• 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.
Stellafane said:
I agree with you in that Ms. Hill's mistake shouldn't negate all the top-notch work she's previously done on other topics. But it does significantly impact her reputation going forward in my view. One of the big problems is that the Arkansas "wood ape" stuff is so mind-numbingly silly. It's hard to imagine anyone taking it remotely seriously, never mind finding it compelling. I'd say it was garden-variety Bigfootery, but in fact it doesn't even rise to that low level of credibility. And of all things, this is what Ms. Hill falls for? As for explaining herself, I've yet to see Ms. Hill supply a concise answer concerning what evidence she found most convincing in the report, other than a vague reference to its sheer bulk.

I'm not talking about setting "borders" or anything else for Ms. Hill -- she's of course free to do as she pleases irrespective of what I or anyone else thinks. What I am talking about is my opinion and respect for her work. And I believe I have every right to adjust that respect downward if someone who endeavors to promote skepticism gives credibility to something as astoundingly insipid as the "wood ape" stuff. I formerly was an avid reader of Ms. Hill's work, both on her blog and in SI. Unfortunately, I find I no longer am.
Click to expand...

I didn't get the impression from her comments that it ever occurred to her that the whole NAWAC thing could be fabricated and I suppose that is why she got angry. She has said more than once that she doesn't assume people are automatically lying, however, she states there is usually a scientific explanation for what's being described. Based on the assumption that there was some kind of activity being observed in Area X she didn't think the paper should be completely discredited. I thought she remained consistent in that she didn't treat this situation any different than any other topic she has ever covered IMO.

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't think accusing Ms. Hill of crossing some kind of threshold of credibility should put all of her other work into question. The facts alone should speak for themselves and after half of a decade of waiting there isn't any factual data coming out of Area X.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen her make any public comments about Area X or the NAWAC since 2015. I'm sure she reads ISF so maybe she will do a follow up in the near future.
 
Jodie said:
No, I'm saying one mistake doesn't discount all of the other good things a person does, i.e. boycotting her blog. Based on what I read she did explain but what she said was rejected. I'm not certain how that went against some arbitrary border that you or anyone else happened to assume existed.
Click to expand...

Well, I can say that from that moment and the surrounding time period I began to perceive her as a believer/supporter and have not taken her very seriously.

She did a good job with this:

http://doubtfulnews.com/2017/04/continuing-miseducation-on-bigfoot/
 
Jodie said:
I haven't seen her make any public comments about Area X or the NAWAC since 2015. I'm sure she reads ISF so maybe she will do a follow up in the near future.
Click to expand...

Really? She thinks we are closed-minded, and not open to evidence, why would she come here?

Regardless of the fact that there is no evidence in the report, we still should keep an open mind because they wrote a 200 page paper about noises, rocks, and witnessing imaginary creatures.

The paper looked gud.
 
Drewbot said:
Really? She thinks we are closed-minded, and not open to evidence, why would she come here?

Regardless of the fact that there is no evidence in the report, we still should keep an open mind because they wrote a 200 page paper about noises, rocks, and witnessing imaginary creatures.

The paper looked gud.
Click to expand...

The forum isn't limited to the bigfoot threads and I imagine she visits other areas of the forum at times. Someone has probably already alerted her that she is being discussed in this thread. As for the report, as I said before, if you are working from the premise that someone isn't lying to you then their claims should be investigated further i.e. keeping an open mind.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
The forum isn't limited to the bigfoot threads and I imagine she visits other areas of the forum at times. Someone has probably already alerted her that she is being discussed in this thread. As for the report, as I said before, if you are working from the premise that someone isn't lying to you then their claims should be investigated further i.e. keeping an open mind.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see anything on her site that indicates an open mind, perhaps you've forgotten the premise of her site Idoubtit....the name should help you out.
Spend a liitle more time on her site, let us know if you find another example of her support for such dribble. You seem to be projecting your own postion to her motivation.
 
Stellafane said:
Well, one wants to be fair to Ms. Hill. Perhaps I'm missing something here (always a possibility) but to me a perfectly reasonable interpretation of this is "I'll look over your work and tell you whether or not it follows real scientific principles." I don't think it's necessarily "I'll show you how to make your stuff sound all science-y and fool people."
Click to expand...

That should be a very short conversation....but no she's going to give you a free look....then what? $$$$$$
Com'on man! Seriously one website is completely dedicated to exposing woo for what it is....with one bizzare exception which just happens to be this sciency, well written, polished turd.....the another site that is specifically focusing on the very same woo and making it into a polished turd.
Kudos to her for working both sides of the fence, it's really no big deal but it does seem a little...mmmmm....hypocritical?
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
I have yet to see anything on her site that indicates an open mind, perhaps you've forgotten the premise of her site Idoubtit....the name should help you out.
Spend a liitle more time on her site, let us know if you find another example of her support for such dribble. You seem to be projecting your own postion to her motivation.
Click to expand...

Oh get over yourself, how many times do I have to tell you guys that there is no one out there to even hear a rock falling IMO. As for being hypocritical, I think you need to look in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
Oh get over yourself, how many times do I have to tell you guys that there is no one out there to even hear a rock falling IMO. As for being hypocritical, I think you need to look in the mirror.
Click to expand...

Here are GPS coordinates that are embedded in photos posted on the NAWACKY website
34.563500 -94.622167
34.564333 -94.648333
34.579833 -94.596833
34.582333 -94.593667
So it's pretty obvious they have at least been to the area, I certainly can't prove they were listening while they were there.

Here's one of the locations, the cabins are the little white dots in the red circle, if one were to make a trip to this area these look to be pretty easy to find.


These are great examples of facts Jodie as opposed to IMOs.....maybe you could provide some in regards to me being a hypocrite?
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
Here are GPS coordinates that are embedded in photos posted on the NAWACKY website
34.563500 -94.622167
34.564333 -94.648333
34.579833 -94.596833
34.582333 -94.593667
So it's pretty obvious they have at least been to the area, I certainly can't prove they were listening while they were there.

Here's one of the locations, the cabins are the little white dots in the red circle, if one were to make a trip to this area these look to be pretty easy to find.
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/7FAAD685-D97C-4738-9465-2DD155905379.jpg[/qimg]

These are great examples of facts Jodie as opposed to IMOs.....maybe you could provide some in regards to me being a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


They are aerial photos, so I don't think much of your proof that they've actually been there.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Why do you think a popular national park would ever have no one in it?
Click to expand...
The Ouachita National Forest gets something like 800,000 visitors a year. Not to mention Forest Service employees, Fish and Game, U.S. Wildlife service biologists, etc.
 
Resume said:
The Ouachita National Forest gets something like 800,000 visitors a year. Not to mention Forest Service employees, Fish and Game, U.S. Wildlife service biologists, etc.
Click to expand...

Do you think that number includes people who are living, or renting on the border of the forest, that just walk on the multitude of trails, that meander in and out of park service land?

Also- permitted scientists, such as Shrike, doing studies on the wildlife, trees, watershed?
 
LTC8K6 said:
How did the GPS data get into the NAWAC photo files?

Why do you think a popular national park would ever have no one in it?
Click to expand...

See my above post to Cervelo. Aerial photos are just aerial photos, they don't indicate a presence.
 
LTC8K6 said:
How did the GPS data get into the NAWAC photo files?

Here ya go.....short version....almost all digital cameras and smart phones have embedded GPS coordinates in the photo data, this info is easy to extract.
Photos that are posted on the NAWACKIES website contained that info that I posted. I input those coordinators into a mapping app and posted a screen shot of that location.
http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/1401/how-do-you-find-the-gps-coordinates-of-your-photos/
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom