Jump to content

Area X Presentation/ Bob Strain


norseman
 Share

Recommended Posts

The sightings alone do not constitute proof. Not even close .Nothing but stories and campfire chat.  Now shooting to collect a specimen. That is real proof. That I agree with you . If they somehow remotely exist ,I am in the pro-kill camp like you.

Good luck.

 

According to Popper, proof is not part of the scientific method. There is a lot of evidence, and to me, it demonstrates to beyond a reasonable doubt that they are interacting with Wood Apes. These researchers are neither frauds, nor delusional, as far as I can see, and there is no ambiguity in their reports. They have repeatedly seen wood apes.

 

 

Bindernagel has written of "premature discovery" in his second book. I recommend it to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliments, I will pass them on.

As you know Kathy Im a big fan of you, your husband and the NAWAC crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Engaged Member
BFF Donor

 

The sightings alone do not constitute proof. Not even close .Nothing but stories and campfire chat.  Now shooting to collect a specimen. That is real proof. That I agree with you . If they somehow remotely exist ,I am in the pro-kill camp like you.

Good luck.

Sightings and tracks are how I hunt. Thats what a hunter scouts for when selecting an area to hunt.

So I have to ask you this....... if sightings are nothing but campfire bs? Then were does a pro kill proponent start? If there is a cryptid out there to shoot? At some point you have to start taking someone seriously......

 

I think you misunderstand my point. I understand the concept of hunting. My father was an avid hunter and I have accompanied  him and other family members on hunts. I only dismiss tracks and witnesses as non-tangible proof of existence.  I  respect the fact that you are listening and tracking on your quest . I think you would agree that without a  specimen . Existence is not going to be accepted or documented as  a true living species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Maxtag

I thought the presentation was decent. Certainly putting a plan together and executing within the area. The fly over stuff seems to be a great leap forward hope it leads to more evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

The sightings alone do not constitute proof. Not even close .Nothing but stories and campfire chat.  .

Without the sightings, we don't even have the conversation in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Engaged Member
BFF Donor

↑ ↑

 

I will concede that but, as I said . Sightings are not proof. Hearsay ,knocks  and rocks  along with fabricated or misidentified footprints  don't either. 48 years later and one film appears authentic. Not a very good case for existence. Anyway, the mystery continues  along with the interest. Waiting on  a specimen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, we are turning over a new leaf today, and not going to re re re hash the "no proof" argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliments, I will pass them on.

 

Hairy Man can you provide the actual study reference that you cite here?

 

I can find nothing based on this citation.

 

GIqevJ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would help you Drewbot, if your heart was in the right place, but its not so I won't.

Besides your whole line of reasoning is kaput, concerning what was logged when or where. Wild populations of animals are not static, after all most of our terrestrial animals used Beringia to get here in the first place. Thats a long ways from Oklahoma, yes?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steering Committee
BFF Donor

Yeah, well no one over there can find the paper either.

Then none of you are looking very hard because I googled it up in about 5 seconds. I think you all just want to cast doubt so therefore you do not want to find the study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliments, I will pass them on.

 

I was remiss Kathy, in not extending credit to you as well. Last month I and my wife, best friend and teammate celebrated 38 years together. From that viewpoint it looks to me that you and Bob are also a team wherein merely adding the parts to find a sum is a disservice; if such a collaboration can be measured at all, the result will be found somewhere on the logarithmic scale. Thanks to both of you for your work with N.A.W.A.C., the great job of sharing the information that you can and, IMNTBHO, making this planet we all share a bit richer day-by-day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would help you Drewbot, if your heart was in the right place, but its not so I won't.

Besides your whole line of reasoning is kaput, concerning what was logged when or where. Wild populations of animals are not static, after all most of our terrestrial animals used Beringia to get here in the first place. Thats a long ways from Oklahoma, yes?

 

My heart has nothing to do with it.   

 

If it doesn't matter, then why did NAWAC include the incomplete citation, that the forest around them hasn't been logged in over 200 years?  

I think it does matter.  Because the decimation of our eastern forests was so complete, that even the elusive Bigfoot would have been rolled up in the catastrophe.

 

Yeah, well no one over there can find the paper either.

Then none of you are looking very hard because I googled it up in about 5 seconds. I think you all just want to cast doubt so therefore you do not want to find the study.

 

 

http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/na0412

 

If that is what you are referring to, that article makes no mention of the surrounding forest not being cut since the late 1800's.

 

Can you point out the place where it does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...