Guest DWA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 People underestimate the difficulty of hunting something we haven't learned how to hunt yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Something we haven't learned to hunt, on land we didn't really want that bad yet... (and we didn't want it because it's a pain in the patootie to navigate through, let alone build or farm on) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Good point. Our species has made it a clear point never, under any circumstances, to kill its own kind. Holy cow! And you're serious when you write that! WOW! The evidence doesn't say human. I wouldn't be waiting for Sykes. What "evidence doesn't say human"?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Good point. Our species has made it a clear point never, under any circumstances, to kill its own kind. Holy cow! And you're serious when you write that! WOW! The evidence doesn't say human. I wouldn't be waiting for Sykes. What "evidence doesn't say human"?????? How do you know I was serious when I wrote that? What evidence? Well...do the footprints say "the mailman"? Does what people are describing seeing say "must be the pharmacist"? Do the intimidation behaviors say "Occupy!"? OK, maybe they do. But really, it all sounds more like "ape" to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Branco - if Sykes' study came back and did show human lineage, AND was accepted by "Science" as legit, and catalogued. I would guess that indeed many peoples' end goals would be revised. Well, apparently DWA is not one of those people. Maybe Mr. Brown and the rest of his team would have enough......, uh, reasoning ability to suspend the lead slinging part and try to study the creatures as Dame Goodall did with wild chimpanzees. I really doubt that Dame Goodall, a primatologist, ethologist and anthropologist has blessed the group's Rambo approach to "protecting the species", especially since Dame Goodall was at one time appointed a UN Messenger of Peace. How do you know I was serious when I wrote that? What evidence? Well...do the footprints say "the mailman"? Does what people are describing seeing say "must be the pharmacist"? Do the intimidation behaviors say "Occupy!"? OK, maybe they do. But really, it all sounds more like "ape" to me. The truth of the matter is I don't know when, or if, any of your posts have been serious. Just to be on the safe side - and keep my BP down - I'll just assume all of them are jokes and ignore them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 ha so good it's too bad I don't have a plus left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 The truth of the matter is I don't know when, or if, any of your posts have been serious. Just to be on the safe side - and keep my BP down - I'll just assume all of them are jokes and ignore them. As I tend to all the assertions that they're human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) I would have imagined that they couldn't get there quick enough. Are you able to say why they have not been yet, if you know? I would imagine the same thing. I know Redmond has a lot of issues with schedule and many commitments. He has expressed a desire to spend time there, but life intervenes with all of us. My assumption is, with regard to Meldrum, it's much the same story. That's about all I know. If confirmed by Sykes as a primate with human linage, would the "study" still include "putting one on a slab"? Let's just see what Sykes puts out there before we start jumping to any conclusions. I could just as easily ask the friends of the forest people the same question in reverse. If Sykes confirms that wood apes are real and are, in fact, APES would they lay off all the "human hybrid" crap or stick with their patron saint Melba? The public on the other hand are going to lose it... They will, but I'd wager quite a bit that what they'll be losing it over is that the giant hairy forest monster is the real deal after all, not in how it was proven. Edited October 3, 2013 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Maybe Mr. Brown and the rest of his team would have enough......, uh, reasoning ability to suspend the lead slinging part and try to study the creatures as Dame Goodall did with wild chimpanzees. I really doubt that Dame Goodall, a primatologist, ethologist and anthropologist has blessed the group's Rambo approach to "protecting the species", especially since Dame Goodall was at one time appointed a UN Messenger of Peace. Well, I tell you what, Bill. Goodall has the advantage of studying an animal that's already known to exist by the people who generally pay people like her to do her work. I think that given the choice, Goodall would rather see a new and novel species of primate identified and protected rather than let them wither away and go extinct. But that's just a hunch. WRT to the "Rambo approach" I dare say had we actually used Rambo's approach, we'd be done by now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry2YeJlvW04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) Hello Bipto, Classic! BTW, before I forget, thanks for taking the time in engaging all the members here who have questioned, commented, supported, and has been for as well as against what NAWAC has be doing. You've been doing it for fifty two pages now along with others since last June. I've learned a lot from you folks about not only BF but also the different philosophies and schools of thought involved in your endeavor. The ethics and the reasons behind them. Good stuff. Edited October 3, 2013 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Well, apparently DWA is not one of those people. Maybe Mr. Brown and the rest of his team would have enough......, uh, reasoning ability to suspend the lead slinging part and try to study the creatures as Dame Goodall did with wild chimpanzees. I really doubt that Dame Goodall, a primatologist, ethologist and anthropologist has blessed the group's Rambo approach to "protecting the species", especially since Dame Goodall was at one time appointed a UN Messenger of Peace. I wouldn't try to make Jane Goodall into someone/something she is not (nor Dian Fossey of gorilla fame, or Birute Galdikas of orangutan notoriety). All three (the famed "Leakey's Angels") were given primate observation research jobs by Louis Leakey, and were more than happy to be assigned any research project by the famous man. No one wanted the chimpanzee gig that Jane Goodall took, and she primarily took it to be able to work under Leakey and to work with animals in Africa. (She actually worked as his secretary at first.) Dian Fossey was working with disabled chiildren and "adventuring" in Africa prior to the gorilla gig. (Sounded like she was bored with life...) Birute Galdikas was the only one that actually approached Leakey with the intent to study apes (specifically orangutans) as a graduate research project. All the anthropologist/primatologist/ethnologist recognition and accolades for "Leakey's Angels" came well after they did the initial work and were moderately famous, with the possible exception of Galdikas. The ape observation assignments were initially just jobs for Goodall and Fossey. They weren't doing this to "save" the apes. Perhaps later that came into play, but not initially. (Again, the only exception, in my opinion, would be Galdikas.) And don't bet that these scientists mentioned are all enraptured by "peace and goodness," conservation, preservation, and ethics. I think they well understand that if wood apes are to be a recognized as a valid species in the scientific community, the only way to do this is with one type specimen (that's right: just one, i.e. "1" body). This is the way that science is done, and it needs to happen for all the "peace and goodness", preservation, conservation, etc. stuff to kick in and actually accomplish something. That is just the way it is; especially with all the hoaxes, blobsquatch photos and videos, botched/inconclusive DNA studies, etc.surrounding the North American wood ape phenomenon. A body is the only way this can and will be resolved. Once that is done, then all the conservationists can descend in full force and condemn "collecting" specimens. But until that time is upon us, all the conservation talk is nothing but hot air and arm waving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 ^^^^Hate to agree on this particular subject but I think I do. Zoology demands a specimen. Exceptions have been made; but I don't think they will be for something that most of the world thinks Just Ain't Real. I wish we were Bhutan, and could just set up a bunch of massive 'yeti reserves' just because. (Practical bennie: protect the "umbrella species," protect everything else.) But we're not. I don't honestly know how much confirmation will help conservation efforts. We need to work this from the other end, and stop eating the land hand over fist, before anything we do in the way of conserving species will add up to a hoot in hell. (Another bennie of 'yeti reserves,' real 'yeti' or not.) But I would put a side wager for lunch money on sasquatch confirmation helping that along too. I don't see it as necessary. The least modern conservation biology could do to pay me back for that wild wolf I saw while day hiking in Denali National Park - with a $%%$$# RADIO COLLAR AROUND ITS NECK - would be to get aboard the sasquatch bandwagon and get a video/bioassay that would do much to put this to rest. The technology is there. But it won't be employed until the people employing it know there is something to look for, count on that. (And shoot, who knows, maybe sasquatch were all running from paparazzi in previous lives and really do hate cameras. Search me.) People are unfathomable; and my fear is that some reading from the NAWAC textbook will be trying before long to put the lessons to use killing every one of these on their timber claim. But know what? That is far - far - less likely in my mind than that we'll eat all its habitat before we even know for a fact it's there. Which is NAWAC's perception of the issue: they're working with time they may not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) Let's just see what Sykes puts out there before we start jumping to any conclusions. I could just as easily ask the friends of the forest people the same question in reverse. Brian, I jumped to no conclusion. I asked "If" Sykes DNA showed human linage. You can avoid answering if you chose. If Sykes confirms that wood apes are real and are, in fact, APES would they lay off all the "human hybrid" crap or stick with their patron saint Melba? If you had ever looked one of the teenage males in the face in broad daylight in open woods at a distance of about fifty feet, you would have seen no "ape" in him. I am aware that nothing I say will ever give you pause to think. . I need to say another thing or two, and I'll stay off this thread. As I'm sure you know, I've spent a lot longer than five years in the Ouachita Mountains trying to learn more about the creatures. And I've made many trips to Le Flore county during that time. I'm sure you also know by now that the grown, male primates you are dealing with are huge and seldom hunt, forage or investigate human activity alone. There are several in that county that can only be described as huge and aggressive. Shooting one, and making it a killing shot, is going to be the start of a long nightmare for your group. And no amount of guns and gadgets are not going to stop it. I actually have no ill-will against any of you and what you are doing. The unsettling thing is that your group is convinced that by killing one from the Ouachitas the entire BF mystery will be solved. Nothing could be further from the truth, as you will - to your chagrin - discover shortly after the deed is done. Be careful, ........... or at least sanitary. Ate logo! Edited October 3, 2013 by Branco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Have you shot one before or no someone who has? How do you know they wouldn't cry like babies and run off when their friend is shot. If accounts are to be believed Bigfoot is much more flight then fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I wouldn't try to make Jane Goodall into someone/something she is not. Is she not a a primatologist, ethologist and anthropologist? Was she not at one time appointed a UN Messenger of Peace? I got that info from a usually reliable source. The source, of course, failed to include opinions and gossip from within or without the fields in which she was involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts