and after any event.  I personally plan on clogging their arteries! 

[Guest]

Back to nuts...THE BEST IS THE PART UNDER TIPS ON HOW TO ACCESS THE NUT. LOL

http://www.livestrong.com/article/363091-the-nutritional-value-in-hickory-nuts/

The hickory nut is native to North America, but is rarely found in grocery stores because of the difficulty of extracting the nut's meat. Your local farmer's market or specialty store might stock them, but you may need to seek out hickory trees in the fall, when their nuts start dropping. Move fast, though, as squirrels may beat you to the nuts.

CALORIES

One ounce of hickory nuts contains 180 calories. Snacking on hickory nuts is a wise choice, as a 1 oz. serving fits into the preferred 100 to 200 calorie range for a snack. The calories offer a variety of nutrition, as well. To calculate an ounce of hickory nuts without pulling out your food scale, pile the nuts in the palm of your hand. One ounce is close to a small handful.

advertisement

MACRONUTRIENTS

Hickory nuts contain quite a bit of fat, with 18.2 g per serving. The good news is that only 2 g of that fat is the “bad†type of fat, saturated, that may increase your risk of coronary heart disease. You will also get 5.2 g of carbohydrates in an ounce of hickory nuts, or 4 percent of the daily recommended intake. A 1 oz. serving of hickory nuts provides 3.6 g of protein, as well. Your diet should include 46 to 56 g of protein each day.

VITAMINS

A serving of hickory nuts, either as a snack or incorporated into a recipe, provides 16 percent of the vitamin B-1 you need each day. Vitamin B-1, also called thiamine, works to maintain the function of your muscles, heart and central nervous system. A serving of hickory nuts contains 3 percent of the daily recommended value of vitamin B-6, a nutrient involved in protein metabolism.

MINERALS

A 1-oz. serving of hickory nuts contains 12 percent of the magnesium your body requires daily. Magnesium keeps your muscles, kidneys and heart functioning correctly, and this mineral plays a critical role in activating enzymes and regulating calcium levels. Eat a serving of hickory nuts, and you will also get 10 percent of the daily recommended intake of phosphorus.

TIPS

Hickory nuts have a very hard outer shell, and the inner meat is often nearly destroyed during attempts to shell the nut. An article in “Mother Earth News†recommends using a hammer to hit the hickory nut on the “bulls eye,†or a point approximately 1/3 of the way down from its stem. If struck with enough force, the nut should break into several pieces, allowing you to pick out the meat.

REFERENCES

"Mother Earth News"; Hickory Nuts: The "Inside" Story; Clyde Williams Ickes III; Sept-Oct 1980

FitBit: Hickory Nut, Dried

The Diet Channel: Calories: What's An Ideal Daily Intake?

MayoClinic.com: Healthy Diet: End the Guesswork with These Nutrition Guidelines

Institute of Medicine: Dietary Reference Intakes

MedlinePlus: Thiamine

[Hairy Man]

Awesome information.  I recently just watched Disney's "Chimpanzee" that showed the chimps breaking open nuts using rocks. The nut grove was highly prized and fought over.  Well worth watching.

[norseman]

 

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.

 

Sorry for this late reply.

 

I think you have retro activated “myth creation†as it relates to sasquatch. Look at your example of Roosevelt’s Bauman story. In your mind Roosevelt “came out and shared a Bigfoot story.†Yet, Roosevelt didn’t. Your example shows that the Bigfoot myth creation of the last few decades has incorporated old accounts that do not relate to Bigfoot. This is an erroneous case building to give Bigfoot a back-story, a history that it does not have. Roosevelt’s story is relevant only because it puts a two-legged culprit at the center of an old-timer’s campfire story. The future president does not relate it to an ape. Only Bigfoot enthusiasts, cryptozoologists, and Forteans see this story as an endorsement of an 1800’s sasquatch.

 

In his book, BIGFOOT EXPOSED, anthropologist David Daegling noted the Bauman story is “unmistakably mythological in structure.†Furthermore, “Roosevelt was inclined to think the offender was a known, but unidentified, wild animal, and Peter Byrne notes that the injuries suffered by Bauman’s unlucky partner fit the description of a bear attack. Roosevelt prefaced the account by suggesting that Bauman was susceptible to supernatural suggestion ’when overcome by the fate that befell his friend, and when oppressed by the awful dread of the unknown, he grew to attribute, both at the time and still more in remembrance, weird and elfin traits to what was merely some abnormally wicked and cunning wild beast.’ Roosevelt was decidedly noncommittal in his endorsement of the story and clearly skeptical of Bauman’s reliability as an eyewitness.â€

 

Daegling suggests that if the Bauman story really were a sasquatch event, “then we have an account suggesting that Bigfoot has a penchant for killing, and perhaps dining on, territorial interlopers.†This should give NAWAC team members pause.

 

Another erroneous Bigfoot back-story is the David Thompson account, supposedly showing an early 1800’s sasquatch track find. In truth, Thompson himself identified the tracks as those of large bear. He seemed a bit puzzled because others thought the tracks might be from a mammoth. Nowhere does he claim the tracks were from a bipedal animal. Here is a link to the Thompson track way and mammoth connection that does away with the story treated as a Bigfoot story: http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2860

 

Ever wonder why, with the Jacko story, no one at the time said “hey, this is a young sasquatch or the ape native to these parts?†The probable answer is that no one had any knowledge of indigenous apes.

 

Even if you look at the Jerry Crew incident which produced the term Bigfoot, at first no local folk had a clue as to who or what had left the tracks. Talk of a giant Indian kid, a runaway from a 1930’s CCC camp, bear, and even Lemurians from the caves of Mt. St. Helens were in the media. When John Green showed up, he linked the tracks to an animal he hypothesized existed in British Columbia too: a giant, bipedal ape, America’s version of the yeti. And the rest is …. history.

 

 

I made my response in a separate thread as I feel we are just clogging up NAWAC's thread here. It's titled "Bauman Story" in General Discussion.

[Guest]

Essentially every deer was killed, every wolf, every elk, every cougar.

I have seen you parrot this exaggerated claim many times. Proving that there isn't a single cougar left in the entire state would be absolutely impossible. We couldn't accomplish this today, and we certainly couldn't accomplish it then. Even today, most of these animals can live their entire lives without ever being observed by a human. I firmly suspect that Google Earth is as close as you have ever been to being immersed in the type of terrain being discussed.

[Guest]

I have seen you parrot this exaggerated claim many times.

 

Along with the one about how we should be able to stop our trucks at any random place and find scat and hair from all the animals of the forest, so why not bigfoot? As if the forest is like one giant dog run belonging to people who don't pick up. I admit, more than the "every tree was cut down" and "every animal larger than a terrier was killed," this is my current favorite Drewism. 

[Guest]

In regards to a "BF encounter by Teddy Roosevelt" I was more impressed with his (potential Class description of terrifying screams and sounds he could not identify with all his experience and knowing all the animals of the wilderness and this was in a place her camped that most of the local indian guides would not go saying it was off limits.