• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Valley of the Wood Apes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerrywayne...your first mistake is you assume all the stories are true, that in itself is very telling of your perspective, but hey this isn't about you.
It doesn't matter if there are a few doofuses that have bought into the NAWACKY nonsense, they are just cannon fodder for the ultimate goal. This is no different than PGF, just a brief look into the background of the major players and all is revealed.
The goal is gold and glory....the model is BFRO/Not Finding Bigfoot, Brian Brown was at BFRO, left started BFF....then latched onto NAWACKY on the hope it would generate the kind of interest that Not Finding Bigfoot has.
There is no doubt the most fascinating part of this social construct is the "true believers" and the charlatans that lead the way, but the motivations of the two groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum. They sometimes overlap a pinch but very rarely.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
What is the evidence that a horse was shot full of bullets?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you'd think pumping your neighbor's horse full of lead would create a stir.

Well, if they couldn't recognize hoofprints in the ground outside their windows, it's a cinch they couldn't tell the difference between a horse and anything else that might be moving in their vicinity in the woods...

It's also not a stretch to imagine footers blasting away at "something" in the woods that they can't identify, since we know they have done this a few times.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yeah, you'd think pumping your neighbor's horse full of lead would create a stir.

Well, if they couldn't recognize hoofprints in the ground outside their windows, it's a cinch they couldn't tell the difference between a horse and anything else that might be moving in their vicinity in the woods...
It's also not a stretch to imagine footers blasting away at "something" in the woods that they can't identify, since we know they have done this a few times.
Click to expand...
Or discern from ground markings that someone had lain in a "prone sniper position."
 
jerrywayne said:
To be frank, I do have problems with folks unable to distinguish between obvious hucksters like Rick Dyer and Justin Smeja, and the doctors, lawyers, former military members, teachers, biologists, other professional types, etc. that make up NAWAC. I other words, the explanation for the claims of the first group likely fails as the explanation for the claims of the second group.
Click to expand...

What makes the highlighted group exempt from lying and/or hoaxing? Doctors, lawyers, military, teachers, biologists, and professionals all have been convicted of everything from child rape to multiple murders. What's a little in-group lie/practical joke? "Obvious hucksters" are obvious most often after they're exposed. You seem very naïve about this.
 
Our derision and criticism of NAWAC for not having any Bigfoot evidence despite their endless non-evidenced claims to the contrary is akin to prosecuting the murderer who says he was at the Dairy Queen but no way to prove it. Yet their criticism and derision of us is like being yelled at for using embossed toilet paper. :eye-poppi
 
Imaginary responsible bigfoot field research team:

1) "We're doing research to try to confirm the existence of bigfoot in an area where an unusually high number of reports emanate. We've had some experiences that are difficult for us to explain but nothing definitive yet. When and if we ever get that evidence, you'll hear about it!"

The NAWACkies:

2) "We're doing research to try to confirm the existence of bigfoot in an area where an unusually high number of reports emanate. We've had multiple bigfoots surrounding our cabin, habitually throwing rocks at us. Most of us have had eyewitness encounters. This is the real deal. Despite our inability to provide even a single interesting photograph after ___ years at this site, we're so sure the bigfoots are here that we've prepared this enormous document of fireside tale bloviation, we've asked for money, and we've wooed movie star Rob Lowe to our site for a new TV series. That's how sure we are!"
 
Cervelo said:
Jerrywayne...your first mistake is you assume all the stories are true, that in itself is very telling of your perspective, but hey this isn't about you.
It doesn't matter if there are a few doofuses that have bought into the NAWACKY nonsense, they are just cannon fodder for the ultimate goal. This is no different than PGF, just a brief look into the background of the major players and all is revealed.
The goal is gold and glory....the model is BFRO/Not Finding Bigfoot, Brian Brown was at BFRO, left started BFF....then latched onto NAWACKY on the hope it would generate the kind of interest that Not Finding Bigfoot has.
There is no doubt the most fascinating part of this social construct is the "true believers" and the charlatans that lead the way, but the motivations of the two groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum. They sometimes overlap a pinch but very rarely.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think all their stories are true. Quite the contrary.

My point is that many of their stories are ambiguous enough to suggest they believe them. If you are going to make up a story about two giant apes running up the side of the hill, you don't say "I saw two smallish fuzzy looking black dots moving up the hill. If other observers hadn't seen them too, I would have just thought -- I don't know what that was, but it was kinda strange." (paraphrasing Brown's comments about his "sighting"). But if you are 95% sure wood apes exist, and others in your group of likeminded believers say they saw apes (when in fact they probably saw nothing more than you did) then this confirmation bias circle jerk is compelling to you, the believer.

On the other hand, I would say that some of the sighting reports are fake. In my mind, they are phony reports made in order to join the group of "witnesses," and in order to be part of something big.

If their goal is "gold and glory," not had by actually finding Bigfoot but by overt hoaxing, I would grant you that explanation as a possibility. Not a certainty. I think there is a better explanation.
 
Resume said:
What makes the highlighted group exempt from lying and/or hoaxing? Doctors, lawyers, military, teachers, biologists, and professionals all have been convicted of everything from child rape to multiple murders. What's a little in-group lie/practical joke? "Obvious hucksters" are obvious most often after they're exposed. You seem very naïve about this.
Click to expand...

Yes, convicted. Not sure the NAWAC crew would care to be convicted of hoaxing on a large and perpetual scale ("a little in-group lie/practical joke"). That could very well lose some of them their careers.

I'm not naïve about this. As I've pointed out once too many times, I was once a believer and I know how that end of the conversation works. I was a believer, not a liar or a deceiver.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yeah, you'd think pumping your neighbor's horse full of lead would create a stir.

Well, if they couldn't recognize hoofprints in the ground outside their windows, it's a cinch they couldn't tell the difference between a horse and anything else that might be moving in their vicinity in the woods...

It's also not a stretch to imagine footers blasting away at "something" in the woods that they can't identify, since we know they have done this a few times.
Click to expand...

Hoofprints would be common in that area and probably overlooked as an explanation for a boogeyman visit.

There were puma tracks found under the house, another possible culprit that makes more sense than a giant ape of unknown type and origin.
 
Drewbot said:
The BFF wasn't very receptive to the NAWAC.

I remember:
* The Tree breaking incident,
* Bigfoot laying down and being mistaken for a log by Bob Strain
* giant slingshot being fired up on the hill where the Rocks were coming from.
* The 10 round shotgun burst fired, near the couple parked in the impossible to get to area, by Daryl Colyer, and no one else saw the beast.
* The guy firing rounds from the the tipping lawn chair in the river bed, when he thought a Bigfoot was charging him through the bushes.

None of these were accepted by even long time Bigfooters.

I even received moral support from some of the mods and admins at BFF when pointing out the silliness of these claims.
Click to expand...

Yep, even Bigfoot enthusiasts have had a problem with Area X stories. To my mind, another reason to consider that the NAWAC teams aren't just sitting around making silly stuff up, especially if the silly stuff is too unbelievable for even rank and file Bigfooters. That's their audience.
 
Garrette said:
And that is why I call it made up. Again, I ask you to conduct your own test by lying in a sniper position followed by a non-sniper position and see if you or someone else can tell them apart. First, unless one impresses oneself in wet sand or damp mud it is highly unlikely that a distinct form would be left, particularly one that shows separate legs and then whatever else the front end of the body is doing to show "sniper position." Even trying to do so intentionally is difficult not least because one has to both get down into that position and then back up, each of which actions helps obscure the markings left behind.

So, yes, I am arguing that separate from any larger belief or non-belief in Bigfoot, this story is made up.

Not just round eyes -- round and red eyes. It's the red part that was key to my discussion above. I didn't even get into the fact that surprising the figure in a standing position sort of obviates the claim about finding the outline of a sniper position in the same area because the standing person would have helped obscure any markings.

So I will say it again: the story is not simple embellishment of an actual event. It is made up.


The first part I highlighted answers the second part I highlighted.
Click to expand...

All I can say is that you are suggesting not only is NAWAC making up stories that seem to support the idea of wood apes, they are also making up stories that discredit the very idea they're trying to establish. I appreciate your thoughts, even if I must disagree.
 
jerrywayne said:
Yes, convicted. Not sure the NAWAC crew would care to be convicted of hoaxing on a large and perpetual scale ("a little in-group lie/practical joke"). That could very well lose some of them their careers.
Click to expand...
Who the hell is going to convict them of anything, and for what? Lose their careers? Nonsense. See Meldrum, as just one example. We've seen no penalty for peddling bigfoot bull ****

I'm not naïve about this. As I've pointed out once too many times, I was once a believer and I know how that end of the conversation works. I was a believer, not a liar or a deceiver.
Click to expand...

No, you are extremely naïve. Such naivete on the part of scientists was a primary motivating factor in the skeptical career of James Randi. The credulity that allowed your bigfoot belief formerly, now clouds your ability to see through the NAWAC horsecrap. They are selling nothing new; you should be able to recognize that by now.
 
jerrywayne said:
Actually, I don't think all their stories are true. Quite the contrary.

My point is that many of their stories are ambiguous enough to suggest they believe them. If you are going to make up a story about two giant apes running up the side of the hill, you don't say "I saw two smallish fuzzy looking black dots moving up the hill. If other observers hadn't seen them too, I would have just thought -- I don't know what that was, but it was kinda strange." (paraphrasing Brown's comments about his "sighting"). But if you are 95% sure wood apes exist, and others in your group of likeminded believers say they saw apes (when in fact they probably saw nothing more than you did) then this confirmation bias circle jerk is compelling to you, the believer.
Click to expand...

That story from Brown, about the black dots moving up the hill, is a textbook wild boar observation. To the extent that hogs are known to run directly uphill when spooked. They would be in this area.

Their recordings of the "rock rain" are quite obviously squirrels feeding in the trees above the cabin. You can even hear one chuffing at the end of the clip they played on the bigfoot show.

I do generally agree with your point about their actually believing some of their claims. They whip themselves up into thinking all kinds of mundane things are bigfoot related. Fact is, none of these guys spent enough time in the woods to be able to tell the difference. Case in point, on the NAWAC page, Brown describes himself as a "naturalist". Yet on an episode of the BFS, he states that he is from LA, and went into the woods basically for the first time in the early 2000s. And that's the group's leadership.
 
William Parcher said:
What is the evidence that a horse was shot full of bullets?
Click to expand...

This was related by a researcher who spent some time at Fouke. He was told this by Smokey Crabbtree, hardly a monster debunker. It was published in Fortean Times. I no longer have a copy, but if you would really like to read it, it might be online somewhere.

The nosy horse story is also related in Blackburn's book, also a source that is not into debunking Bigfoot, but who spent many years, on and off, interviewing people in the Fouke area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom