the parkie Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) Why not become more of a primatologist and capture one on filmWith all due respect, why don't you? If you did it then I'm sure you would have the backing of everyone here. It's definitely my preferred option for those wanting scientific confirmation. Ensure that it will be good enough to definitively convince science beyond all doubt that the creature is real though. Edited May 19, 2014 by the parkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 If you want to skirt and not engage in legitimate issues for discussion that is your prerogative. I have over 1,300 posts on this forum, the vast majority in threads where I engage in discussions of "legitimate issues" and not once have I ever insinuated anyone or any of their associates were racist (though I've been on the other side of such insults twice in a week). You can applaud our efforts and still insult us and my reaction to your careless choice of words should not be the issue. Question for those who say wood apes are people: Do you also think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps are people? If not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I've never seen a topic where more people who don't know how little they know - which is only human, nothing more or less - come on like they know it all. Bipto and NAWAC are acting according to the best knowledge they have...including the vast bulk of the evidence, which indicates that, superficial appearances aside, these aren't human. What they are awaits the attention of taxonomy, which requires a specimen. The day we really do stop killing each other for every reason possible - including none at all - will be the day that argument starts to matter, to me, in this discussion. Until then, we know what the society demands; and NAWAC is out trying to get it. The people who will get no quarter from me are those who scoff now...and will yell "you shot a person!" when the thing they demanded happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) I've never seen a topic where more people who don't know how little they know - which is only human, nothing more or less - come on like they know it all. I asked the above question since wood apes exhibit behaviors very much like other great apes but, in our direct, up close and personal experience, they do none of the things you'd expect from an animal with the cognitive abilities of human beings. The great apes are close to us. Closer than any other animals. But they're still very far away and are, at the end of the day, animals. Those who want to ascribe their remarkable abilities to some kind of humanness only illuminate a general ignorance regarding what other great ape species are capable of (and/or, perhaps, what makes a human human). Discussions of race and how it applies to the work of a naturalist (i.e., the analogies between Native Americans and/or Vietnamese) are simply out of bounds. They demonstrate a lack of comprehension by those making the comparison, not only in how apes live and what they can do but also in standard and accepted scientific methods regarding the establishment of a new animal. I have no doubt whatsoever that wood apes are close relatives of Homo sapiens. But they're not us. If they were, they would act like it. Edited May 19, 2014 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I have over 1,300 posts on this forum, the vast majority in threads where I engage in discussions of "legitimate issues" and not once have I ever insinuated anyone or any of their associates were racist (though I've been on the other side of such insults twice in a week). You can applaud our efforts and still insult us and my reaction to your careless choice of words should not be the issue. Question for those who say wood apes are people: Do you also think orangutans, gorillas, and chimps are people? If not, why not? Speaking strictly for myself, orangutans, gorillas & chimpanzees have been forensically ID'd, for what they are in the world of fauna whereas, UHS/BF/WA, have not. Therefore, I cannot say they are "people" no more than you can say they are not and still be honest with ourselves. What I can say is my personal observations (and those of others I have been with in the field as well as witnesses such as D.J.) lead me to the conclusion they "act" (locomotion, behavior when under stress, etc.) more like homo sapiens than like any great ape. Patty's gait in the PG film should be compelling enough to satisfy that for even the most ardent contrarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 The necessary proof of such assertions may well be provided by the NAWAC. I wish them luck in their endeavors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 The deliberate confirmed killing of the second woodape will be a tragedy (and probably a crime). The killing of the first one will probably be the most significant advance in the understanding of human and primate biology since The Origin of the Species was published. This process is not stoppable, even if the NAWAC packed it in right now. All who would argue against this inevitability are just shouting into a hurricane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 What I can say is my personal observations (and those of others I have been with in the field as well as witnesses such as D.J.) lead me to the conclusion they "act" (locomotion, behavior when under stress, etc.) more like homo sapiens than like any great ape. Patty's gait in the PG film should be compelling enough to satisfy that for even the most ardent contrarian. John Green rebutted your arguments in 1978. This process is not stoppable, even if the NAWAC packed it in right now. All who would argue against this inevitability are just shouting into a hurricane. Agreed. And we're unlikely to pack it in anytime in the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 It's shocking to me how casually yet incredibly insulting the people on this forum can be. Are lions worried about the opinions of sheep? Bipto you started this forums we ALL owe you that, You have had one of the IMO best podcasts about the subject out there in terms of entertainment and education (you 4 personally got me into the field so I wish you to please continue with the show ) And you are part of a group that is very mis understood but is on the leading edge of this all. stay true and carry out the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) John Green rebutted your arguments in 1978. Really? First, he rebutts your "extinction" premise: ..."The situation of the sasquatch differs considerably from that of the other great apes in at least three ways. First, there is no shortage of wild sasquatches. They cover such a tremendous area that there must be many thousands of them, and there is nothing to indicate that their numbers are declining. On the contrary, their appearance in more and more places where they were not previously known suggests that they are steadily becoming more numerous."... He further thinks they are useful as laboratory experiment animals, not something to be preserved in the wild: ..."Second, the sasquatch as an experimental animal is of unique importance. Primates are expensive and bothersome to raise. They would be little used for medical research if other animals would serve as well, but for some purposes their close relationship to man makes them essential. As the only other primate that walks in the same manner as man, the sasquatch is the only potential experimental animal for the whole range of human ailments that are linked to upright posture. Whether it will be worthwhile to breed them for experimental purposes remains to be seen but before the answer is known they will need to be studied, and study will have to include dissection."... He also promotes mass killings of UHS/BF/WA: ..."The third difference is that sasquatches are not available for study without killing them. With the other apes a great deal of information is already available as a result of earlier research, and if new cadavers are needed there are enough natural deaths among captive animals to provide a fair selection. Thorough study of all the various systems—muscles, nerves, glands, blood vessels, digestive organs and so on—requires dissection of quite a few bodies. The only way they can be obtained, in the case of a sasquatch, is by hunting."... In summary, it appears he (Green) is the advocate of mass killings, using them as laboratory experiment subjects and (per him) the woods are literally overflowing with them. What a piece of work. Was Dr. Ishii his mentor? IMO, using his prognostications to buttress NAWAC's mission statement is inviting a boatload of unintended consequences. Edited May 19, 2014 by Yuchi1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) What does any of that have to you with your "they walk like us so they must be us" assertion? You somehow missed that bit. Edited May 19, 2014 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 John Green rebutted your arguments in 1978. Agreed. And we're unlikely to pack it in anytime in the foreseeable future. Totally unrelated, but I wanted to share as an FYI. For some reason Bipto, woodape.org gets snagged by Barracuda as a Gaming/Media site. For those that pop in on our breaks at work, it is not viewable. FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 My goal is not to irritate or to be destructively insultive but simply to find the facts too. I simply want to find the truth about Bigfoot just like you do but in a different way and am sorry for perceived insults………not my intention. Is my way better than yours? I hope that you bring us the evidence. Last week, I went to an area where I think Sasquatches live only because of prime habitat with 50’ sandstone cliffs that wind around the hillside and where I participated in whistling exchanges. I set out more food. Maybe I don’t really want to find bigfoot in the woods by myself, unarmed. This video really drives this possible reality home. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEe4U_S_CI I’ve packed around my 12 gauge auto with the plug out, and full with slugs mixed with buckshot in prime Oregon bigfoot country. Only for protection was my purpose. Supposedly, when BF sees the weapon, it hides and some say it becomes invisible. Wow, that’s quite a theory. The military thing simply brings up bad memories. My thoughts are my right to express, so attack the message and not the messenger. ‘Freedom of speech’ is our goal. I despise insults. I’m argumentive not for the purpose of insulting anyone but to explore the truth in an honest, heartfelt discussions. Calling it insulting is inaccurate terminology. Seems like science has gone by the wayside here..................nuff said until things get back to the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 What does any of that have to you with your "they walk like us so they must be us" assertion? You somehow missed that bit. If this what you're referencing: "Speaking strictly for myself, orangutans, gorillas & chimpanzees have been forensically ID'd, for what they are in the world of fauna whereas, UHS/BF/WA, have not. Therefore, I cannot say they are "people" no more than you can say they are not and still be honest with ourselves. What I can say is my personal observations (and those of others I have been with in the field as well as witnesses such as D.J.) lead me to the conclusion they "act" (locomotion, behavior when under stress, etc.) more like homo sapiens than like any great ape. Patty's gait in the PG film should be compelling enough to satisfy that for even the most ardent contrarian." (post #260) What I imply is that (from the actual evidence (i.e., PG film) that is public) it is a stretch to say Patty walks like a gorilla, orangutan or chimp as the film appears to indicate a higher hominid characteristic than those animals possess. John Green appears to contravene basically everything NAWAC stands for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts