dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) OK, so just being clear again here: No alternative explanation leaves me with no choice but to accept the possibility, because, class, the following: 1) Anybody see any of these trees? No? Gotcha. 2) Anybody advance any possibility that takes everything described into account? No? Gotcha. 3) Any reason an ape, hello, AN APE, can't get into a tree? None, whatsoever? Gotcha. Just needed to show how a scientist in possession of his faculties assesses things. Anyone that gives you anything other than what I just put up there isn't wearing his scientist hat; tell him to put it on and don't come back until. Is there no way it was a bear? I can't say that. Bears live there. They climb trees; and they can get onto branches you don't think they will and I have proof. Don't know the percentage if any of cinnamon bears in that area. The gray one bipto saw, however, is either a glacier bear, a color phase of the black bear that let's just say you won't find within a thousand miles of X...or one of the more unusually colored black bears ever that wasn't a glacier bear. I also need to add that bipto has a pile of "him over you" markers that anyone with his scientist hat on would recognize that, compared to others here, is...well, I can confidently assert that no sasquatch born can topple that pile. Right, except for the fact that there are no apes in OK. You and WSA accept the fact that there are no brown bears in OK. There used to be, but they were extirpated. WSA was quick to point out that there are no brown bears in OK, so one must assume he agrees with mainstream biological studies that feel confident when they proclaim the species locally extinct. Those same studies do not list "Wood Apes" in their publications. Also, I would accept an odd color phase of black bear seen through the subjective lens of human perspective during a fleeting glimpse vs a previously never documented species. But then again, I'm not subject to bigfoot confirmation bias. Remove that and it really helps one when assessing stories. Edited June 21, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 ^^^And one has concocted a nice little universe in one's own head. In addition to demonstrating how not to think about this. Bears are animals science recognizes. They have been studied to a faretheewell. There are no Ursus arctos in OK. No reason to think there are. Habitat requirements are all wrong, for the very first thing. "No apes in OK" simply represents denial, of the most basic and fundamental sort; and every scientist I have encountered asserting such a thing I have slashed to ribbons using science as my weapon. As I now do you. (No, just did. That's your blood on the ground all about you. No alternative explanation.Is there.)
Doc Holliday Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 pushing over a two ft. dia. oak and snapping one at the base are different feats of strength. ^^ this...... barring rot / disease this seems a bit unlikely for a solid 24 inches of healthy hardwood . fwiw, I'm not in the skeptic camp, but I can see why they aren't buying this.
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 ^^^And I know they've all examined these trees closely.
dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) ^^^And one has concocted a nice little universe in one's own head. In addition to demonstrating how not to think about this. Bears are animals science recognizes. They have been studied to a faretheewell. There are no Ursus arctos in OK. No reason to think there are. Habitat requirements are all wrong, for the very first thing. "No apes in OK" simply represents denial, of the most basic and fundamental sort; and every scientist I have encountered asserting such a thing I have slashed to ribbons using science as my weapon. As I now do you. (No, just did. That's your blood on the ground all about you. No alternative explanation. Is there.) There used to be brown bears in OK. Are you a brown bear denialist? Sounds like it to me. Or are you conveniently accepting the mainstream consensus on one species yet ironically rejecting it when it comes to cryptids? That's terribly scientific. Brown bears were extirpated over the last two centuries. Many people claim that bigfoot is an extant G.blacki, including Dr.Meldrum. Yet the notion of a lingering brown bear population in OK sounds ridiculous to you? Er, okay... Edited June 21, 2014 by dmaker
Terry Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 OK, so just being clear again here: No alternative explanation leaves me with no choice but to accept the possibility, because, class, the following: 1) Anybody see any of these trees? No? Gotcha. 2) Anybody advance any possibility that takes everything described into account? No? Gotcha. 3) Any reason an ape, hello, AN APE, can't get into a tree? None, whatsoever? Gotcha. Just needed to show how a scientist in possession of his faculties assesses things. Anyone that gives you anything other than what I just put up there isn't wearing his scientist hat; tell him to put it on and don't come back until. Is there no way it was a bear? I can't say that. Bears live there. They climb trees; and they can get onto branches you don't think they will and I have proof. Don't know the percentage if any of cinnamon bears in that area. The gray one bipto saw, however, is either a glacier bear, a color phase of the black bear that let's just say you won't find within a thousand miles of X...or one of the more unusually colored black bears ever that wasn't a glacier bear. I also need to add that bipto has a pile of "him over you" markers that anyone with his scientist hat on would recognize that, compared to others here, is...well, I can confidently assert that no sasquatch born can topple that pile. I agree 100%. Bears can also feel vulnerable in trees with humans around and some will hit the ground and take off if they don't like what they see or hear coming. The only thing that bothers me about all of this is it's Bip making the claims. I consider him an honourable and intelligent researcher and I respect his reports a lot. I don't know how much wilderness wildlife experience or study he has had in the past but my only conclusion here is that he's misidentified a critter exiting that tree. Other than that, Bipto's reports are, to me, very compelling. t.
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 ^^^I cannot tell you that oh, I know what is going on here. But I know a number of NAWAC researchers (if you ever saw Alton Higgins all the way across a Wal-Mart parking lot, you'd think: SCIENTIST. I have no reason to doubt his having seen one). They don't go off all crazy about stuff. Anyone who has been in anything like X for any amount of time during the times of year that they are there [raises hand] knows that people like this don't go places like this chasing ghosts and imagination figments. I do think that anyone calling BS on them has to show me qualifications ...which would include being there.
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 All over BFF. I think like a scientist, dude. More scientists could, it would really help our understanding of the world, it really would. We've harrumph seen harrumph yours.
dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) I see your contributions all over the BFF, qualifications is not the word I would use however. At least I now understand what you mean by qualifications: forum posts. Edited June 21, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 ^^^Gotcha, Legfeet, and once again you have wasted a whole tank of gas getting nowhere. Your explanation, please.
dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Explanation for what? For a story that someone told on an Internet forum? We don't even have a picture of the alleged tree break. Why do I need to concoct a story to support someone else's unsubstantiated story? Without supporting evidence I cannot rule out that bipto is simply mistaken, exaggerating in the heat of the moment, color blind, etc, etc. There is nothing here for me to explain beyond an unsupported story. Edited June 21, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Nope, sorry. Explanation. Not really gettin' how this works, are we. Explanation...or lack of qualifications to engage in the discussion conclusively demonstrated. WSA nailed it. Edited June 21, 2014 by DWA
dmaker Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 Explanation: the tree was previously weakened by a perfectly common and natural even that weaken trees daily in forests. Some largish mammal was in the tree doing antics of some sort and fell and scurried off.
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 ^^^And your evidence for that would be. (Not expecting much here.)
Recommended Posts