southernyahoo 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. I think the claim was that they did put out cameras for five years, and that the area of coverage was insufficient to gaurantee a photo. Also the cameras were cantankerous , time consuming , battery eating distraction from actual field observations.
WSA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Can't say for sure Drew...it could be there are some, but they look a lot like WA's disguised as hikers, or maybe it is the other way around? Regardless, shoot one at your own peril, I'm thinking. Not to flippantly dismiss this learned repartee, but it does come back to bite its own tail after a while. Whatever you or anyone else believes about the probabilities of the truth of what the NAWAC is publishing, those probabilities are immaterial. They believe they are on to something there, and they get to say because, well, they are there, and none of us others are. We either wait for the proof, or we walk away and say we don't have any expectation of their success. Those in the second category would have no further reason to check in on this thread, but, by definition, all here are in the first category, am I right? I'm all for the free exchange of ideas and the BFF seems to have endorsed this view too. BUT....what are we trying to accomplish by that? Are you trying to induce the NAWAC to abandon all operations and concede they are on a fool's errand? Are you just putting down a marker for a later "I told you so?" If it is that, you are on record. A lot.
Guest DWA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) To me it's always this: When people I have no reason to doubt say they're onto something, and people disagreeing give me no reason to buy what they say: I'm waiting for the former to come back with their results. And no, one gives me no reason to buy what one says when the evidence stands in stubborn ignorance of one's "facts." Proof comes on the universe's schedule, not on the skeptics'. And were I one of the latter, I'd have the common courtesy to wait. Particularly when those doing the actual work have taken pains to lay out just how much they are doing. Edited July 18, 2013 by DWA
Guest Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) 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. A couple things. First of all, I'm not sure we're putting forward "evidence" in this thread. We're relating our experiences which each person reading them will decide for themselves where on the evidentiary spectrum they want to place those assertions. Second, of course anyone can question me. That's the point of this thread. But the forum administration has said this is about NAWAC activities, not larger discussions about whether or not bigfoot exists or *can* exist. This is the thrust of pretty much everything you write. Third, you and I go round and round about, from you, how things should be in the wilderness and, from me, how things *are*. So, for the those reading this thread, I think it's entirely appropriate to understand the differences in our relative experiences being in wild places and dealing with the kinds of activities and environments I'm describing. If you are not the kind of person who ever gets into nature for any extended period of time, knows nothing practical about wildlife or looking for wildlife sign and only really knows what you read and interpret from others, then that's a way the average reader of this thread can weight your assertions and mine. Not all of your points are invalid, but many of them indicate you have little to no experience doing the kinds of things we do while looking for wood apes. If you're unwilling or unable to describe any applicable experience, then my assumption will be you have none. Edited July 18, 2013 by bipto
Guest Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 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. Agreed. Like so many other things in nature, it's a combination of being in the right place and the right time, being prepared, and then winning the coin toss. I think the claim was that they did put out cameras for five years, and that the area of coverage was insufficient to gaurantee a photo. Also the cameras were cantankerous , time consuming , battery eating distraction from actual field observations. Pretty much spot on. But that doesn't mean I won't have to say it again and again, unfortunately.
Cotter Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Bipto - have you tried setting up game cams for an extended period of time in Area X? *ducking and running* ;-) Here's a question, how soon after you obtain a specimen will you make an announcement stating such? Will you provide pics as well?
Guest Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Here's a question, how soon after you obtain a specimen will you make an announcement stating such? Will you provide pics as well? I don't know how much time will elapse, but we will do our best to maintain secrecy about it until it's been as well documented as possible. Only after it's been documented and examined by outside experts not from the "bigfoot community" will we want to release what we have. I don't see why pictures wouldn't be part of the release. We certainly won't be coy about it after the fact or require anyone pay us money or travel to a specific place to view what we have collected. We will want the existence of these animals to be known as far and as wide as possible.
Sunflower Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." My friends and I have been prepared.
Drew Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Just so we are clear, I want you to find one. It would be a great day for science. I would say kudos to you for believing the limited evidence enough to stick with it. I will not apologize for my position, I feel I am being honest in my position relevant to the amount of evidence thus-far provided, in saying I didn't believe there was an ape out there. But I will be happy for you, and happy that you were in the end, correct in your beliefs. I don't hate anyone here, my positions sometimes may make it seem that way, but you all seem to be great people, who in another venue I might meet in the Seney Swamp tracking bear or deer, or in Northern Michigan at a traditional bowhunting meeting, or maybe even at the bar drinking a finely crafted Michigan Microbrew. You will not find me this weekend at the Bigfoot meeting in West Branch. Lulz.
Sunflower Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I have NEVER learned anything about the hairy guys at a scheduled meeting, so we agree!!!
Guest Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) I will not apologize for my position... No one asked you to. ...I feel I am being honest in my position relevant to the amount of evidence thus-far provided, in saying I didn't believe there was an ape out there. No one suggested you were being dishonest regarding your opinion. But I will be happy for you, and happy that you were in the end, correct in your beliefs. Good to know. I don't hate anyone here... Nor did I suggest you did. So I can assume you have no relative experience in the wilderness or nature comparable to that necessary to critique our findings and experiences? From experience, that is. As opposed to what you think *should* be. Edited July 18, 2013 by bipto
Guest DWA Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) Not sure how many times I need to say this. Maybe this, the 4,585th, will do the trick. Maybe some word changes or incantations or something. The only questioning that is going on right now is pointless questioning about something that bipto's gang is working hard to produce. When people are talking about ongoing research, it's a little churlish, to say the least, to keep yelling PROOF NOW or to keep accusing them of shooting at people in ape suits or looking for something nonexistent or pretending they have something they don't or talking past your points or did I include everything? Probably not. bipto's telling us what his group is doing. Any criticism and questioning that isn't based on evidence isn't helping anyone get anywhere. It's white noise and wasted bandwidth. As already noted: this is about research in Area X. If there is no evidence that locals in ape suits are steadily trickling into hospital emergency rooms - to say just one thing - not sure what any "criticism" is proving or helping. Edited July 18, 2013 by DWA
Drew Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 So I can assume you have no relative experience in the wilderness or nature comparable to that necessary to critique our findings and experiences? From experience, that is. As opposed to what you think *should* be. Why would you assume that? I have plenty of outdoor experience, much of it spent tracking animals and/or shooting them with a traditional bow, in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. And now, in my old age hiking and photographing wildlife.
Guest Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I don't see the problem with asking for evidence to back up the claims being made. For all the hype the NAWAC gets around here you would think there would be more than "believe us we experienced it". Maybe I have missed it. Don't question the NAWAC! A couple things. First of all, I'm not sure we're putting forward "evidence" in this thread. We're relating our experiences which each person reading them will decide for themselves where on the evidentiary spectrum they want to place those assertions. Second, of course anyone can question me. That's the point of this thread. But the forum administration has said this is about NAWAC activities, not larger discussions about whether or not bigfoot exists or *can* exist.
Drew Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I'm not criticising what they are doing, I am trying to keep the answers in line with reality. When Bipto says "We had a confirmed sighting through thermal" I asked 'what do you mean by confirmed' That is a legitimate question, and the answer was that it was confirmed by the description of the person who saw it, not video taped and confirmed. That is not 'confirmed' in any level of outdoor experience. I can't submit a garter snake to the Herp Database unless I have a photo of it.
Recommended Posts