Operation Pointless

[LTC8K6]

From the link:



We took pictures, but I was later informed "none of the pictures turned out."

Darn the bad luck.

It's that blur field around them...

 

[captain koolaid]

I don't know, but the NAWAC isn't exactly the special forces team that Brian Brown makes it out to be...

So the wood apes really are like the "Predator" and they don't stand a chance?

...They seem more like a group of friends out camping and just having a good time...

Damn. If I was there, staring killer ninja hobo wood apes in the face, I'd either go all Arnold Schwarzenegger on their asses... or run away like a little girl.

...If the creature in question has avoided every hunter throughout history, then I wouldn't expect it to be too different for a group such as the NAWAC, even if they found a real hotspot. I guess what I'm saying is, if the monkey is real, then the NAWAC's difficultly in gathering a type specimen is sort of understandable on some level.

So, Brian and co are incompetent and the wood apes are ninjas, who know they are lousy shots? They keep going back just to mess with them and make them feel inadequate? Those wood apes aren't just dangerous... they're dangerous a-holes.

 

[Resume]

If the creature in question has avoided every hunter throughout history, then I wouldn't expect it to be too different for a group such as the NAWAC, even if they found a real hotspot.

Hunters/trappers/settlers provided millions of examples of every large mammal in NA, yet not one example of bigfoot. This is what you're saying. Doesn't that seem silly to you?

I guess what I'm saying is, if the monkey is real, then the NAWAC's difficultly in gathering a type specimen is sort of understandable on some level.

No it's not understandable, it's incomprehensible.

 

[Cuddles]

Does changing a name refresh faith in the endeavor for believers? Is this generally a well used concept in woo?

I'm going to have to defend bigfooters to some extent here. The thing is, this is a generally well used concept everywhere. See here, for example. Corporate re-branding happens all the time. Sometimes it's just a slight change to the logo, sometimes it's a complete name change. To give another example, I'm currently in the process of moving house. My solicitor used to have one name, but recently changed it to a new one. Except the actual company is legally called something completely different. Why did they change their name while actually being called something entirely different anyway? I have no idea. Why did Google decide to change Motorola's logo? It's not like anyone saw the old logo and decided not to buy their products, but will start throwing money at them now they have grey text instead of black.

So yeah, stupid and pointless? Absolutely. But not in any way unique to bigfooters. Constant rebranding just seems to be the way marketing divisions like to make themselves feel relevant. And since bigfootery is nothing other than a marketing division...

 

[GT/CS]

I don't know, but the NAWAC isn't exactly the special forces team that Brian Brown makes it out to be. They seem more like a group of friends out camping and just having a good time - all tax deductible. If the creature in question has avoided every hunter throughout history, then I wouldn't expect it to be too different for a group such as the NAWAC, even if they found a real hotspot. I guess what I'm saying is, if the monkey is real, then the NAWAC's difficultly in gathering a type specimen is sort of understandable on some level.

Fixed that for you.

 

[The Shrike]

Check the map out. That should be around Area X.

Thanks - as I suspected. One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a site like this as any further than 1 mile from a trail, let alone 10.

Meanwhile, I have done field work in this area, and potentially very near the site indicated by the "Patty" icon on the map. This was several years ago, and I was doing research on bird communities at the highest peaks in the southwestern corners of their respective ranges. This sounds arcane I know, but it's species at the real edges of their ranges that are most likely to gain or lose range in response to climate change, yadda yadda yadda. So I sent a team out to what I consider to be the most extreme edge of the larger "Appalachians" ecoregion: the Ouachitas and Ozarks of eastern Oklahoma.

For me it was just a few days worth of a site visit from the boss, but for my grad student and his 3 field techs, it was 2 summers of daily field work during May–July. Of the 6 months total field work on the project over the two years, I'll estimate that about half of that was spent in premium squatchy-as-hell terrain like this within 20 miles of the hypothetical "Area X" indicated on this map. That's Rich Mountain on the north side of the Patty icon and Lynn Mountain is the ridge to the south. Of the 150 sites we surveyed on the project, we had about 16 sites on Rich and Lynn mountains. Yes, we were well aware of all the bigfooty things reported from the area and my team was on high alert at all times to report anything squatchy to me.

What can I say? The area is rugged and it feels remote, but you'd really have to work hard to get somewhere 10 miles or even 1 good mile from a trail. There are some really sketchy people wandering around that part of Oklahoma, but everyone I met had a heart of gold despite outward appearances. I've never seen a higher percentage of people packing heat. The woods are loaded with bears and feral hogs, the latter mostly in the riparian areas.

Is it squatchy? Heck yeah. Is it wilderness? Hardly. Is it beautiful? Yes. If you're in striking distance and want to have a cool experience, check out those Ouachitas. It's pretty touristy at times. The Ouachitas are apparently to Dallas what the Adirondacks are to New York City.

 

[Resume]

Thanks - as I suspected. One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate a site like this as any further than 1 mile from a trail, let alone 10.

Meanwhile, I have done field work in this area, and potentially very near the site indicated by the "Patty" icon on the map. This was several years ago, and I was doing research on bird communities at the highest peaks in the southwestern corners of their respective ranges. This sounds arcane I know, but it's species at the real edges of their ranges that are most likely to gain or lose range in response to climate change, yadda yadda yadda. So I sent a team out to what I consider to be the most extreme edge of the larger "Appalachians" ecoregion: the Ouachitas and Ozarks of eastern Oklahoma.

For me it was just a few days worth of a site visit from the boss, but for my grad student and his 3 field techs, it was 2 summers of daily field work during May–July. Of the 6 months total field work on the project over the two years, I'll estimate that about half of that was spent in premium squatchy-as-hell terrain like this within 20 miles of the hypothetical "Area X" indicated on this map. That's Rich Mountain on the north side of the Patty icon and Lynn Mountain is the ridge to the south. Of the 150 sites we surveyed on the project, we had about 16 sites on Rich and Lynn mountains. Yes, we were well aware of all the bigfooty things reported from the area and my team was on high alert at all times to report anything squatchy to me.

What can I say? The area is rugged and it feels remote, but you'd really have to work hard to get somewhere 10 miles or even 1 good mile from a trail. There are some really sketchy people wandering around that part of Oklahoma, but everyone I met had a heart of gold despite outward appearances. I've never seen a higher percentage of people packing heat. The woods are loaded with bears and feral hogs, the latter mostly in the riparian areas.

Is it squatchy? Heck yeah. Is it wilderness? Hardly. Is it beautiful? Yes. If you're in striking distance and want to have a cool experience, check out those Ouachitas. It's pretty touristy at times. The Ouachitas are apparently to Dallas what the Adirondacks are to New York City.

Don't think I didn't notice the way you're dancing around it. You saw one, didn't you? But you're afraid of the ridicule. Like "thousands" of others who don't report.

Of course there are "thousands" that do report . . .

 

[xtifr]

Hunters/trappers/settlers provided millions of examples of every large mammal in NA

That's not true. There's a whole hoard of imaginary creatures they've never caught. The Jackalope, the Hidebehind, the Hoop Snake (though that one's not a mammal), the Drop Bear, the Sidehill Gouger, the Brownie, the Pixie, the Displacer Beast, the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal....

Bigfoot's in some fine company.

 

[Drewbot]

Well, we predicted it would happen, the Bigfooters are presenting the CGI-fake thermal imagery video of the Chimpanzees hunting a monkey, as evidence that the Wood Apes at Area X are exhibiting the same behavior as the FAKE CGI Thermal chimps encircling the monkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik&feature=player_embedded#t=0

This was debunked many months ago here on this website, although I am failing to find it.

 

[dafydd]

I like to think of the NAWAC as entertainment now because I really enjoy listening to their stories, but have no way of knowing if they're telling the truth or not. Brian Brown's credibility makes it even more interesting and he's one of the masterminds of this whole thing. I consider Area-X to be a real place, but only in my imagination unless they can bring in a "monkey"

Splitter!

 

[Resume]

Well, we predicted it would happen, the Bigfooters are presenting the CGI-fake thermal imagery video of the Chimpanzees hunting a monkey, as evidence that the Wood Apes at Area X are exhibiting the same behavior as the FAKE CGI Thermal chimps encircling the monkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik&feature=player_embedded#t=0

This was debunked many months ago here on this website, although I am failing to find it.

Now, is there a video of the wood apes surrounding the cabins at area x?

Didn't think so.

 

[Castro]

Do you mean that he's claimed that no part of Area X is closer than 10 miles to a trail? If it's "less than 10 miles" then it could also be less than 1 mile, or indeed, on a trail.

I thought AlaskaBushPilot had pretty well narrowed down the location. Is that not the case? The site is claimed to be a private inholding embedded within the Ouachita National Forest (on the Oklahoma side), right? If that's the claim, then somebody please show me where one can be 10 miles away from the nearest trail in the Oklahoma Ouachitas. I'll bet you a double-stuff Oreo that there is no such place meeting those criteria.

Here you go:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71572&page=136 post 5409

Well, we predicted it would happen, the Bigfooters are presenting the CGI-fake thermal imagery video of the Chimpanzees hunting a monkey, as evidence that the Wood Apes at Area X are exhibiting the same behavior as the FAKE CGI Thermal chimps encircling the monkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik&feature=player_embedded#t=0

This was debunked many months ago here on this website, although I am failing to find it.

Here you go:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245027&page=15 from post 561

 

[Jodie]

Well, we predicted it would happen, the Bigfooters are presenting the CGI-fake thermal imagery video of the Chimpanzees hunting a monkey, as evidence that the Wood Apes at Area X are exhibiting the same behavior as the FAKE CGI Thermal chimps encircling the monkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik&feature=player_embedded#t=0

This was debunked many months ago here on this website, although I am failing to find it.

Oh I posted it Drew, look under my name.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...They seem more like a group of friends out camping and just having a good time...

SEEM - intransitive verb \sēm\ - To give the impression of being. In ProBigfoolery, used to scientifically establish the creature's existence without proof of any kind.

"I know there's no evidence Craig and Brian, but it seemed like it was Bigfoot so I'm sure it was."
"Oh you better believe it was Bigfoot mister! We know cause we're Craig and Brian, notorious NAWAC's members and lifelong Boy's Life subscribers."

Well, we predicted it would happen, the Bigfooters are presenting the CGI-fake thermal imagery video of the Chimpanzees hunting a monkey, as evidence that the Wood Apes at Area X are exhibiting the same behavior as the FAKE CGI Thermal chimps encircling the monkey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik&feature=player_embedded#t=0

This was debunked many months ago here on this website, although I am failing to find it.

<channeling Kramer> You're missing the point Drew. They had to use CGI because the very few real Bigfoots out there in freelance film and video work are booked solid until late next year. And the NAWACs needed to get this on film ASAP to show us "unreasonable" skeptics just how prevalent it is that Bigfoot encircles chimps in Oklahoma. Or whatever it is they do.

Sorry Drew, I'm telling Craig and Brian yer not keeping up. Craig and Brian, Drew isn't keeping up.

 

[Jodie]

Well,, what would be more ironic to me is if the wood apes were actually chimps that got loose from somewhere nearby. Can you imagine all that money and time spent chasing real chimpanzee's through the Ouachitos?

 

[William Parcher]

They would have confirmed escaped or released chimps right away. If such a creature were there.

 

[Jodie]

I think the chimps would have died from the cold, but I wonder what would happen if you did release a chimp in the area. Would they film it and declare it bigfoot, shoot it, and claim it was anything other than a chimp?

 

[Resume]

ey

I think the chimps would have died from the cold, but I wonder what would happen if you did release a chimp in the area. Would they film it and declare it bigfoot, shoot it, and claim it was anything other than a chimp?

They'd **** themselves, spill their beers, and shoot each other in the foot.

 

[Jodie]

Yeah, you're probably right.

 

[Spektator]

In Chapter 17 of Three Men in a Boat, Jerome K. Jerome wrote of the qualities a good fisherman must have. Suitably edited, I think it could apply to field bigfoot researchers equally well:

Some people are under the impression that all that is required to make a good bigfoot researcher is the ability to tell lies easily and without blushing; but this is a mistake. Mere bald fabrication is useless; the veriest tyro can manage that. It is in the circumstantial detail, the embellishing touches of probability, the general air of scrupulous - almost of pedantic - veracity, that the experienced bigfooter is seen.