• 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.
Now Brown is talking about a guy at Area X who got hit in the foot with a rock and saw the Bigfoot throw it. It was up in a tree and he saw the dark hairy arm swing around the trunk to throw. But then there is no mention of filming the Bigfoot when it eventually and inevitably climbed down from the tree. Get your camera out and don't take your eyes off of that tree!

No, that didn't happen. It never happens and it never will. LOL.

The guy who saw the Bigfoot arm in the tree is a liar. Oh and Brown says that lots of rocks came flying out of the tree, so Bigfoot brings them up there in his cheek pouches before lobbing away. LOL

You have to laugh thinking that these loons are expecting their audience to treat this seriously.
 
HarryHenderson said:
You would have to be certifiably daft to know the history of Bigfoot & Bigfooting and still be able to give the benefit of the doubt to folks like the NAWACs. Is it because they don't have a southern accent? It's gotta be something like that since it's not about any "factualities". They've supplied the same amount of real world Bigfoot evidence as anyone else who's ever claimed the same lunacy, NONE. Yet, in a trend that's unmistakable in its stupidity, WE'RE now the bad guys for not capriciously disavowing our skepticism (empiricism) and offering up similar sympathies to essentially a bunch of Internet trolls who vacation in Oklahoma and who don't actually have or do anything Bigfoot except verbalize lunatic Bigfoot claims as a group. Talk about AMAZING!

Anyone care to explain what the **** makes lying as a member of NAWAC so much more desirable than lying as simply a member of society? Is it the free firewood?
Click to expand...

NAWAC has gained some traction in the mainstream media and with skeptics like Sharon Hill because their endeavors appear earnest and unsensational, thoughtful, and they are credentialed, to a degree, and have applied a methodology to their research.

You are correct to point out that they really haven't produced results commensurate with the traction they are enjoying (even if the traction is still small).

I think the events in the so-called Valley of the Wood Apes are a complex mixture of hoaxing, true believer gullibility, and dishonesty. I don't think any one such ingredient suffices, by itself, to explain what has happened there.

In short form here is what I think has happened:

1. Someone led NAWAC to this particular site for the purpose of hoaxing them to gain attention to the area as a hotspot of Bigfoot activity.

2. NAWAC is made up of true believers who uncritically accepted certain hoaxed events without much concern for the innate implausibility of such events.

3. Growing frustrated with the lack of substantiation over the years at Area X for their belief in Bigfoot, certain members created their own substantiation by having sightings.
 
Here's a reply to Sharon's bigfoot thread that didn't make it through moderation.

Sharon,
Who hacked your site???
Those of us who have dealt with Mr. Brown for years know that he is not to be believed. He and his friends have been running this scam on the IRS for years. They go camping and he writes it off his taxes because he is ‘preserving bigfoot habitat’, according to his non-profit status.
And don’t forget that he owns his own marketing company.
 
William Parcher said:
Now Brown is talking about a guy at Area X who got hit in the foot with a rock and saw the Bigfoot throw it. It was up in a tree and he saw the dark hairy arm swing around the trunk to throw. But then there is no mention of filming the Bigfoot when it eventually and inevitably climbed down from the tree. Get your camera out and don't take your eyes off of that tree!

No, that didn't happen. It never happens and it never will. LOL.

The guy who saw the Bigfoot arm in the tree is a liar. Oh and Brown says that lots of rocks came flying out of the tree, so Bigfoot brings them up there in his cheek pouches before lobbing away. LOL

You have to laugh thinking that these loons are expecting their audience to treat this seriously.
Click to expand...

I asked Brown at Hill's I DOUBT IT page about the ability of a wood ape to have seven to ten rocks on its self while in a tree. My question hasn't gone through moderation yet; we will have to wait to see what kind of answer Brown will offer, if any.
 
Which is exactly what he would want to happen. It's an easy way to end the conversation. As it stands, he has to decide when to stop replying to comments.
 
I had some fun recently taking random photos of branches in the woods and blowing them up to find bigfoot faces. Next, I will try throwing rocks in woods and check my accuracy and distance. It doesn't matter how much bigger, stronger, and more skilled a bigfoot rock-pitcher is compared to me, he's still only gonna have a clear throwing lane for probably <50 m through those woods. That's what I want to test - at what distance can one throw an accurate rock through mature woodland?
 
Here is a comment by Sharon Hill: "Now we’re pushing skepticism to pathological cynicism."

I tend to agree with her on this, up to a point. While I think there are credible grounds to challenge NAWAC's account of what they experienced, the easy, first stop, dismissal of their assertions and arguments as nothing but lies has never held much appeal to me. Such an approach is cynicism, to be sure, but is it pathological?
 
The Shrike said:
I had some fun recently taking random photos of branches in the woods and blowing them up to find bigfoot faces. Next, I will try throwing rocks in woods and check my accuracy and distance. It doesn't matter how much bigger, stronger, and more skilled a bigfoot rock-pitcher is compared to me, he's still only gonna have a clear throwing lane for probably <50 m through those woods. That's what I want to test - at what distance can one throw an accurate rock through mature woodland?
Click to expand...

To test it accurately you need a couple dudes near the receiving end with no nightvision or thermal gear and the guys throwing it have it. This way you can determine at what distance you can safely toss the rocks/candy without being seen. Common technique for the footer camp parties. Have a couple dudes in the woods with gen3 night vision that are familiar with the landscape in the area. "no human could move that fast at night" uhh, yeah you can. There are a lot of military operations done specifically at night using that gear for the same reasons.

However, in the "wood apes" claim case, i think it's pure stories and lack of reality. That would certainly explain the lack of any credible evidence.
 
Last edited:
jerrywayne said:
Here is a comment by Sharon Hill: "Now we’re pushing skepticism to pathological cynicism."

I tend to agree with her on this, up to a point. While I think there are credible grounds to challenge NAWAC's account of what they experienced, the easy, first stop, dismissal of their assertions and arguments as nothing but lies has never held much appeal to me. Such an approach is cynicism, to be sure, but is it pathological?
Click to expand...

I don't know about cynicism, pathological or not, but anyone who accepts any of this hooey at face value is certainly gullible.
 
jerrywayne said:
Here is a comment by Sharon Hill: "Now we’re pushing skepticism to pathological cynicism."

I tend to agree with her on this, up to a point. While I think there are credible grounds to challenge NAWAC's account of what they experienced, the easy, first stop, dismissal of their assertions and arguments as nothing but lies has never held much appeal to me. Such an approach is cynicism, to be sure, but is it pathological?
Click to expand...

How could we doubt an after action report.

23:55
–
While [John] Dollens was pointing the flashlight to the northwest, Lawrence
spotted extremely large yellowish white eye shine about 15
-
20 yards away on the sl
ope
of the mountain to the northeast. When Lawrence first spotted the eye shine, there
was no light being shown directly at it. There was only a small amount of ambient
light reaching them from the periphery of the beam on the light J. Dollens was
holding.
Lawrence could clearly see both eyes, the reflections of which were oval
-
shaped and about the size of tennis balls. Lawrence witnessed the eyes quickly sweep
from looking southwest, to looking southeast, then vanishing. Lawrence quickly got
the attention
of J. Dollens and directed him to shine the light where Lawrence had
seen the eye shine. Shortly after J. Dollens centered the light on the area, Lawrence
and J. Dollens caught another glimmer of eye shine and...J. Dollens, from his
position, could see the
outline of the head and shoulders of an ape... J. Dollens said
that the animal was “huge, with little or no neck” and was “black or dark brown.”
Because the eye shine was not round and was so vibrant and bright, Lawrence
nicknamed the ape “Ironman.”
(
Adapte
d from
Operation Persistence India team
after
-
action report from July 6, 2012
 
Cynicism is the only realistic way to look at Bigfootery. Expect absolutely nothing of substance to come from Bigfootery. Don't believe what the Bigfooters tell you.

You just can't go wrong by applying cynicism to the Bigfoot topic.
 
jerrywayne said:
. . . first stop, dismissal of their assertions and arguments as nothing but lies . . . Such an approach is cynicism, to be sure, but is it pathological?
Click to expand...

No, there's nothing sure about it. At what point are we allowed to consider the vastly more likely explanation without being labeled as closed-minded or cynical?

First stop? What on earth is different about NAWAC compared to dozens of similar scenarios we've considered in the past? Heck, rock-throwing goes all the way back to Ape Canyon. It's been specifically part of the local southeastern Oklahoma folklore since before Honobia started their annual festival. What else have they got? Claims of sightings? Weird sounds in the night? Cameras that can't record them? Never heard those before . . . yeah right.
 
Cervelo said:
Having spent some time in the area that I suspect NAWACKY Valley is locate.
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/81DB64DD-BE8B-46B1-AD08-16CDA1C7B581.png[/qimg]

I would place Area X north of 63, for the reason that the NAWAC web page places it above 63:
http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/457

On the other hand, NAWAC may be offering a ruse here to steer folks away from the real site. The report above mentions cabins on the Little River -- as best I can tell, the Little River would be west and south of this site, and near Honobia.
Click to expand...
 
The Shrike said:
No, there's nothing sure about it. At what point are we allowed to consider the vastly more likely explanation without being labeled as closed-minded or cynical?

First stop? What on earth is different about NAWAC compared to dozens of similar scenarios we've considered in the past? Heck, rock-throwing goes all the way back to Ape Canyon. It's been specifically part of the local southeastern Oklahoma folklore since before Honobia started their annual festival. What else have they got? Claims of sightings? Weird sounds in the night? Cameras that can't record them? Never heard those before . . . yeah right.
Click to expand...

Since when does dismissing virtually everything concerning Bigfoot as a knowing lie become a "vastly more likely explanation?" It's not, in my book. I would say that the idea that NAWAC just made up everything they reported, that they bold faced lied about everything, is an explanation that has its own problems.

To be clear about Hill's complaint, I must add that she was addressing folks who did not read the report and still wanted to dismiss it out of hand.

Although you don't hold this view, I don't think, there are skeptics who believe positively that Bigfoot does not exist and cannot exist. They are not just skeptical, they are "knowers" in their own right; they know Bigfoot does not exist. Given this, they have no openness whatsoever to the possibility of Bigfoot. The cynicism comes into play when they also believe no one else could really believe in Bigfoot either. It is a small step from there to calling people liars over Bigfoot. It is a first stop, easy way to dismiss the phenomena.
 
Jerry, when you say that such-and-such isn't a lie you are stating that as speculative opinion, is that right?
 
When you say that so-and-so Bigfooter is a true believer you are stating that as speculative opinion, is that right?
 
William Parcher said:
Cynicism is the only realistic way to look at Bigfootery. Expect absolutely nothing of substance to come from Bigfootery. Don't believe what the Bigfooters tell you.

You just can't go wrong by applying cynicism to the Bigfoot topic.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you that no one ought believe what the Bigfooters tell us. We are not obligated. But I think Hill is arguing that we ought not be so totally closed-minded that we easily dismiss claims without giving a hearing whatsoever. Who knows, maybe there IS something there. (I seriously doubt there is, but I know I may be wrong.) Cynicism is not the same thing as skepticism.

My complaint is that the idea that we can dismiss NAWAC as just a bunch of liars cannot be assumed off hand, and is probably itself a dubious assumption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom