Area X/NAWAC updates?

[NathanFooter]

7 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Well the big assumption there is that BF know what FLIR equipped rifles can do.   There are several reports I have read where people shoot at BF and they seem not to understand bullets are heading their way.   A human would duck and or seek cover.    The accounts of first European encounters with primative peoples where firearms were used read very similar.    That stick over there bangs and one of theirs falls wounded or dead a distance away.      Without seeing a projectile like a spear or arrow it probably is very confounding to a primitive people until they figure things out.     

 

  We have been hunting with rifles for many years now and every year we flood the forest to harvest game.   Coyotes know that the table has been set after a gun shot.

 

  Between poaching and hunting it is not a very strong case to suggest that they don't understand the bang stick and that it causes death. This point is even more pronounced in the south central US.

[SWWASAS]

I am sure that BF have seen enough hunters take deer and elk they likely know what rifles do.   But part of my point is that while I have some familiarity with weapons,  I am not sure I would know a night vision rifle scope if I saw one.   If I don't how would a BF know that is a special threat at night?

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

One would think that a scope on a rifle is just a scope on a rifle and that Sasquatches have seen scopes before so don't need to discriminate between a night scope and a non-night scope. The end result will be the same- day or night.

[SWWASAS]

I think it very premature to make such an assumption about the thought processes of something that has likely existed alongside man for man's entire history, if not longer, that is not even known to use the simplest of tools or weapons.    Mankind's ancestors have been making weapons and tools for a couple of million years.   There are very evident differences between BF thought processes and humans.     

 

 

[MIB]

5 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

There are very evident differences between BF thought processes and humans.

 

Uh, yeah.  If you look at them, you'll see physical differences.   Covered with hair / not covered with hair.  Bergmanns' Rule.  So to offset, we wear skins.   Someone big and hairy doesn't.   Takes a different brain function .. and selection for it.   And it all rolls from there in a very predictable way.    They aren't US.   We aren't THEM.   There's a lot in common, but very different ways to get there which have profound implications about things NOT in common as well.   This is probably the hardest nut to crack of all because of the similarities yet differences and vice versa.   It really forces us to think about what it means to be US ... and we're not all succeeding.  (Maybe none of us are succeeding.)   Without that success, finding them will be accidental regardless of our efforts.  

 

MIB

[bipedalist]

23 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

  We have been hunting with rifles for many years now and every year we flood the forest to harvest game.   Coyotes know that the table has been set after a gun shot.

 

  Between poaching and hunting it is not a very strong case to suggest that they don't understand the bang stick and that it causes death. This point is even more pronounced in the south central US.

 

Hell< I figure if Grizzlies can figure it out Sasquatch knew about it about 1700 or earlier! 

 

Speed of light vs. speed of sound thing is pure physics and not subject to change however.  Sometimes you are dead before you hear the sound and personally associate it with your death, lightning being a key case in point in Florida and Malawi especially

 

https://my.vaisala.net/Vaisala Documents/Scientific papers/2016 ILDC ILMC/Ron Holle. Number of Documented Global Lightning Fatalities.pdf

On 2/9/2019 at 11:32 AM, Explorer said:

My impression from reading the Ouachita Project Monograph (see link below), was that the entities that NAWAC was encountering were not stupid or afraid of them, but instead were playing games with them.

It seemed as if the entities had the upper hand and controlled whatever interaction was going to happen.

The entities knew they were being monitored, since the interactions stopped once infrared and NV cameras were installed around the perimeter of the cabin.

Interactions returned once cameras were removed.

That was not a sign of being stupid but of intelligence.

 

Nonetheless, I agree that it is odd that a creature(s) that is being shot at, keeps returning to the same location.

Either that area was critical to them and they expected to eventually scare humans off the land or they were having too much fun with the humans and knew they had the upper hand.

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/48-news/248

 

 

Or they weren't injured much by gunshots!? (or maybe had great hands, and a nice red S on their chest)

Edited February 12, 2019 by bipedalist

[Explorer]

I read this article recently about judging and ranking animal intelligence and found it very informative (see link below).

Before I read the article, I had the human bias of expecting a hierarchy of intelligence among animals, but this article changed my mind and makes sense to me.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/humans-are-dumb-at-figuring-out-how-smart-animals-are/

 

Whatever this BF creature is, it does show much higher intelligence than the woodape folks want to give it credit for.

Its ability avoid detection by hi-tech cameras for  ~6 years and specimen collection for ~5 years despite being present in a small area (of less than 5 mile radius) and actively being pursuit by smart humans, must not be just dumb luck.

They must exhibit some cognitive abilities that we humans do not know about and that other great apes might not exhibit (this is in addition to better senses either on eyes, smell, hearing, etc.).

 

One definition of human intelligence is the mental quality that consists of the abilities:

1. to learn from experience,
2. to adapt to new situations,
3. to understand and handle abstract concepts, and
4. to use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment.

Of these 4, I think the BFs exhibit #1 and #2, but am not sure about #3 and #4. 

Some BF researchers claim that the stick structures, stick shelters, and stick/rock formations are evidence for this.

However, I am not convinced by the evidence.  

I don't recall any report where witnesses actually saw a BF building a stick structure or making a glyph.

It is always after the fact; they find something odd and they assume BF.

The Ouachita monograph did mention evidence of nut cracking stations; but that does not seem to be a high bar cognitive ability.

 

Can't recall if the Ouachita Monograph had any findings on stick structures or glyphs.  My memory fails, but I think they did not. 

 

[norseman]

49 minutes ago, Explorer said:

I read this article recently about judging and ranking animal intelligence and found it very informative (see link below).

Before I read the article, I had the human bias of expecting a hierarchy of intelligence among animals, but this article changed my mind and makes sense to me.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/humans-are-dumb-at-figuring-out-how-smart-animals-are/

 

Whatever this BF creature is, it does show much higher intelligence than the woodape folks want to give it credit for.

Its ability avoid detection by hi-tech cameras for  ~6 years and specimen collection for ~5 years despite being present in a small area (of less than 5 mile radius) and actively being pursuit by smart humans, must not be just dumb luck.

They must exhibit some cognitive abilities that we humans do not know about and that other great apes might not exhibit (this is in addition to better senses either on eyes, smell, hearing, etc.).

 

One definition of human intelligence is the mental quality that consists of the abilities:

1. to learn from experience,
2. to adapt to new situations,
3. to understand and handle abstract concepts, and
4. to use knowledge to manipulate one’s environment.

Of these 4, I think the BFs exhibit #1 and #2, but am not sure about #3 and #4. 

Some BF researchers claim that the stick structures, stick shelters, and stick/rock formations are evidence for this.

However, I am not convinced by the evidence.  

I don't recall any report where witnesses actually saw a BF building a stick structure or making a glyph.

It is always after the fact; they find something odd and they assume BF.

The Ouachita monograph did mention evidence of nut cracking stations; but that does not seem to be a high bar cognitive ability.

 

Can't recall if the Ouachita Monograph had any findings on stick structures or glyphs.  My memory fails, but I think they did not. 

 

 

Or its just not there like they thought it was...

 

You do not "Outsmart" technology like FLIR. Especially when no other primate is able too... including humans.

 

Something is wrong at area X, but not sure its because of forest ninjas.

[bipedalist]

Quote

 

....Can't recall if the Ouachita Monograph had any findings on stick structures or glyphs.  My memory fails, but I think they did not. 

 

 

 

 

 

If not, they aren't looking hard enough, or couldn't care less since their bunks are being rocked nightly! 

 

Blood and dna is where it's at apparently.....

16 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

.....

Something is wrong at area X, but not sure its because of forest ninjas.

 

 

Could be those "woo sensitives" are messing with their Hecs gear?!

Edited February 12, 2019 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

 

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Or its just not there like they thought it was...

 

You do not "Outsmart" technology like FLIR. Especially when no other primate is able too... including humans.

 

Something is wrong at area X, but not sure its because of forest ninjas.

 

2 hours ago, bipedalist said:

 

 

If not, they aren't looking hard enough, or couldn't care less since their bunks are being rocked nightly! 

 

Blood and dna is where it's at apparently.....

 

 

Could be those "woo sensitives" are messing with their Hecs gear?!

 

 

Or it could be they got one.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

Well.....where is it!!??

[hiflier]

If they are smart it would be, or SHOULD be, an entirely covert operation until the public announcement. Not one peep or piece of digital communication. A scenario that has been discussed here many times as being a requirement for getting a specimen out of the forest and onto a slab without losing it.

Edited February 12, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

Sure. But you dont need 5 years or 5 months to release it to the public.....

 

They do not hunt in winter time, we are in February..... 5 months removed at least since summer/fall.

 

So......they do not have one.

Edited February 12, 2019 by norseman

[hiflier]

Well, bud, you got me on that one. The Loch Ness folks took their 200 water samples last summer. The analysis was finished in November. The results were to be announced early in January. So far, no announcement. Nothing on the internet since last July, sound familiar? All this kind of stuff runs the same MO. San Bernardino Sasquatch law suit? Nothing on the web since last March or April Loch Ness? Nothing since last July. NAWAC? Nothing. The public is always in the dark. Ridiculous.

[Huntster]

On 2/10/2019 at 2:16 PM, Explorer said:

.........If I recall, per their report, they had 49 visual sightings, (most of them near the cabin and within 5 mile radius of the cabin) yet not one camera shot............

 

49-0 is a blowout in every game under the sun. I'm afraid that their credibility comes under scrutiny under such claims. Even a few lousy pics should be expected.