N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[Guest]

Awesome. Glad we could clear that up. 

[Guest]

The single largest amount of compelling evidence is in the form of the personal observations and experiences of NAWAC members. When the "immense amount of data" is discussed, that's what we're talking about. Our field journals. We are recording some fascinating behavioral observations. Even now. Of course, to the public at large, these are just more stories. I can't dispute that. I've never really tried. Nobody is required to accept what I'm saying as true. *I* know it's true. And I am terrifically excited about the things we're learning, up to and including stuff from just last week. But, until such time as we're able to produce proof, no evidence we collect will be worth more than any of the previous decades of evidence collected. We know that. It's what drives our effort. 

 

 

I don't believe we will ever "throw in the towel." It may become harder for us to operate due to constraints on resources or manpower, but we have a dedicated and motivated team who have shown themselves willing to make real sacrifices in the service of accomplishing our objectives. We will try our best to succeed and, if we fail, we'll be back next year to try again. We are *always* discussing new options and tactics and approaches. Always. It never ends, mostly because each new week and month spent in the field delivers new observations and behavior for us to work with. There is no time limit set on what we now call the Ouachita Project. Endurance led to Persistence led to Relentless led to Tenacity which will lead to whatever name we dream up for the next one and the one after that and the one after that, if necessary. We will be there every year for as long as we have permission to do so until that last man (or woman) is standing.

This is the new methodology emerging out of "field researcher" orgs. Incredibly, we are led to believe that you are cataloging on almost a daily basis the behavior of an animal that you have not shown to even exist.

And if you never prove wood apes exist, will you nevertheless publish your findings about how they behave and live?

[Guest]

Incredibly, we are led to believe that you are cataloging on almost a daily basis the behavior of an animal that you have not shown to even exist.

 

Incredibly, yes. 

 

And if you never prove wood apes exist, will you nevertheless publish your findings about how they behave and live?

Unknown. We will keep at it as long as we can or until we're successful. After that, I expect we would make our observations available in full. Before then, presenting them as some king of paper would likely be a distraction to us. Never say never, though.

[Drew]

Bipto you are keeping tabs of all the sightings, and then when you are done going to publish all of them?  Or would you publish only the ones that would seem convincing to Bigfooters?  I'm just wondering if you will edit your observation database like the BFRO does.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

If I understand the mission of the NAWAC, if they are successful, evidence and proof will converge in the form of one dead wood ape. Pretty much, they see no return on investment in snapping photos, collecting scat, casting footprints, etc. Despite invitations to do that from some posters, they and I know the fruits of those efforts (if any) will only be met with incredulity, thinly disguised as scientific skepticism, telling them why they have it wrong.  Why bother with that? Prove the species and then you can have your pick of well funded research projects, and if you then wanted to collect all the hair, scat and footprints in the world, you can have at it with impunity.  I think they show good sense in this strategy.

 

Exactly.  If my objective were confirmation, seeing what that is going to require, I'd spend little time on anything but that. Recording field observations - which will mean nothing to skeptics - is important from a scientific standpoint, as it simply increases baseline data, and is a handy thing to do when your Ruger isn't focused on the type specimen's chest.

 

This is the new methodology emerging out of "field researcher" orgs. Incredibly, we are led to believe that you are cataloging on almost a daily basis the behavior of an animal that you have not shown to even exist.

 

Field research is time-tested as critical to scientific endeavor.  Given our experience with known primates, few if any encounters are gonna offer a slam-dunk killshot on the type specimen.  Compiling data can speed the day that happens.  The only difference between what primate researchers do for known animals and what NAWAC is doing for this one is that the establishment doesn't recognize this animal.  That's the establishment's problem...until they can provide a good reason that's happening, and "no proof yet" isn't a reason at all.  

And if you never prove wood apes exist, will you nevertheless publish your findings about how they behave and live?

 

Bipto gave a good answer.  Mine would be that it would come out after acceptance of the animal made the data required reading.

[Guest]

Bipto you are keeping tabs of all the sightings, and then when you are done going to publish all of them?  Or would you publish only the ones that would seem convincing to Bigfooters?  I'm just wondering if you will edit your observation database like the BFRO does.

 

All our data is retained. As I said, following confirmation I don't know why we wouldn't make it available. I can't say what form that will take, however. I'm also not familiar with how the BFRO edits their database so I can't comment on that. In the mean time, we'll limit our information outreach to answering questions here, the occasional podcast, and a post on our website when necessary. 

[Guest DWA]

I'm just gonna toss this in there (and it won't dent those whose opinion on this can't be influenced by, you know, information).

 

Listen to the latest podcast of The Bigfoot Show (Episode 60 - A hand and an arm and a thong). 

 

One of the people you'd use as Exhibit A if he said people are doing all this stuff in X...is saying people aren't doing it.

 

And other good stuff that it's wise for informed people to, you know, consider if they want to be, you know, considered informed.

[Guest]

It was a pleasure having Miz on the show again. The events related regarding the tree happened a few hours after his interview was recorded.

[Guest DWA]

^^^You and Daryl get really upset at that "so, when are you gonna quit?" question, don't you?

 

You never quit while the evidence says that you are right. 

Edited June 15, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

I think the people who ask the "when will you admit defeat" thing don't see it from our point of view. We don't doubt the existence of the apes in this area. We know they're there and know we have a unique opportunity to establish the species. The only thing that would cause us to stop our effort would be losing physical access to the area or the apes moving on. They show no signs of doing so, though it's impossible to say how far the local logging activities can go before having an impact. 

[Guest zenmonkey]

Thanks for the show as always made my day!

[JanV]

Good show, Brian. Always appreciate the updates from Area X.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I like stories from Area X, too.

[Guest]

Good show, and good interview.

With regards to the tree incident, seeing as you were sighting the thermal scope on the weapon at the time, did the operator point it at the tree in question to get a look..?

[Guest Stan Norton]

Daryl Colyer sits on the fence too much. He needs to be more assertive...

Edited June 16, 2014 by Stan Norton