N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[southernyahoo]

 

It actually is very close to what Paulides & Pratt came up with for the same witness.

 

The witness' account upon which that image was draw has never spoken to anyone associated with Paulides. 

I knew I would have to clarify that. The witness you are thinking of did have input for the NAWAC image, though the other input for the composite came from the prarie photo's provided by another witness. That witness talked to Paulides and Pratt. The resulting sketch from Pratt, is essentially the same as the NAWAC composite. The whole point being, whether the proposed facial features comes from the Woodape camp or the BF is human camp, they describe the same thing, and people will draw their own impressions from it.

I recall an old thread on BFF 1.0 started by a poster, "TX Bigfoot" if I recall. The thread was about the human features of BF's face and requested comments from witnesses who had seen them up close. Guess who that was.

[WSA]

I’ve mulling over the comments posted by our Alaskan correspondent…namely what is, or is not, wilderness, and if the difference should have any impact on my view of NAWAC’s evidence coming out of Area X.

Like a lot of words that come freighted with history and emotion, “wilderness†has many present interpretations. When the founders of Jamestown looked out from their redoubts into the woods surrounding them, they described this as “wilderness.†(Often preceded by the adjective “howlingâ€â€¦the absolute worst conditions for these self-styled “civilized†Europeans). That they were actually looking at a landscape that had been modified (through controlled fire) by natives for centuries, and had only recently been depopulated by European pathogens would not have crossed their minds. Wilderness it was to them, even though this very idea would have been amusing to the locals, I’m sure.

In the American psyche there has always been this longing for the lost Garden of Eden, while also being somewhat unsettled with the actual thing, rare though it was then and now. The idea was made federal law with the Wilderness Act. The Act tried to come to some accepted definition, and largely succeeded I think, but it left us with this legacy of defining wilderness by what is not present (i.e.: Man) instead of what IS there. More than that, it has served to further scramble our mutual understanding of the word. Wilderness (big “Wâ€) is now a legal/political construct. Wilderness (small “wâ€) is now more than ever in the eyes of the beholder. I like DWA’s definition myself, which is just one of many descriptors you could list: Wilderness is where you should be looking over your shoulder for the thing that can kill you. Does that include Area X? Well, I think the NAWAC folks on site will confirm that for you. And yes, it includes a lot of Alaska.

At the time the designation of the Sipsey Wilderness here in Alabama was proposed, many went on record as stating there was no wilderness in the East, so there was no land worthy of this protection in their view. Obviously, this was an overly narrow view of the matter and I’m glad to say it did not get much traction over the years. I also believe it stemmed from a view I think our Alaskan friend might share. That is, somehow, wilderness is a function of size, not complexity. It is certainly not equivalent to “pristine†because, if so, not much of what we have left fits the definition. I think it as ridiculous to say a small land area can’t be [W]ilderness as it is to say a large area is presumed to be. To my way of thinking, the absence of human activity is not as crucial. I know it when I see it, to quote Justice Brandeis. I’ve found it 20 minutes outside of town, and I’ve failed to find it at the end of a 30 mile one-way trail. The fact that thousands of people traverse Wilderness areas each year, from “The Bob†in Montana to the Cohutta in N.Ga. matters not a bit to my feelings about it being wilderness, Wilderness or any degree of wild on that scale.

But does this matter at all as to the NAWAC’s claims? No to me, no. If there were strong evidence a population of Wood Apes can only sustain itself in virgin timber and boundless expanses, I might be open to that idea. There isn’t. If you put credence in the encounter narratives, BF are found in a remarkable range of habitats. This seems to be one of them, or at least that is what the NAWAC is proposing, and trying to prove. Do their claims depend on you believing how wild an area this is? No again. I think it is only somewhat useful to appreciate how difficult a place to operate this area likely is. That, and you have to turn loose of your idea that this whole area was somehow transformed into a biological desert in the 19th-20th centuries. That never happened. But even if it did, we have many designated Wilderness areas in this country that were politically expedient choices for the designation only because they were so devastated no moneyed interest saw any further use for them. If you go to some of those, as I have, that history is not likely to make any impression on you to detract from your feelings of just how wild they are now. If there is one overarching lesson it is that wildness is very resilient. Whatever ecological insults we’ve lavished on Area X over the centuries, don’t think they’ve been permanent.

Edited July 22, 2013 by WSA

[dmaker]

^^ Nice post WSA, plussed. While I don't share the same views on BF as you do, that was a handy little summary of Wilderness.  I don't have a lot of experience with American wilderness areas, but I did spend some time recently in the Desolation Wilderness area in the Sierras. Other than the very early daylight hours, it was hard not to come around a bend and see some other hiker or back packer. It may have bee wild by the legislative definition, but it did not feel disconnected or remote. Granted, I was only 5 to 8 miles from any major road at all times.  

[WSA]

Thanks Dmaker. And that handily makes the case for what I've (humbly) named "Anderson's Axiom": 90% of the visitors typically use only 10% of the resource. This is most usually only within two miles of the trailhead, this being the distance most feel comfortable walking, and are able to walk. Over 5 miles in you thin the crowding much more. When you get more than 10 miles from the nearest vehicle access, the chances for solitude rise dramatically. Oh, and if you put a waterfall on a mapw within 2 miles? Fuggedaboudit. That place will be crawling with touristos.

[southernyahoo]

Yes, I was speaking to the competitive advantages we have (where the assumed goal of all species is to spread as far and as wide as possible).

 

Or maybe it's something like this:  http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/282

 

That's an amazing account, isn't it?

 

One significant part about that encounter is that the witness observed the Sasquatch vocalize. In mid December 2008 I had the opportunity to talk to that witness specifically about the whoops, since my group had recorded what we would call whoops in a similar environment to his encounter. He did say they were quite similar. We sent them to a bioacoustics expert for analysis. He reported that they were similar to human.

 

[Guest]

"Anderson's Axiom": 90% of the visitors typically use only 10% of the resource. 

 

Dead on. 

[Guest DWA]

Thanks Dmaker. And that handily makes the case for what I've (humbly) named "Anderson's Axiom": 90% of the visitors typically use only 10% of the resource. This is most usually only within two miles of the trailhead, this being the distance most feel comfortable walking, and are able to walk. Over 5 miles in you thin the crowding much more. When you get more than 10 miles from the nearest vehicle access, the chances for solitude rise dramatically. Oh, and if you put a waterfall on a mapw within 2 miles? Fuggedaboudit. That place will be crawling with touristos.

I have always said that it's easy to find solitude.  Look at a map.  It yells at you.

 

You're right.  A one-way to a waterfall or a view, count on not being alone.  (OK, ten miles or more, you have a chance.  But don't bet anything you want to keep.  Although I did see one person who didn't come with me on a twenty-mile round trip to a stupendous view in Utah once, it still was one person.)  Loop hikes with W or V, forget it.  But there are exceptions.  I did a ten-miler to one of the best views in a National Park last week, and saw not person one the entire time.  And only once I remember have I seen a person on that walk who didn't come with me.  Happens.

 

(FORGET LAKES.  Crowd city.  And I have camped four days, alone, at one of the prettiest lakes I have seen, and my party has also had two of the most beautiful bodies of water I have ever seen all to itself.  Happens, too.  Circumstances factor in:  no formal trail for a day's walk to the first; arduous climb/descent to maybe the most underrated place in the Canadian - or any - park system on the second; a sidetrip from some really stunning - and trampled - Canadian scenery for the third.)

 

There's a trail I know - one way, to a Park boundary - with a knee-touch-nose climb pretty much the whole way (translating to a burn-your-brakes descent the other way).  Nothing on it but woods.  Which is NOT why most people are out there.  Bears seen on that trail:  one.  People:  zero.

 

Off the trail:  you are alone.  One sighting, of three people, in all the offtrail I have logged. 

 

Another version of Anderson's Axiom:  the average visitor could be attached to the car by 300 feet of chain with no impact on the experience.

 

And wildness happens where it does.  It is no respecter of distance or 'remoteness' as measured by silly humans.  People seeking it without knowing that, I think, are flat cheating themselves.

 

Bootsole analysis and a general feel for the location tell me:

 

X is pretty wild.

[norseman]

If you don't like people? Get off the trail system. Take your compass out and shoot an azimuth and go!

As a hunter I see a FS trail like a freeway. It's a great way to punch in fast and get close to where you are going. But at some point you have to take the exit and get off the freeway in order to go exactly where you need to go.

Also some wilderness areas are much more of a destination than others. Some are almost forgotten about. Same goes for national parks.

Everyone wants to go see old faithful and el capitan.........teddy Roosevelt NP? Not so much......just drove past the entrance in

Medora this morn.

[Guest WesT]

 

 They should hunt with both brawn and brain. 

 

 

 

 

Hi bipto, I don't say much, just a lurker I guess, but this comment caught my attention.

 

The reason it did catch my attention is because this is exactly the conclusion I arrived at after examining a structure of unknown origin and purpose. I've also concluded that they don't carry tools around with them because all the resources they need are readily available within the environment wherever they go. I have also observed they will attempt to conceal their presense and impact on the environment within an area they have hunted. You've probably already observed this yourself, so forgive me in advance

 

The degree of sophistication in thier hunting techniques may also depend on the amount, and quality, of interaction with the native american population in the past.  So it's worth a looksy to see what type of relationship they may have had with the native popluation. They can be creative, so keep your eyes peeled.

[Guest DWA]

If you don't like people? Get off the trail system. Take your compass out and shoot an azimuth and go!

As a hunter I see a FS trail like a freeway. It's a great way to punch in fast and get close to where you are going. But at some point you have to take the exit and get off the freeway in order to go exactly where you need to go.

Also some wilderness areas are much more of a destination than others. Some are almost forgotten about. Same goes for national parks.

Everyone wants to go see old faithful and el capitan.........teddy Roosevelt NP? Not so much......just drove past the entrance in

Medora this morn.

TR is one of my favorite parks.

 

But then to me, in general, going where everyone else goes to see what everyone else has seen runs counter to everything I think travel - heck, living - should be about.

[Guest]

We sent them to a bioacoustics expert for analysis. He reported that they were similar to human.

I may not have a prestigious title by my name, but the obsessive audiophile/soundgeek component of my personality obligates me to niggle on a couple of points of nomenclature in the attached letter. 

 

In the digital audio realm, amplifying a pre-recorded sound does not increase its resolution, it increases the amplitude of the sound wave, and also along with it, the sound floor. The resolution is determined by the bit depth and sample rate at which the sound was initially recorded. Also, the fundamental harmonic would be the fundamental frequency. Logically the fundamental frequency could be referred to a a fundamental harmonic I guess, but Academia on the subject would crinkle their noses at the use of that terminology. Of course, maybe he just wanted to explain it in what he considered understandable laymen terms. Just my two cents......

Edited July 23, 2013 by Irish73

[southernyahoo]

I think you would be correct about resolution, and I think he was trying to relate to a layman.  One thing about the response file was that the harmonics of it weren't necessarily at integer multiples of the fundamental frequency, more like half integer multiples, perhaps indicating overtone resonances or an attenuated fundamental which could occur in the vowel sound /a/.

 

Dual tones was also evident in the first whoop of the whoop file, which may be where he saw a 100 hz interval. Though when I amplify the file, I don't see more resonant harmonics. The quality of the recording was also affected by distance, which directly affects the ability to analyse it. The second and third whoops were single tone, pure note with the fundamental frequency starting just below 500 hz and topping at around 750 hz with a duration of a half second. Only two resonances were visible in the file, which is consistent with an /u/ vowel (upper harmonics attenuate).

 

 

[Guest]

Wel said Irish73. Your approach does you credit.

 

However, if, as seems to be the case, NAWAC are serious, we other sensible humans need to be the same. Bipto and co have never entered the "we've seen and heard it it so why can't you believe us?" debate. The truth is, their evidence is always questionable and my reading suggests they know this. Ultimately either they prove without question this animal exists or they don't. Because they haven't stopped looking I say they are still after the former outcome. If and when they decide they can't prove the bugger exists and thus, by default they admit the latter all their sounds and anecdotal evidence and blood/DNA and rock damaged cabins mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

If I was the boss of NAWAC I'd have asked Bipto not to have opened himself up in these forums. There is NO chance he'll persuade any non-believers that there are apes in the continental US and every chance he'll be battered by those who are convinced they're not there. NAWAC and poor Bipto can only win if they turn out to be right. Or they get rich whether they're right or not. Can't comment on that.

 

Without an animal to examine we end up examining each other on each side of the debate. Seen bigfoot? I haven't. Prove it or I want to prove you're crazy.

 

Bipto - never has anyone been so acquainted withe the rock and so intimate with the hard place as you. Best of luck, but get the sod if only to affirm my belief in your efforts.

[Guest]

There is NO chance he'll persuade any non-believers that there are apes in the continental US and every chance he'll be battered by those who are convinced they're not there. 

 

My purpose here isn't to persuade anyone that wood apes are actual animals. As I've said before, our mission has an element of education. There are things we've learned that others in the same pursuit would like to know and we're happy to share that information. In my opinion, coming here and answering questions and sharing our observations and hypotheses is no different than when we're invited to speak to clubs or classrooms. It's in the same category as our annual conference. 

 

The purpose of this thread is to share with interested parties. It's not to debate the scoftics and close-minded regarding the existence of bigfoot in general. The whole rest of this forum is good enough for that. 

[Drew]

 

The purpose of this thread is to share with interested parties. It's not to debate the scoftics and close-minded regarding the existence of bigfoot in general. The whole rest of this forum is good enough for that. 

 

I figured out a way for you to fund your work at Area X.

 

Put up a live webcam at the site, and either charge a fee to subscribe, or have advertisers pay for it.

 

Maybe the Squatchit people, or Animal Planet would be interested.

 

Let me know if you ever need any Marketing or Advertising help.