• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Valley of the Wood Apes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Garrette said:
It appears that by OS standards that the evidence for ghosts is far more extensive and convincing than for Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

There's certainly a lot more of it.

Also, Santa Claus. Who ate the cookies then, smart guy? Who ate the cookies?!

And we sent the plate to a lab for DNA analysis and it came back "feral human."
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=154&v=NY8l0mk6wng

AREA X PRESENTATION by Bob Strain at 'Beachfoot 20'

reiterating the stuff we have been talking about.

The Shrike, can you find the study they reference for their claim that the surrounding forest hasnt been logged since the late 1800's ?

I tried searching for it, but can't find it.
GIqevJ.jpg
 
Drewbot said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=154&v=NY8l0mk6wng

AREA X PRESENTATION by Bob Strain at 'Beachfoot 20'

reiterating the stuff we have been talking about.

The Shrike, can you find the study they reference for their claim that the surrounding forest hasnt been logged since the late 1800's ?

I tried searching for it, but can't find it.
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/913/GIqevJ.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
It hasn't been clearcut but I'd bet it's been select cut. I know the NAWACers have gotten their logging history wrong before.


ETA: Clear cutting lasted in the Ouachitas into the 1990s:
The polarization of the clearcutting controversy resulted
in a widened discussion and involvement of
politicians who became associated with constituencies
for various reasons. On April 23, 1990, U.S. Representative
Tommy Robinson formally announced that
he would introduce into Congress the following day
legislation forcing the Forest Service to stop clearcutting
in the Ouachita NF . . .
Click to expand...

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5143491.pdf

ETA II:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/...cle_df3854b5-2bb9-5234-a85b-af593e23f832.html
Environmentalist groups, including the Sierra Club, say that the ban is a step in the right direction, but doesn't go far enough. They point out that two other types of even-aged forest management - in which most trees in a given area are cut at once and replaced with seedlings - will continue.They argue that even-aged management robs the forest of its variety and its diverse plant and animal habitat, and promotes soil erosion and stream degradation. As is often the case with controversial issues, the reality may lie somewhere between those extreme arguments. The ban on clear-cutting appears to go a long way toward reaching the environmentalists' goals. And Forest Service officials say that while it may mean a short-term drop in timber production in the Ouachita, over a period of 10 years about as much timber will be cut with the ban as without it.
Click to expand...

ETA III: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/ouachita/home/?cid=fsm9_039689&width=full
It looks like current timber management strategy might not allow for NAWAC's claims:
Increasing rotation age. The minimum time between regeneration cutting, or rotation age, has been increased from 70 to 120 years for shortleaf pine forest types. This allows for a greater number of acres of older trees and results in increased mast production from hardwoods retained in these pine stands. The older trees are also required for RCW and other cavity-dependent species. Cavity development is associated with a fungal heart rot (Phellinus pinii) infection that usually does not occur in stands less than 70 years of age . . .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
^^^^
Ding, Ding, Ding...look footies actual research, with facts and all.
You know that can actually be backed up.
 
Sightings in the Ouachita mountains started at around 1996/1997. There wasn't any activity in that part of Oklahoma before then.
 
Resume said:
How so?
Click to expand...

I was responding to Cervelo's nearly-correct statement about your evidenced post. You made one unsupported assertion, which I highlighted. It's no biggie (get it? ;) ) and doesn't detract from the points you or Cervelo were making.
 
Drewbot said:
The Shrike, can you find the study they reference for their claim that the surrounding forest hasnt been logged since the late 1800's ?
Click to expand...
Nope. I know some other works by various combinations of those authors (and I once took Reed Noss birding!), but I can't find the article referenced in Google Scholar, Web of Science, or ResearchGate.

I was able to track down this history of the Ouachita National Forest, and it's interesting reading. Evidently, the French moved in to start a vibrant fur trade in 1680 and, once the animals were hunted out, commercial logging began in 1879. The Oklahoma portion of the Ouachitas was designated in I think 1931, and in the 1930s the region was a cutover, burned over mess.

It's possible that some of the earlier-logged stands could be more than 100 years old. More likely, those have been logged again since that time, of course, and the biggest and most marketable stuff today was CCC planted in the 1930s so it's more in the 70–90 year old range.

Regardless of the exact age, however, it is certainly true that there is a predominantly mature, forested landscape in that part of the world today, with plenty of hickory nuts and feral hogs to support a thriving bigfoot population.
 
The Shrike said:
Nope. I know some other works by various combinations of those authors (and I once took Reed Noss birding!), but I can't find the article referenced in Google Scholar, Web of Science, or ResearchGate.

I was able to track down this history of the Ouachita National Forest, and it's interesting reading. Evidently, the French moved in to start a vibrant fur trade in 1680 and, once the animals were hunted out, commercial logging began in 1879. The Oklahoma portion of the Ouachitas was designated in I think 1931, and in the 1930s the region was a cutover, burned over mess.

It's possible that some of the earlier-logged stands could be more than 100 years old. More likely, those have been logged again since that time, of course, and the biggest and most marketable stuff today was CCC planted in the 1930s so it's more in the 70–90 year old range.

Regardless of the exact age, however, it is certainly true that there is a predominantly mature, forested landscape in that part of the world today, with plenty of hickory nuts and feral hogs to support a thriving bigfoot population.
Click to expand...
Visiting the family property recently, I found that a stand of CCC white pines just down the road had been select cut, meaning only about half were taken. The logging slash remaining will by thick as jungle by next August, much thicker going than the remaining white pines. It won't look so much like a festering sore either.
 
carlitos said:
Is there any other undiscovered species for which people claim "audio evidence?" I have never heard such a thing, but I'd love to know if there is.
Click to expand...
The farce that was the "Rediscovery" of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker?

The good thing that did come out of it was this paper;
Specimen-Based Modeling, Stopping Rules, and the Extinction of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker.
Another being;
When is an “Extinct” Species Really Extinct? Gauging the Search Efforts for Hawaiian Forest Birds and the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker.

Both could readily be applied to model a hypothetical bigfoot population.

OK, ninja'd twice, but I still think the links to these two papers are worth reposting.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
Sightings in the Ouachita mountains started at around 1996/1997. There wasn't any activity in that part of Oklahoma before then.
Click to expand...
Says who? Ten bucks and a graham cracker pie says the locals were swapping bigfoot stories at least as early as 1973, on the heels of the Legend of Boggy Creek. Most likely the same Fouke-lore from just down the road a piece in Arkansas had spread to southeastern Oklahoma well before that.

Have you checked with the Native American tribes in that part of the world? Do they count 1996/1997 as the time that bigfoots first appeared there?
 
Craig4 said:
So people didn't make up stories about Bigfoot in that area before 1996. Why do you suppose that is?
Click to expand...

Cheaper jet travel, making it easier for Bigfoot to move to these areas? Although leg room/foot room in coach was a bit cramped.
 
The Shrike said:
Nope. I know some other works by various combinations of those authors (and I once took Reed Noss birding!), but I can't find the article referenced in Google Scholar, Web of Science, or ResearchGate.

I was able to track down this history of the Ouachita National Forest, and it's interesting reading. Evidently, the French moved in to start a vibrant fur trade in 1680 and, once the animals were hunted out, commercial logging began in 1879. The Oklahoma portion of the Ouachitas was designated in I think 1931, and in the 1930s the region was a cutover, burned over mess.

It's possible that some of the earlier-logged stands could be more than 100 years old. More likely, those have been logged again since that time, of course, and the biggest and most marketable stuff today was CCC planted in the 1930s so it's more in the 70–90 year old range.

Regardless of the exact age, however, it is certainly true that there is a predominantly mature, forested landscape in that part of the world today, with plenty of hickory nuts and feral hogs to support a thriving bigfoot population.
Click to expand...

So evidently this is the article that the NAWAC are citing.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/na0412

I can't find anywhere that it says anything about the area around Area X not being cut since the late 1800's.
 
The Shrike said:
Says who? Ten bucks and a graham cracker pie says the locals were swapping bigfoot stories at least as early as 1973, on the heels of the Legend of Boggy Creek. Most likely the same Fouke-lore from just down the road a piece in Arkansas had spread to southeastern Oklahoma well before that.

Have you checked with the Native American tribes in that part of the world? Do they count 1996/1997 as the time that bigfoots first appeared there?
Click to expand...

It was actually the local residents and the local law enforcement there that stated it was a new phenomenon there. I linked to an article earlier in this thread that goes into detail about it. I was also able to confirm it myself by checking the BFRO data on Google Earth.
 
Drewbot said:
So evidently this is the article that the NAWAC are citing.
http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/na0412
Click to expand...
Oh, I know that page. Thanks for tracking it down. That certainly explains why it didn't pop up as a scientific paper.

So what we have here is either ignorance, or willful misrepresentation, of a literature source in what is supposed to be a scientific document. Their use of that improperly-cited source illustrates that they're operating at about the scale of a C-student undergrad.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It was actually the local residents and the local law enforcement there that stated it was a new phenomenon there. I linked to an article earlier in this thread that goes into detail about it. I was also able to confirm it myself by checking the BFRO data on Google Earth.
Click to expand...
Yes, that area has a number of bigfoot entrepreneurs. Sort of like those around Loch Ness, though they have fewer people inventing sightings.
 
The Shrike said:
Oh, I know that page. Thanks for tracking it down. That certainly explains why it didn't pop up as a scientific paper.

So what we have here is either ignorance, or willful misrepresentation, of a literature source in what is supposed to be a scientific document. Their use of that improperly-cited source illustrates that they're operating at about the scale of a C-student undergrad.
Click to expand...

I know! I was searching scholar looking for papers, but they all had dates. And clearly the NAWAC citation says N.D. which I assume means 'no-date' or not-dated.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It was actually the local residents and the local law enforcement there that stated it was a new phenomenon there. I linked to an article earlier in this thread that goes into detail about it. I was also able to confirm it myself by checking the BFRO data on Google Earth.
Click to expand...

Every single local resident stated that?
 
Perhaps OS will re-post the link so we can have a lookee-lou at all thse residents and law enforcement.
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
A bit of a boom was reported in January 2000. Okay. What law enforcement? There is nothing about that in this article. The rangers don't report seeing any. They report reports.
Click to expand...

They don't report seeing any themselves, but even if they did, you wouldn't believe them, so it really makes no difference.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
No, but there's been quite few people there that have reported the same thing.



http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/...cle_466a10de-9874-55fd-b963-38ddd47c2445.html
Click to expand...

But until now, an ``actual''

Sasquatch has not been reported in Oklahoma.
Click to expand...
This is an assertion made by the Tulsa World reporter. Not much of a reference.

But I like this observation:
Local tales about the Horror of Honobia won't die, either . . .
Click to expand...

Well of course not, they have a god dammed footie festival every year.

You really can't tell what's going on here OS?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
They don't report seeing any themselves, but even if they did, you wouldn't believe them, so it really makes no difference.
Click to expand...

I guess it's the same with you, really. You haven't had an encounter of your own, yet you offer up this kind of nonsense as though it cements your belief.

I wonder, if you're not just trolling, whether your frustrations over not having your own encounter keep you awake at night.

You claim that we're all afraid that Bigfoot might be real, but I think it's highly more probable that you're afraid that it isn't.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
They don't report seeing any themselves, but even if they did, you wouldn't believe them, so it really makes no difference.
Click to expand...

So if it makes no difference, why do you bring it up? I know: because if nobody interjects, it looks like the police might have declared having seen sasquatch. But they haven't. Nice try.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/...cle_466a10de-9874-55fd-b963-38ddd47c2445.html
Click to expand...
That's your source? The Tulsa World article?

If you're going to claim to use the BFRO database, then at least use the BFRO database:

LeFlore County 1971

Latimer County 1977

Here's the earliest for McCurtain County, which is 1996, and a doozy of a report.

Just across the river in Red River County, Texas -1979.

Clearly, "bigfoot" was a well-established phenomenon in southeastern Oklahoma, the Red River, and the Texarkana region by at least the 1970s.
 
It is interesting how having historical reports of Bigfoot sightings is considered positive evidence that they exist ("see, they must be real because even the native americans and first settlers saw them!") but so is not having historical reports of Bigfoot sightings ("they just moved into the neighborhood- see, they must be real because no one reported them there before!").
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom