Drew Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Hate to break it to you bipto, but the terriers bit the dust too. None. Nada. Ground zero. You're right. We've collected no evidence at all of terriers in the Ouachitas. Seems like they were wiped out, too. Drew, answer me this. Is your participation in this thread to convince others that there cannot be wood apes in Oklahoma? Yes or no. No. My participation is to convince others not to accept your claims without you providing some actual evidence. It's nice that you are a likeable guy, and people would want to help you, but you are controlling the evidence leaving the location. How many people have gone to Area X and not seen a Wood Ape? How many tracks have you found that are not indicative of an Unclassified Hairy Apeman? Have any non Wood Ape animals been killed by your team of hunters? Talking about population bottlenecks in the 1800's or Bigfoot mania in the 1950's does nothing to describe what NAWAC is observing in the present. If you think it is a load of hogwash, I really do not see why one would persist in participating in this thread. Does anyone think that their really cool colored graphs and pie charts linked here, are going to convince people that nothing exists, who are hiking around in those woods on a daily basis? Wait, you can hike in these woods? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Many skeptics come off to me as really intelligent, really well read individuals...........that really do not have much practical knowledge in the real world, which creates a heavy blind spot in their vision. There are of course exceptions to this rule. You really don't know how much time I spend in the woods, or how many times I've been hunting with a traditional bow, or how many nights I've spent in terrain far more difficult than the Ouachita mountains. You also seem to want to ignore the facts about logging in the Eastern half of the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Guest DWA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Many skeptics come off to me as really intelligent, really well read individuals...........that really do not have much practical knowledge in the real world, which creates a heavy blind spot in their vision. There are of course exceptions to this rule. ...which is what happens when a topic has gotten relegated to Miracle Cures, Ghosts, and Bending Spoons With Your Mind, and isn't recognized as what it is, a zoological question requiring both the thought process of a scientist, and some kind of experience with the general subject matter (plus the proverbial open mind). I talk about what I call 'bootsole analysis.' That's important in this field, and I find that a lot of bigfoot skeptics either don't have the mileage under their boots or don't think about that mileage in the proper way. My time in the Ouachitas in 2009 combined with the decades of trail I've put under my boots to tell me: Given the evidence, here's a really good place for a population of these animals. Given what I know, personally, about the people doing the research in X, anyone who thinks that what they say is happening isn't happening has to prove it to me.
Guest Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) How many people have gone to Area X and not seen a Wood Ape? I don't have that number. My conservative estimate would be something like 12 of us believe we have seen one or more apes. That would leave about two-thirds who have not seen one. Essentially everyone in the group (edited to add, "who has visited the site") has experienced likely ape activity such as rock throws, vocalizations, etc. How many tracks have you found that are not indicative of an Unclassified Hairy Apeman? I don't know what you mean by that. You mean bear tracks? Human tracks? Have any non Wood Ape animals been killed by your team of hunters? Zero. No. My participation is to convince others not to accept your claims without you providing some actual evidence. OK. Then I'll only report those posts by you that call into question the existence of these animals since the administration of the forum has said that type of debate is not what this thread is for. Each and every one. Wait, you can hike in these woods? When was the last time you spent any appreciable time in the woods? Where? You like to espouse as if you're an expert in such things. I think it's time for you to present your bona fides. In particular, I'd like to see pictures you've taken in wilderness areas, the amount of time spent there, what you were doing, who you were with, the wildlife you observed, the signs of wildlife you observed, etc. You also seem to want to ignore the facts about logging in the Eastern half of the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Facts. Like those already presented by an employee of the United States Forest Service? Those kinds of facts? Edited July 18, 2013 by bipto
Guest DWA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Drew, answer me this. Is your participation in this thread to convince others that there cannot be wood apes in Oklahoma? Yes or no. No. My participation is to convince others not to accept your claims without you providing some actual evidence. It's nice that you are a likeable guy, and people would want to help you, but you are controlling the evidence leaving the location. I am really struggling with understanding why the following is soooooo hard for some folk to grasp: no one is "accepting" claims. We are awaiting results. In the meantime, some of us know that this isn't a team of habitual liars, attention-seekers and ne'er-do-wells. Our brains are doing, if we only say so ourselves, a bang-up job of processing this information without the intervention of people trying to protect us from using them. Talking about population bottlenecks in the 1800's or Bigfoot mania in the 1950's does nothing to describe what NAWAC is observing in the present. If you think it is a load of hogwash, I really do not see why one would persist in participating in this thread. Does anyone think that their really cool colored graphs and pie charts linked here, are going to convince people that nothing exists, who are hiking around in those woods on a daily basis? Wait, you can hike in these woods? Anyone with considerable bootsole experience knows you can hike in any woods. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Many skeptics come off to me as really intelligent, really well read individuals...........that really do not have much practical knowledge in the real world, which creates a heavy blind spot in their vision. There are of course exceptions to this rule. You really don't know how much time I spend in the woods, or how many times I've been hunting with a traditional bow, or how many nights I've spent in terrain far more difficult than the Ouachita mountains. You also seem to want to ignore the facts about logging in the Eastern half of the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's. ....and this is an example of not using that bootsole experience properly to analyze evidence.
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2013 SSR Team Posted July 18, 2013 I guess the part about breeding populations didn't click. We know male cougars travel hundreds to thousands of miles. You left out the part where I said 'certainly not breeding populations', good job. Drew, why do you have to add the sarcasm on virtually every post ? It really isn't a good trait to continually use. I didn't leave out anything, you said there were no Cougars in Eastern OK and certainly not breeding populations and I showed you there were cougars there, and were in every direction around Eastern OK for, guess what, hundreds of miles. Of course if you want to be pedantic and specifically use state lines to disprove the " there may just be breeding cougars in that part of the country via confirmed sightings " website that i showed you then that's your call. Don't worry about apologising neither regarding the sarcasm, I know that isn't a trait that comes naturally to you.
Guest DWA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) OK, Drew? Bootsole comparison so far. Evidence for case presented: bipto - metric tonnes Edited July 18, 2013 by DWA To Edit Offensive Content
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2013 SSR Team Posted July 18, 2013 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Many skeptics come off to me as really intelligent, really well read individuals...........that really do not have much practical knowledge in the real world, which creates a heavy blind spot in their vision. There are of course exceptions to this rule. Could I add " seemingly lack social skills and common courtesy " too please ?
Guest DWA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I guess the part about breeding populations didn't click. We know male cougars travel hundreds to thousands of miles. You left out the part where I said 'certainly not breeding populations', good job. Drew, why do you have to add the sarcasm on virtually every post ? It really isn't a good trait to continually use. I didn't leave out anything, you said there were no Cougars in Eastern OK and certainly not breeding populations and I showed you there were cougars there, and were in every direction around Eastern OK for, guess what, hundreds of miles. Of course if you want to be pedantic and specifically use state lines to disprove the " there may just be breeding cougars in that part of the country via confirmed sightings " website that i showed you then that's your call. Don't worry about apologising neither regarding the sarcasm, I know that isn't a trait that comes naturally to you. ...and I'm not even gonna mention that we aren't talking about cougars on this thread. (Eastern OK: swarming with 'em.) Every proposition in a scientific debate must provide evidence for its position. If this were Drew vs. bipto on evidence presented, the murder rule would have been invoked long ago. This insistence that bigfoot skeptics have to do nothing to substantiate their position is precisely why they can be discarded. They are asking me to believe something for which they provide no evidence, while the proponents continue to provide evidence by the gross. And, of course, the proponents are in X doing field research. Biigfoot skeptics doing that? Zero.
Drew Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) I didn't leave out anything, you said there were no Cougars in Eastern OK and certainly not breeding populations and I showed you there were cougars there, and were in every direction around Eastern OK for, guess what, hundreds of miles. Bipto left it out, you didn't. Good job BobbyO. The post in question is #503, I wasn't referring to your post. If you go to that post, you will see that Bipto left out the part where I said "Certainly not breeding populations..." I would have quoted your post, but because response was directly below Bipto's post #503 I didn't quote it, because it's against the rules. I hope you take back your 'common courtesy' charge. Bipto, I'm going through the thread looking for the part where people can't question the evidence you are putting forth. Can't find it. Must be in the other thread. Because in the forum guidelines I think there is a part where it says I'm allowed to question your claims. Edited July 18, 2013 by Drew
Painthorse Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) I guess the part about breeding populations didn't click. We know male cougars travel hundreds to thousands of miles. You left out the part where I said 'certainly not breeding populations', good job. The part that amazes me, is how did they capture them on game cams, when the forests are too dense and nasty to use game cams? Some people just get lucky when a cat gets caught on a cam in the woods and thickets, but Drew, here's just a lil education tid bit on the larger cats getting getting captured on cams. The ones that I know of in Eastern Ok and Western Ar are from hunters who have placed cams for their deer feeding "plots". Feeding plots are small areas specifically seeded to enhance the chances of deer coming onto the designated areas to feed so the hunters can easily harvest deer in a clearing without having to shoot or place an arrow through dense brush. So, in your above statement that->The part that amazes me, is how did they capture them on game cams, when the forests are to dense and nasty to use game cams?--------> It's luck. Edited July 18, 2013 by Painthorse
Guest DWA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) I didn't leave out anything, you said there were no Cougars in Eastern OK and certainly not breeding populations and I showed you there were cougars there, and were in every direction around Eastern OK for, guess what, hundreds of miles. Bipto left it out, you didn't. Good job BobbyO. The post in question is #503, I wasn't referring to your post. If you go to that post, you will see that Bipto left out the part where I said "Certainly not breeding populations..." I would have quoted your post, but because response was directly below Bipto's post #503 I didn't quote it, because it's against the rules. I hope you take back your 'common courtesy' charge. Well, now, one could say - were so much of the dialogue on this topic not in violation that it's become accepted - that not waiting for proponents to provide proof of something for which they have provided much evidence, but rather treating them like charlatans, liars or naive buffoons, might constitute a rather violent breach of common courtesy. In fact, I'd say that the bedrock of bigfoot skeptics' 'position' - treating proponents like simpletons - qualifies. Were a team of ichthyologists out in mid-Atlantic right now attempting to prove the continued existence of Megalodon sharks, I get the funny feeling they wouldn't get treated like this. Bigfoot skeptics won't have much to fall back on when this animal is confirmed. They're gonna look really, really bad. Bipto, I'm going through the thread looking for the part where people can't question the evidence you are putting forth. Can't find it. Must be in the other thread. Because in the forum guidelines I think there is a part where it says I'm allowed to question your claims. Violent breach, cont'd. Along with the usual screaming lack of evidence. Edited July 18, 2013 by DWA
Drew Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Thanks Painthorse, that is why I questioned it, because the claim is that it's too dense to put out game cams. Of course, I know you simply put them in places that aren't dense. Power line right of ways, clearing edges, trail crossings that type of things. Biologists often clear spaces specifically for capturing images on camera. Scientists in New Guinea (Far more dense than the Ouachita forests I might add.) clear spaces for the Birds of Paradise mating rituals to be captured on camera. As Bobby O pointed out, I was using sarcasm.
WSA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Trying to follow this. So far, I think the consensus is the NAWAC has failed to shoot Teddy Roosevelt? OTOH, there is a good possibility wood apes in S.E. OK are the remnant population of loggers who clear-cut themselves out of a job? Not sure which it is. 2
Drew Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 A good place would be that Creek Bed where the guy was sitting when he took the shot at the thing howling at him. I would put one right there. Trying to follow this. So far, I think the consensus is the NAWAC has failed to shoot Teddy Roosevelt? OTOH, there is a good possibility wood apes in S.E. OK are the remnant population of loggers who clear-cut themselves out of a job? Not sure which it is. Are you saying there are Bull Moose in Eastern Oklahoma?!
Guest DWA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 There has never been any claim that OK forest is "too dense to put out game cams." NO forest is. But in any forest where they are used, they are used in openings that are either trails or congregating areas or natural breaks in the forest through which evidence (tracks; scat; said trails) shows animals tend to travel. NAWAC has not had an ROI on game cams commensurate with their intensive use. So they've switched strategies. Bootsole analysis backs this up...and says it's working.
Recommended Posts