Explorer Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 They can simply collect some scat from the multitude of wood apes finding refuge on their 10 acre plot or pluck a hair from a large tree after they watch a wood ape ride it to the ground or collect some blood samples from a wounded wood ape after they throw a bunch of lead down range and scare off the owner's relatives. Who is claiming that area X is ten acres and all wood apes reside on said acreage? When I read the monograph, I did not see any reference to the area range that was being investigated or the area range where they had their sightings or the acreage of the private property. I am very curious about the actual acreage size investigated that led to 49 visual sightings in 4 years. Pretty amazing, if true! Throughout the report I read that folks would walk a few miles (there were several at 4 miles since the cars were parked about 4 miles from the cabin), so I was guessing at least 5 miles radius range (which is about 79 square mile circle). But I really don’t know. A 10 acre lot sounds tiny and appears inconsistent with the descriptions in report. Below are quotes from the report on acreage of ecoregion investigated but it is too generic/broad and not specific. Page 4 “The isolated study area is on private property located in the heart of the Ouachita Mountains in Eastern Oklahoma. Only one difficult and rocky road leads to the property, which is set in the midst of hundreds of thousands of acres of publicly and privately held forestland and mountainous formations.†Page 9 "After interviewing locals and receiving guidance from a retired forest service supervisor, Higgins and his team narrowed their search along a rocky, remote “jeep trail†set among hundreds of thousands of acres of privately owned and government timberlands." One hundred thousand acres is about 156 square miles, just for reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Yeah, DWA, I tend to agree. But to give our poster the benefit of the doubt, let's just suppose he/she has overlooked the "search" function here, or has not invested in the time to read the numerous discussions concerning Area X to be found, by those who participated in the events. But, to be less forgiving, I would just note the tactics and rationale for the approach the NAWAC members have adopted is pretty clearly summarized in the paper and/or discussions here on the board. These materials would bear reading/rereading if one had these kinds of questions. It leaves little room to wonder why Bipto finally felt his efforts to explain and expand on the NAWAC methods and tactics were futile. (But Bipto, where ARE the water lilies...?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I've read through some of the old threads mostly fawning. I like the tree falling story followed by the hissy fit. Am I missing some vital evidence not included in the monograph? Maybe a picture of a quartz or obsedion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Yes and no. You are missing what is there more than what is not. Edited March 20, 2015 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Who is claiming that area X is ten acres and all wood apes reside on said acreage? Look, Norse, you're spoiling it. If bigfoot skeptics can't postulate the cloudcuckoo world they want to...what would they talk about...? Yes and no. You are missing what is there more than what is not. Indeed. Science is teasing out of the world what it is not hiding from one. One needs experience in the world - experience of the right kind - to do this; frequently a science degree isn't enough. Those of us who know what NAWAC is experiencing know it because our worldly experience tells us about the outdoors and the things in it. It tells us in general and very applicable terms the capabilities and limitations of humans. (They're not doing what NAWAC is experiencing.) It tells us how to listen to, and read, experiences, and link them quickly to the body of information already resident. Bigfoot skeptics don't do this, because they have a priori decided it isn't worthwhile. Those of us who know the outdoors, its inhabitants, and scientific method simply know differently, and that is why we do the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 You do get weary of the same-same (non) explanations. Where these folks come up short is the second part of "It ain't that, it's_____." Aaaaaand there it stalls. Just a few jots short of brilliance on their part. I've shot more than my share of rain barrel fish, and it gets wearisome to try and jumpstart any beta waves these days. Saving my energy for the engaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Yep. And what such as you and I - and the people in the field obytheway, actually experiencing it and having a perspective lacking from an armchair - get about reading monographs like NAWAC's is the unpacking you have to do to get to the likeliest assessment of what is going on. Unpacking which of course those in the field have already done. One example. The rocks. The bigfoot skeptic goes: locals harassing the goofy bigfoot hunters. You and I go: OK. *What would be required* for that to be the case? [unpackunpackunpack...leads to]...you do not want to calculate what those world-class athlete/soldiers would want to get paid for doing this, because trust me it would not come free, and they'd rather get their money in Iraq or Afghanistan than do that in X for free. The unpacking? Rather not go into that. It is serious intellectual work, and you aren't doing it, or buying my take, if your approach to this is: since bigfoot isn't real... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 21, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) ///////and they'd rather get their money in Iraq or Afghanistan than do that in X for free. The unpacking? Rather not go into that. It is serious intellectual work, and you aren't doing it, or buying my take, if your approach to this is: since bigfoot isn't real... Correction they have already done it in X for free, it is called maneuvers at Ft. Stewart, Camp LeJeune, Ft. Bragg. U.S. Army Ranger Camp Frank D. Merrill - Dahlonega ., etc. etc. etc. Edited March 21, 2015 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) Yeah, bring those guys into X and lets see how long they go before two or six of them get whacked. See, this is what I mean by 'unpacking.' Remember: unarmed; no one on the team gets to ever see them; the size of the rocks? that too; all the trees getting pushed over; no one seeing a human (but many seeing people in ape suits that allow beyond world-class athletic performance...including suits that indicate some of these beyond world-class athletes *are small children*). Oryeah, they're just flat lying, which is always handy when unpacking anything but your luggage gives you a headache. Mmmm-hmmm. (I did conveniently leave out the superhuman capabilities of the guys...which are garden-variety for wild primates.) Edited March 21, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Who is claiming that area X is ten acres and all wood apes reside on said acreage? NAWAC and Charles Branson - the landowner. Granted, NAWAC has tried looking in the public forest and even used camera traps there without success. The cabin (rock attacks and through the screen fondling) and overwatch position are located on land leased from Charles Branson. Of course, even though activity increases during the fall and winter months (according to Alton Higgins) NAWAC is unable to pursue their search then. During the increased activity periods the site is leased out to hunters who, amazingly enough, don't seem to be shooting or even seeing the curious sassy? WSA - I had to chuckle at your reference to Monet. Performance art has never received higher flattery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Ok but obvious your not leasing just 10 acres out to deer hunters. So the draw to that property is obviously the national forest surrounding it. Which leaves a lot of elbow room for a cryptid. I think the NAWAC video "the valley of the wood ape" isn't selling the idea that all of this is happening on ten acres. But obviously the acreage and cabin provide a base camp for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Agreed Norse, what would stop a 9' wood ape from moving from the 10 acre plot to adjoining public land? I don't think it matters though, the action is taking place on the 10 acre parcel. The rock throwing, the through-the-screen fondling, the shooting, etc are all taking place at/in camp. The rocks are hitting the cabin roof, the fondling took place at the cabin, the shooting took place there and drove Branson's relative off the plot. What's your take on why the hunter's aren't noticing any activity during what Alton Higgins describes as periods of "increased activity"? Do you think the world-class athletic abilities of the wood apes are too subtle for "regular" hunters to notice? Ever had any large rocks thrown at you while out hunting? How did/would you respond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 A Project Grendel member has reported rock throwing in northern Arizona and another in central Montana. I have never experienced it. But if I did I would try to push and get eyes on the culprit. As they did. I don't know what's going on at area x as I've never been there. But I find Brian down to earth as well as Kathy. So that's probably the main reason why I find what they are describing as compelling. If area x belonged to Todd Standing I wouldn't even give it the time of day. The pro kill position is measured by real success in terms of a body. If you cannot produce a body especially in a area reported to be very active? Then people's patience starts to wither and die. And I think what has happened to the NAWAC is that. But one must remember that they are still committed to harvesting a type specimen and they are still out there. It's like fishing if your gonna have success you must have a line in the water. They do, which has nothing to do with public opinion unlike other non kill groups that must present evidence and be believed or not. If the NAWAC connects then opinion and belief is out the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKBFFan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 I thought area x was not to be disclosed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKBFFan Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Wow I have that uncanny ability to just kill a thread. Amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts