• 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.
Careful to stay inside and not even look out the window when they hear noises that are allegedly causing them panic. Look at me writing down how scared I am!

I don't want to give the impression that a True Skeptic can deliver a logical reason for every opinion, with hypertext links to source material. I have opinions which may be on thin ice as well.

But I'd like to think I acknowledge that I believe some things based on what I consider weak hunches, and that I'm open to evidence about them.

But she didn't have anything she could point to, and didn't seem to realize there was a problem with that.
 
I just dispensed with a real-life con artist like this. Claimed to be a mechanic, down on his luck husband of my wife's home town acquaintance. So we let him work on a vehicle while I was expediting for this mine.

Ten hours. He was over on three days. He made absolutely no progress, in fact he damaged some things trying to install this new engine I bought for my wife in her favorite car. I got the whole thing done in 5.3 hours myself, just finished it.

He did not put on a single bolt. Could not even figure out how to mount the engine to the transmission. That was 50 minutes for me and I don't consider myself a mechanic.

For three days he put on this act. Playing loud music in the shop and bustling around whenever someone was outside to see him. Pretending to be exhausted, coming in with the manual to put a show on for the wives like he was doing something. Asking my wife to come find bolts he said were missing - what the hell do the wives know about engine bolts. The bolts he says were missing were the bolts he had in his hands the day before I left.

It' just amazing someone would put on this kind of act! It works with someone who has zero knowledge of mechanics, his wife, but how can you do this to her? But even my wife, I took her out and showed her - she was immediately stunned and disgusted. He was saying to them that all I had to do was put some bolts on and it was ready to go. With no alternator, radiators, fans, electronics, battery, hoses, starter, power steering, air con, exhaust, EGR, etc. nothing at all hooked up because it isn't even all the way under the hood. Just hanging there on the hoist uninstalled. I just sowed my wife and it was so crazy you have to see it to believe a guy claimed he worked ten hours to move an engine five feet.

I had her stay there through the 50 minutes it took to mount the engine after I replaced the damaged transmission seal. I did more in 50 minutes than he did in ten hours over three days.

It is hard to believe people will put on these kinds of acts - that they have no shame about it - but they do exist.

The thing that fascinates me is the Dark Triad psychology. This guy knows before he even comes over the first day that he's going to act, hour after hour, like he is doing something. He knows that when I get back that I am going to see he accomplished absolutely nothing but damaging things, so he's already planning on staging his exit. He's going to say ****-you on the phone and hang up on me when I ask for an invoice with each completed task and time billed for it.

When he did the "**** you" and hung up, it was so odd because on my end of the phone I was being real calm and polite despite him trying effectively to steal money. An invoice is a customary practice for mechanic work, and that's how they are laid out: Parts, labor, services rendered. You would not hang up on a person for requesting an invoice.

He just said ten hours upon my first inquiry, and how I was such a good friend it was going to be 45% off his normal hourly rate. His wife is listening to this conversation, so the reality for her is what a great guy he is. I asked for an itemized invoice and suggested his hours were frankly absurd. He hadn't even got started.

So why would you say "**** you" to that and hang up? Because you are being asked to produce evidence. Just ordinary, customary evidence. The wife, the victim of this manipulative abuse - she is living in an alternate reality where her husband is screwed again and again by everyone. She believes he is a good husband, a good person, not an unemployed Dark Triad. You have no scruples to do this to people. No conscience.

It's the same personality types that are self-selected into bigfoot, but most especially into the fraud level like Area X. Tax fraud as well as false pretenses with the donations.

The next venture of this guy - he told me about it while we were looking over the engine. He's going gold mining. He has a black powder recipe, for digging. Gonna go out on his four-wheeler, and while camping he is going to set a perimeter of wires that will set off black powder charges to kill the bears. He took his wife out to a camp ground and set off a charge so she could see for herself how bona-fide this new business is. She's the one paying for the four-wheeler.

So that's interesting because I was leaving to expedite for a real mine, and not that I needed to learn any of this but it's all the heavy equipment, the dirt processing components, the pumps and fuel, etc. You have to go down to the DNR and file a claim before you start blowing stuff up in the woods. Even a prospecting site needs to file a claim. You check to see where the existing claims are to find open ground before you just march off into the woods.

To a knowledgeable skeptic, these Area X people are every bit as idiotic. They have not done the first thing in terms of wildlife, by contacting the wildlife managers of the land they're supposedly preserving wildlife habitat upon. Going mining without even a mining claim. Preserving habitat without a square inch of land to preserve anything on.

The private Area X cabin: how are they preserving the bigfoot there? They claimed to be trying to shoot them, and as evidence they fired recklessly about. On the public land around there - a procedure already exists for nominations of either species or habitat. They've never done it.

I am a naive and trusting person to a fault but this mechanic/miner guy was full of ****. Playing an alternate reality game. I should have heard enough, but it was attended with the victim card. We got introduced to them as a charity case, people that needed help. Didn't even have the money for gas to come out. So I filled their tank and gave $50 up front for survival groceries. He was saying how suicidal he was, not being able to work, and this mining play might be his last try. So I didn't say anything like "you're full of ****."

Before I got back his wife was calling my wife from the pharmacy, getting his insulin, couldn't she just give her credit card number to the attendant because my wife knew how much he had been working on the engine. She was smart enough not to, despite this really underhanded "you owe us and we don't have the money for his insulin" guilt-tripping.

As far as I know, this was Sharon's first Alternate Reality play, and she probably didn't think through what you have to do with normal, reasonable people who ask you for the evidence. You have to make them out to be really unreasonable people, lie about what people can see with their own two eyes, and get nasty. Underhanded.

A practiced woo gamer has a lot of experience with this. Brian Brown was here, and same thing: we're bad people. Now we're bad people for Sharon because we asked for evidence. Next time she does woo, like UFO's or the Loch Ness Monster, Faith Healing, or whatever then she's already got the exit down. Perhaps she can sharpen up the tools, being a little more cunning and cool with framing reasonable people as unreasonable.

Those are not skills I want to develop.
 
I don't think anyone is suggesting that she believes in Bigfoot, where do come up with such hand waving?
But she most definitely failed in supporting her postion that the NAWACKYs gibberish warranted investigation and when pressed by mostly her supporters on her site, huffed and puffed got a bad case of potty mouth, then closed the discussion down for further comment from her bully pulpit.
Are you sure you read the comments, she didn't just make a mistake, she embarrassed herself in a most bizzare way considering she claims to be a public and for hire skeptic.

I read a few of the comments, most questioned the validity of the report and why she didn't have the same questions. I may have read the abridged version by the time I got to the blog post. What I take from that is that she was taken advantage of by a really good salesman, or con artist, as the case might be.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for posting that, because it had a date stamp, so incredibly it has been two years since she's made multiple emphatic statements about wanting to "find out more".

Same old, same old - look at what people do instead of what they are saying. Two years and not a single update on this urgent desire to find out more.

I'm sure she's been there herself and camped out through many a cold night, doing many experiments like removing the staples from the corner of the report and moving them to the opposite corner in order to see if it changed the results. You want robust results. Seeing if changing the font produces additional information. Dipping the pages in various substances and carefully recording the results. These kinds of validation tests take a lot of time and resources.

I have to agree. I was reluctant to give her the benefit of the doubt, but whatever. If she was serious about getting to the bottom of the report, we should have seen some sharp skeptical follow up. Yet, nothing.

That pretty much seals the deal.
 
I agree with you there, I even mentioned the lack of followup but I think it's about embarrassment.
 
I just dispensed with a real-life con artist like this. Claimed to be a mechanic, down on his luck husband of my wife's home town acquaintance...

Actually, there is an Aleut legend creature, in Alaska named Askabanshee (translates to Lady of Shoving Meth down Mechanic's throats) , who is known to go into work barns, where the mechanic is taking a nap, and reverse the work of the mechanic on duty, hiding bolts, and ruining gaskets, the creature also is known to shove alcohol, and / or Meth down the throat of the sleeping mechanic.

You can't prove it wasn't Askabanshee. You damn dirty scoftic.
 
Last edited:
Sure didn't sound like someone who made a mistake, she obviously could recognize "crap" when she wanted to...

I doubtit
March 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM
"I understand that many of you have sound reasoning for being dismissive of Bigfoot evidence. But I am EXTREMELY annoyed by the “I have not read this report, but…” cop-out.

This is recorded observations. (It’s not Melba Ketchum, Rick Dyer, or BFRO-style crap.) There are problems that deserve an answer. What they don’t deserve is an offensive dismissal calling them stupid. It isn’t necessarily scientific but it is careful. All data must be interpreted in terms of a hypothesis or it means nothing. They have interpreted the data in terms of their wood ape hypothesis. Is it strong? No. But it’s worth pursuing. Perhaps further data will disprove the hypothesis and there will be an explanation for the rock throwing and noises. Until then, I’m willing to listen."

Sounds more like a temper tantrum/doubling down when one gets called out on their own turf.
 
The topic of the thread is the Valley of the Wood Apes, not each other (unless anyone posting here actually is a wood ape, and has confessed to such). Some posts have been moved to AAH, please endeavour to keep to the topic in future.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
I don't want to give the impression that a True Skeptic can deliver a logical reason for every opinion, with hypertext links to source material. I have opinions which may be on thin ice as well.

But I'd like to think I acknowledge that I believe some things based on what I consider weak hunches, and that I'm open to evidence about them.

But she didn't have anything she could point to, and didn't seem to realize there was a problem with that.

I think the near hysterical responses to criticism from Hill are very telling, it's always been my contention that she wrote it or had a hand in writing it.
 
Sure didn't sound like someone who made a mistake, she obviously could recognize "crap" when she wanted to...

I doubtit
March 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM
"I understand that many of you have sound reasoning for being dismissive of Bigfoot evidence. But I am EXTREMELY annoyed by the “I have not read this report, but…” cop-out.

This is recorded observations. (It’s not Melba Ketchum, Rick Dyer, or BFRO-style crap.) There are problems that deserve an answer. What they don’t deserve is an offensive dismissal calling them stupid. It isn’t necessarily scientific but it is careful. All data must be interpreted in terms of a hypothesis or it means nothing. They have interpreted the data in terms of their wood ape hypothesis. Is it strong? No. But it’s worth pursuing. Perhaps further data will disprove the hypothesis and there will be an explanation for the rock throwing and noises. Until then, I’m willing to listen."

Sounds more like a temper tantrum/doubling down when one gets called out on their own turf.

No it doesn't, she's working from the premise that the NAWACer's aren't lying. I guess it didn't occur to her to think that there might not be anyone really out there at all listening to nothing.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't, she's working from the premise that the NAWACer's aren't lying. I guess it didn't occur to her to think that there might not be anyone really out there at all listening to nothing.

And you know this how....can you read her mind?
Why do the NAWACKY's have to be lying, they show up for a week or two every spring and the locals grab a six pack, sit on the hillside, throw rocks at the cabin and watch the footers scurry around.
Then the myth making begins.....the footers do what footers do, Brian Brown shows up and engages the "spin machine" and poof you got "The Monkey Man Monologue" perhaps written with the assistance of Sharon Hill.
Which would explain Sharon's bizarre defense and curtailing of any further discussion of "The Monkey Man Monologue" on her so called skeptical website.

Stuff like this....why would someone respond to a question like this.....
 
Last edited:
Even Bill Munns got involved with the Sharon Hill thing.
He resorted to his 3 point checklist, proving Bigfoot must be at Area X.

It reminds me of the Bigfooter checklist
"We're either lying, or telling the truth, and I'm not a liar."

Bill Munns
March 8, 2015 at 4:24 PM
I would think that the appropriate, scientific and skeptical process for evaluating this activity described in the monograph would be to list the options and see if all but one can be eliminated for cause, (cause defined as a logical and rational explanation supported by evidence). I would list the options as:

1. Events occurring simply by the element of nature, with no conscious deliberation.
2. Events occurring by conscious deliberation of humans interacting with the researchers, with intent to deceive the researchers (as in hoaxing).
3. Events occurring by the conscious deliberation of other biological entities interacting with the researchers.

There is no default position or conclusion. Each option should be considered and where possible, tested to determine if that option is viable or can be dismissed.

Example: In the matter of the rocks, the researchers might test the hypothesis of mere gravity accounting for the rock impacts on cabins by taking rocks to the higher elevations and setting them in motion to roll down the inclined slope in the direction of cabins, and record how many strike the cabin roofs.

The researchers might also take rocks apparently having struck the roofs and test how far away the researchers themselves can get and still throw the rocks to strike the roofs. Once they establish a sampled human range for throwing rocks, then at night test if a human in that position is out of sight when lights are shined upon that direction.

Such studies on subsequent research expeditions could strengthen one option as the viable conclusion by providing evidence to discount the other options for cause.

Clearly something curious is occurring at that location, and the researchers are to be commended for devoting so much time and effort to finding an answer. Scientific exploration and discovery should always be encouraged.

http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/03/fou...ma-yields-intriguing-and-unexplained-results/
 
Yup Bill is the best at the "Science of Bigfootery"....his "if the helmet don't fit" and "look I found some boobs that stick straight out, just like Patty's"....therefore PGF's the real deal are great examples of his brand of scientific research....that's beyond comprehension.

The same silliness we see in the "Monkey Man Monologue" they experience a bunch of spooky events in the woods that they can't explain.....(that all have very benign explanations)....therefore Bigfoot!!

 
Last edited:
Even Bill Munns got involved with the Sharon Hill thing.
He resorted to his 3 point checklist, proving Bigfoot must be at Area X.
Note that each of his checklist entries starts with the word "Events". That's not how mammal field surveys are done. But he is referring to it as a scientific thing. The real thing actually uses a direct relation and not some secondary event involving a "what the hell was that?!" experience by the researcher.

His checklist is something like "oh let's do zoology entirely different than it's done but let's still call it real and proper science".

The thing is, this Area X project is really silly and doesn't represent how scientists actually learn about what animals do live in locations and also do not live in locations. It would not take long at all for a genuine biologist to determine that a big hairy bipedal ape does not live or exist at Area X. This kind of surveying is done routinely all over the world.

If science was done the way NAWAC and their supporters do it, we would have no idea where any animals occur or do not occur. Oh yeah, there are giant pandas in eastern China. But we can't say that they aren't also in the mountains of West Virginia.

Cryptozoology is pseudoscience, and cryptozoologists are pseudoscientists. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that it might be a little different than just that. It isn't.
 
Even Bill Munns got involved with the Sharon Hill thing.
He resorted to his 3 point checklist, proving Bigfoot must be at Area X.

It reminds me of the Bigfooter checklist
"We're either lying, or telling the truth, and I'm not a liar."



http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/03/fou...ma-yields-intriguing-and-unexplained-results/

1. Events occurring simply by the element of nature, with no conscious deliberation.
2. Events occurring by conscious deliberation of humans interacting with the researchers, with intent to deceive the researchers (as in hoaxing).
3. Events occurring by the conscious deliberation of other biological entities interacting with the researchers.

4. Events never occurred because they just made **** up.
5. Events such as buying my book are warranted and should be carried out
 
Last edited:
Note that each of his checklist entries starts with the word "Events". That's not how mammal field surveys are done. But he is referring to it as a scientific thing. The real thing actually uses a direct relation and not some secondary event involving a "what the hell was that?!" experience by the researcher.

His checklist is something like "oh let's do zoology entirely different than it's done but let's still call it real and proper science".

The thing is, this Area X project is really silly and doesn't represent how scientists actually learn about what animals do live in locations and also do not live in locations. It would not take long at all for a genuine biologist to determine that a big hairy bipedal ape does not live or exist at Area X. This kind of surveying is done routinely all over the world.

If science was done the way NAWAC and their supporters do it, we would have no idea where any animals occur or do not occur. Oh yeah, there are giant pandas in eastern China. But we can't say that they aren't also in the mountains of West Virginia.

Cryptozoology is pseudoscience, and cryptozoologists are pseudoscientists. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking that it might be a little different than just that. It isn't.

Proper science in the form of Arkansas Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service already weighed in on the possibility of an uncatalogued bi-pedal ape inhabiting the Ouachita National Forest Ecosystem. They laughed.

This is the only sound response to the Wood Ape hypothesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom