• 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.
Drewbot said:
Remember how great the comments on the Doubtful News article about NAWAC were?
Click to expand...

Oh that was fun. I still haven't read from Sharon what she found at all interesting about the NAWACkies, nor any recommendation from her as to what they should be doing.

Unless I missed it, did she ever elaborate beyond this? "These stories sound great, people wrote them, and I have no opinion on their veracity. We should give them the benefit of the doubt, however (ironic, that), because reasons."
 
jerrywayne said:
Colyer's latest interview.

He says he didn't kill the wood ape he shot because he was using a shot gun and, "even the blood spatters that we found were indicative of a shallow buckshot wound. So I’m positive I didn’t hit him with anything but the first round. So that’s why I didn’t take it down."

I remember at the time he claimed to have emptied his shotgun on the animal, and a slug, not buckshot, was his first round.

http://www.dietiefe.com/?p=1441
Click to expand...
He found Bigfoot blood! What has the analysis of that blood shown?
 
Darat said:
He found Bigfoot blood! What has the analysis of that blood shown?
Click to expand...
Following the link reveals the answer. It is the usual hodgepodge of rationalization and accusations amidst mysterious goings on all to explain away why there is no result from it.
 
abaddon said:
What link?
Click to expand...

http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/204-the-echo-incident

Using his Remington 1100 Tac-4 12 gauge auto-loading shotgun, loaded with 000 buckshot followed by slugs, he attempted to collect the animal for scientific analysis, firing all the rounds in rapid succession.
Click to expand...

Why did we need to know the exact shotgun model?
And why would you load 000 buck instead of 00 buck for this mission?

Anyway, they apparently took 9 shots with this shotgun, and later one shot from a rifle, all from about 30 yards, and they couldn't kill a primate slightly larger than a human.

But they almost killed a couple of folks walking in the woods...
 
abaddon said:
What link?
Click to expand...
From jerrywayne's post.

Here's the actual link if you don't want to click through.

If you scroll about 2/3 down the page at that link you will find this exchange:

In your case, you found blood splatter on stones, right?

Yes, a week later.

Did you get it analyzed?

Yes, we sent the blood to be analyzed. It was very disappointing. The lab is a very well-known highly reputed lab, not in the United States. They told us they could not even verify it was blood which was puzzling from what we had determined. We’ve had five rocks in total, we still got two left, by the way. We still have two rocks. They’re just stored away. On the first two, we had two of our guys, a trauma surgeon and a micro-biologist, conduct blood testing. They did verify the presence of blood on the first two rocks. When we got the results from the lab our faith was shaken a little bit. So we’re withholding the other rocks.

Do you plan to get them analyzed in the future?

That’s the plan. DNA-testing is advancing, and we’re hoping that at some point in the future there will be some really good advance that will make it easier. And if we get a body, I‘ll just say when we get a body, we can use the rocks maybe at that time. Maybe they will take us more seriously at that time.

You’ve also collected some hairs, when you had one creature coming to the cabin and touching one of your members through an open window.

Yes. The hair sample was sent to Bryan Sykes. There have been a lot of people who have been critical of Doctor Sykes. We called him into question as well because he never even responded to us. He never even acknowledged that he got the samples we sent him. He never even acknowledged after we wrote him a number of times, trying to find out what had happened to our hair sample. And then he put out this paper that said this one sample was some sort of relict polar bear and the one sample from Texas was human hair. We found out later that he claimed that that was the hair we sent in from the Ouachita project. We’re still not sure what he did with our hair sample. The experiences with independent labs have left a very bitter taste in our mouth. I gotta tell you, we’re not really trusting a third party lab these days.

Why?

I don’t think they take it serious enough. It seems to us that instead of trying to get the truth wherever it will take them, they go into the process saying something like “We got these supposed blood samples (wink-wink) from unicorns, but unicorns don’t exist, therefore how can this be a blood sample of a unicorn?” And that’s not science, it’s dogma. Science should always be about discovery, advancement, finding out new things, right? The approach should be to see where the data leads. That’s science.

Do you still have hair samples that you could send to another lab?

No we do not.
Click to expand...
 
The Shrike said:
Oh that was fun. I still haven't read from Sharon what she found at all interesting about the NAWACkies, nor any recommendation from her as to what they should be doing.

Unless I missed it, did she ever elaborate beyond this? "These stories sound great, people wrote them, and I have no opinion on their veracity. We should give them the benefit of the doubt, however (ironic, that), because reasons."
Click to expand...

Don't ever expect an explanation. It's funny, cos she basically just flat out did what everyone laughed at her for doing, which was give odd credence to something silly for no apparent reason, likely before realizing she'd been a bit daft in her rush to give the benefit of the doubt to an obvious gang of obvious liars and jokers. When you choose "I Doubt It" as your screen-name, you should be a little more apprehensive about what nonsense you choose to put stock into, but hey, that's just me, I'm not trying to be some mega-player in the world of scepticism and blog-radio.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
Oh that was fun. I still haven't read from Sharon what she found at all interesting about the NAWACkies, nor any recommendation from her as to what they should be doing.

Unless I missed it, did she ever elaborate beyond this? "These stories sound great, people wrote them, and I have no opinion on their veracity. We should give them the benefit of the doubt, however (ironic, that), because reasons."
Click to expand...

What I recall is that this optimistic opinion was offered in conjunction with a new consulting venture - how to make your woo sound more science-y.

With Wally Hersom and various foundations out there funding all manner of bigfoot confidence games, it is not surprising people try to carve out a little marketing niche for themselves. Playing the role of skeptic in a bigfoot production in this case. Proffering that service. A Ranae Holland.

Obviously, you can't defend what's been going on there as a skeptic so stomping off in a huff in response to being called out on this forum is the option that appears to have been selected. We're haters.

I often come back to remark on the antisocial behavior induced by stepping over the line into Live Action Alternate Reality Play. Since you are faking belief in the first place, all your options are disingenuous emotional manipulation, not honest discourse.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
What I recall is that this optimistic opinion was offered in conjunction with a new consulting venture - how to make your woo sound more science-y.

With Wally Hersom and various foundations out there funding all manner of bigfoot confidence games, it is not surprising people try to carve out a little marketing niche for themselves. Playing the role of skeptic in a bigfoot production in this case. Proffering that service. A Ranae Holland.

Obviously, you can't defend what's been going on there as a skeptic so stomping off in a huff in response to being called out on this forum is the option that appears to have been selected. We're haters.

I often come back to remark on the antisocial behavior induced by stepping over the line into Live Action Alternate Reality Play. Since you are faking belief in the first place, all your options are disingenuous emotional manipulation, not honest discourse.
Click to expand...

Oh my those were fun times.....poor Sharon couldn't defend her position and then stormed off, just like most people with baseless claims. She got eveserated on her own wed site and of course edited out the carnage, it was hilarious to watch.
 
Cervelo said:
Oh my those were fun times.....poor Sharon couldn't defend her position and then stormed off, just like most people with baseless claims. She got eveserated on her own wed site and of course edited out the carnage, it was hilarious to watch.
Click to expand...
Yeah, she still doesn't like us over here.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2017/04/continuing-miseducation-on-bigfoot/

UPDATE (17-Apr 2017) Steven Streufert contacted me with some additional info. He originally made the connection between Jonny Dagger and Townsend back in 2015 with help from other Bigfooters.
Click to expand...
It's possible that I'm mis-remembering, but didn't we'uns discover that Townsend was Doctor Colonel Jonny (Danger) Dagger?
 
Resume said:
Yeah, she still doesn't like us over here.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2017/04/continuing-miseducation-on-bigfoot/
Click to expand...

The article you linked to has her calling people cranks and all - for less than the craziness that's gone on in Area X. Shooting up the place, causing people to flee in a panic and crash. Having to pay restitution.

The guy with paint on his face hasn't shot any place up yet.

So to stick your neck out and back the crazies at Area X... just completely out of your own alleged character.

The purpose of Doubtful News is to expose questionable claims in stories you find on the internet.
Click to expand...

Okay... here are some questionable claims on the Wood Ape cited all through this thread. Made on the internet, radio, news articles, etc. The leading proponents of same. Seems like an ideal thing to "expose".

Better late than never. :) How about an article? Hasn't Area X really been the flagship of bigfootery long enough to expose it?
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Is that, like, her real job? Does she do anything else to put food on the table or does she just act like a half-arsed Dana Scully online for attention and accolades?
Click to expand...

She's a geologist. I don't think she is seeking attention for herself but for the skeptical viewpoint.
 
Jodie said:
She's a geologist. I don't think she is seeking attention for herself but for the skeptical viewpoint.
Click to expand...

I formerly had a great deal of respect for Ms. Hill's work. Much of that respect was severely eroded by this incident, for two reasons: (1) She never did explain what she found so compelling about the Arkansas report, which as far as I can see consists 100% of the same silliness as every other piece of Bigfoot foolishness, and (2) she immediately went ad hominem when questioned about this. Sure, some people were less than completely nice (is it any other way in Internet discussions?). But her outrage, even if genuine, sure served as a convenient excuse to ignore legitimate (if uncomfortable) questions.
 
Stellafane said:
I formerly had a great deal of respect for Ms. Hill's work. Much of that respect was severely eroded by this incident, for two reasons: (1) She never did explain what she found so compelling about the Arkansas report, which as far as I can see consists 100% of the same silliness as every other piece of Bigfoot foolishness, and (2) she immediately went ad hominem when questioned about this. Sure, some people were less than completely nice (is it any other way in Internet discussions?). But her outrage, even if genuine, sure served as a convenient excuse to ignore legitimate (if uncomfortable) questions.
Click to expand...

Well said, and it isn't Schadenfreud for me, I take no delight in it. You don't need tragedy novels when real life has them all over the place.

Entertaining, I guess you can say, in a morbid way.

Your credibility, up to the point you leap into woo, is what you're selling. But then you've sold it, and it's gone. You don't have it anymore.

Now you are in a catch-22. Are you going to start pointing to things in the report that are supposedly so compelling? That's digging your own grave, arguing full-on 'footer.

Or are you going to acknowledge it's all the same ******** and worse - and then have to explain why you lied about there being compelling evidence in the first place?

Best to head for the Hills and hope everyone forgets.
 
Stellafane said:
I formerly had a great deal of respect for Ms. Hill's work. Much of that respect was severely eroded by this incident, for two reasons: (1) She never did explain what she found so compelling about the Arkansas report, which as far as I can see consists 100% of the same silliness as every other piece of Bigfoot foolishness, and (2) she immediately went ad hominem when questioned about this. Sure, some people were less than completely nice (is it any other way in Internet discussions?). But her outrage, even if genuine, sure served as a convenient excuse to ignore legitimate (if uncomfortable) questions.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to read the asinine report, quite another when you have someone that sounds intelligent, forthright, and definitely not the typical redneck that you encounter in bigfootery when meeting them in person. My guess is she was taken in by the sales pitch, we are all fallible human beings, she simply let her bias win over common sense in this particular episode. I don't think it takes away from her overall approach to the weird in general.
 
Jodie said:
It's one thing to read the asinine report, quite another when you have someone that sounds intelligent, forthright, and definitely not the typical redneck that you encounter in bigfootery when meeting them in person. My guess is she was taken in by the sales pitch, we are all fallible human beings, she simply let her bias win over common sense in this particular episode. I don't think it takes away from her overall approach to the weird in general.
Click to expand...

LMAO....what sales pitch....monkey man shows up like clock work for over a decade and not one iota of evidence to support the claim? The only bias that I can think of that would compel someone to respond the way she did, was if she wrote the dribble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom