Apes, Grooming and the NAWAC Self-Tagging Experiment

[SWWASAS]

On 8/25/2019 at 10:52 AM, Huntster said:

 

TWA 800:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

 

The Alaskan events were both due to the aircraft veering into Soviet airspace over or near Kamchatka, which U.S. spy planes (based upon the same airframes as civilian airliners) routinely test. That is no excuse for the Soviet attacks, but at least the Soviets had excuse material to use. I can't imagine how a U.S. navel vessel could have mistaken TWA 800 for a foreign spyplane, or in the case of the U.S.S. Vincennes downing that Iranian airliner, a foreign warbird. 

 Wrong flight number on my part.    Some shootdowns on the Russians part are accidental.    They practice tracking airliners using air defence missiles and forget to put on the safeties to prevent a launch.   If the Navy shot down TWA 800 it was probably for the same reason.     Practicing tracking an aircraft and accidently taking off a safety.     Making it more confusing for crews,   they do simulations on computers where they go through the complete process.    Someone without thinking might have performed as though it was a simulation and armed the missile.   All conjecture but the whole thing sure smelled of coverup.  

[Huntster]

56 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 .........All conjecture but the whole thing sure smelled of coverup.  

 

Yeah, it's the hit and run psychology. For some folks, the urge to run is overpowering. The same is true of coverups, even of mistakes, not intentional acts.

[southernyahoo]

On 8/9/2019 at 4:16 PM, WSA said:

Having only just recently digested the NAWAC's report on their experiment to Auto-Tag a BF with a cocklebur-encased radio tag, I had some thoughts. The first was, "Holy Cow!" that is really cool...and brilliant science. My hat is off to those boys and girls for this innovation that has implications above and beyond the BF study field.  Although the experiment is so far a unique one, and we will all want to know if the results are repeated,  something else occurred to me.

 

When I first read of their intention to try and hang up a cocklebur covered with rat-trap glue in the hair of a BF, my presumption was that this would be detected by the animal fairly quickly, or that it would "groomed" out by a companion BF in short order. If you believe their results, that didn't happen, and the tag kept on the move and sending out location data for months and until the battery presumably died. As far as we know, it could be riding on that BF as we speak.

 

So this leads me to some conclusions about the habits of this one BF, which leads me to some thoughts about a question that gets debated here: Man or Ape, or some of both?

 

I am firmly in the "Hominid" camp on this, for reasons not worth rehashing now. This experiment results though confirm my leanings.  Who has not seen a troop of baboons, chimps or gorillas grooming each other? We know they do it for hygiene purposes, to remove parasites, etc, but also as a social bonding ritual.  Somebody might contradict this with some research, but as far as I know, H. sapiens at least do not do that habitually or ritually. (Of course, I don't think we have any way to know if any H. sapien ancestors did)  

 

What say you...does this confirm or refute anything we think we know about BF?

 

 

I think it could easily have been a bear that the tag attached itself to, since they are attracted to many man made materials. There could have been enough scent on the tag to lure one in. I agree that a bigfoot would likely have some grooming tendencies and hands dexterous enough to remove a bur.  Not to say the tag couldn't attach itself to a bigfoot, because i do think they would get caught in their hair. I once found a curious hair sample that happened to be accompanied by 5 cockleburs all removed from the same animal in an area no larger than 4'x4'. That animal definitely did groom itself.

[WSA]

Bear? Not seeing it, at all.  Yep, you could point to the rat trap glue and the scent that might attract a bear, but the bear is going to have to get out and reach that thread and pull it down...yes, well within the capabilities of a bear, I know...and then it is going to pull it in, sniff it, taste it and discard it when it finds it is not edible.  No bear alive is going to leave that stuck to its front paw or face...c'mon.  Exactly how does the burr get to a place on the animal where it can't get to it and remove it? Not seeing anything really plausible.   

 

Give the NAWAC researchers a little credit too...if a bear is climbing an adjacent tree to grab that, it is going to leave abundant sign. Don't think they didn't look for that, or that they wouldn't know it when they saw it. 

 

Still though, repetition of the experiment is naturally going to make the BF theory more plausible, and make it less likely to be some other animal just stumbling into the tag.

[Celtic Raider]

On 8/23/2019 at 3:02 PM, WSA said:

I could be wrong, but my impression of the NAWAC's mindset at this point is they have moved past documentation of existence, unless it is by way of a collected, dead, specimen.  As they stated in the monograph, the ability to put a radio tag on something they concluded was a BF is not anything that is likely to change anyone's mind , and it is unlikely they would put the hours into documenting sign of a creature they know already exists, to collect evidence that is routinely dismissed by others who won't  be persuaded by more of the same.  What is unstated in the paper is where they want this radio tracking ability to go from here. Me, I think the unstated hope is: "Into the cross-hairs of a high-powered rifle". 

 

This experiment does beg for duplication, and they've probably already doubled-down on the technique. It might be interesting to see what the radio track looks like when the animal comes into the vicinity of game cameras or other surveillance technology. If they do have a standard avoidance/deviation behavior that can be predicted with some accuracy? BAM!

 

You raise some interesting points WSA but there seems to be some kind of disconnect here with the goals and the methods. If the NAWAC knew or thought likely that a bigfoot would cross that path and likely accidentally attach the tracker to itself, wouldn't they have been better just setting up a hide within gunshot range and simply taking the animal out? The whole point of a tracker is to provide information and locations, range etc. but if you've gone to the effort to place a tracker so you can identify a locale where the animal goes so you can set up your cross hairs, haven't you already done that by identifying where to place the tracker to begin with?

 

The logical next step to tracking the animal is to find evidence and collect data as to track the animal you've already had to presumably know where the animal is to plant the tracker?!?!?

 

[WSA]

49 minutes ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

You raise some interesting points WSA but there seems to be some kind of disconnect here with the goals and the methods. If the NAWAC knew or thought likely that a bigfoot would cross that path and likely accidentally attach the tracker to itself, wouldn't they have been better just setting up a hide within gunshot range and simply taking the animal out? The whole point of a tracker is to provide information and locations, range etc. but if you've gone to the effort to place a tracker so you can identify a locale where the animal goes so you can set up your cross hairs, haven't you already done that by identifying where to place the tracker to begin with?

 

The logical next step to tracking the animal is to find evidence and collect data as to track the animal you've already had to presumably know where the animal is to plant the tracker?!?!?

 

Sure it makes sense to do it the way you describe...assuming you have unlimited time to man 7 different points of potential contact, indefinitely, and the ability to shoot at and hit a moving target in the dark. When you look at it that way, using a radio tag to locate your quarry makes much more sense, on many different levels. Besides, they didn't ever "know" where the target would be...they took an educated guess as to seven locations, and got lucky with one of them. Whether they can duplicate that luck also remains to be proven.  

[Twist]

Aren’t we also assuming the tracker was still suspended as they set it?  What if one side broke or came loose?  Then a smaller animal could get it caught in their fur lower to the ground.

[southernyahoo]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

Bear? Not seeing it, at all.  Yep, you could point to the rat trap glue and the scent that might attract a bear, but the bear is going to have to get out and reach that thread and pull it down...yes, well within the capabilities of a bear, I know...and then it is going to pull it in, sniff it, taste it and discard it when it finds it is not edible.  No bear alive is going to leave that stuck to its front paw or face...c'mon.  Exactly how does the burr get to a place on the animal where it can't get to it and remove it? Not seeing anything really plausible.   

 

Give the NAWAC researchers a little credit too...if a bear is climbing an adjacent tree to grab that, it is going to leave abundant sign. Don't think they didn't look for that, or that they wouldn't know it when they saw it. 

 

Still though, repetition of the experiment is naturally going to make the BF theory more plausible, and make it less likely to be some other animal just stumbling into the tag.

 

I think there are a number of animals that could have went up one of the tree's and got entangled in the thread and pulled the whole setup down without realizing it. The process of simply walking away might have pulled the burr to the animal and it attached to it's legs or torso.

 

Quote

 Exactly how does the burr get to a place on the animal where it can't get to it and remove it?

 

One could ask the same about a Sasquatch getting one attached to it, and why wouldn't they remove it? They should have even more dexterity than a bear. These burrs don't just fall out of an animals hair. The more you paw at it, the more it digs in.  The trick is pulling it out without taking a large wad of hair with it or even worse , flesh. Now that would be money if the tracker hasn't died by then.

[WSA]

So maybe the next logical step is to deploy a radio controlled cyanide injector...don't think for a minute  it hasn't crossed their minds! 

[southernyahoo]

Yeah, I sense a level of frustration in the valley of the wood apes. They still have a chance at collecting hair samples from these burrs if they can retrieve them, so it has a dual function. One might imagine that if this method is mastered and functional, they might be able to draw Brian Sykes into the picture. Do you think Sykes would dodge them if they could provide multiple biological samples for study? Sykes keeps writing books on the subject so his interest isn't fading.

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

........The logical next step to tracking the animal is to find evidence and collect data as to track the animal you've already had to presumably know where the animal is to plant the tracker?!?!?

 

Actually, what I learned from this exercise was that their hair burr was a clever idea, but the radio receiver sucked. They needed a satellite unit instead.That's what ADFG uses.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Huntster

[SWWASAS]

Sykes sure keeps ID'ing things as bears.   One wonders what his real interests are?     Someone should set him up by sending him a sample of some exotic species and if it come back bear then we know what his agenda is.  

[Huntster]

His Himalayan polar bear has been in dispute for a while. I'm not sure what to think of it. Like the Zana/sasquatch/feral human thing, hybrid brown/polar bears is a thing. I'm just tired of the morons who use the silliness to establish that sasquatches don't exist.

 

It's like Russia owning our electoral process. The folks crying about the Russians are the ones who own it, are losing it because they're stupid, and don't know what to do about it because..........they're stupid.

[Celtic Raider]

16 hours ago, WSA said:

17 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

You raise some interesting points WSA but there seems to be some kind of disconnect here with the goals and the methods. If the NAWAC knew or thought likely that a bigfoot would cross that path and likely accidentally attach the tracker to itself, wouldn't they have been better just setting up a hide within gunshot range and simply taking the animal out? The whole point of a tracker is to provide information and locations, range etc. but if you've gone to the effort to place a tracker so you can identify a locale where the animal goes so you can set up your cross hairs, haven't you already done that by identifying where to place the tracker to begin with?

 

The logical next step to tracking the animal is to find evidence and collect data as to track the animal you've already had to presumably know where the animal is to plant the tracker?!?!?

 

Sure it makes sense to do it the way you describe...assuming you have unlimited time to man 7 different points of potential contact, indefinitely, and the ability to shoot at and hit a moving target in the dark. When you look at it that way, using a radio tag to locate your quarry makes much more sense, on many different levels. Besides, they didn't ever "know" where the target would be...they took an educated guess as to seven locations, and got lucky with one of them. Whether they can duplicate that luck also remains to be proven.

 

That's a good point actually, I forgot that they had seven target areas 🙂 when I look at it that way you're right it makes sense to try and located areas it hangs around or spends portions of it's time at and focus attention on those areas. I found the report pretty well written if I'm honest and the way they deduced what could and could not have been tracked was pretty reasonable. 

 

 

[WSA]

I track backwards from what the NAWAC's stated mission is,  and that is to kill a type specimen. If true, anything that doesn't promote that goal (i.e., DNA collecting, radio tracking for the sake of radio tracking, videos, track casting...) would probably be seen by them as a waste of resources better spent towards achieving the goal. It will take that kind of focus to succeed. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by WSA