N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[Wingman1]

Wow! this is starting to look like my dog chasing his tail, and after he catches it he gets the look of okay, now what!

I think this situation boils down to this:

 

a. Did anyone actually see something apelike up in the tree clearly shaking it? and not just something Grey!

b. Did anyone actually see something apelike jumping from the tree, and whether or not it suffered any injuries or leave a blood trail...etc? and not just something Grey!

 

If the answer is no! Speculate all you want, it won't change anything! you are putting forth one of those oh so hated eyewitness reports, and we

all know how reliable those are albeit a much more informed one though

If I understand this right, Someone named Bipto supposedly witnessed the event? maybe it's just me, but it sounds as though the thought here is that if Bipto

saw it, then it must be true! So am I to understand that Bipto or any other popular researcher are not being held to the same standard as everyone else! I remember

when reading the new members brief and forum guidelines that when an extraordinary claim is put forth, extraordinary evidence or proof will need to back it up. No

offense is meant here and it is in no way intended! I enjoy his great posts and it is obvious that he is very intelligent and brings an awful lot to the table. Now I am new to

the forum and you may see this as rookie gibberish, but I hope the double standard demon hasn't found a home here!. I continue reading on and now I can understand discussing the tree condition, but pages and pages of post after post about how the dynamics of force, weight and momentum will affect a given tree of a given size is a bit much isn't it. It inevitably turns into a "Yes it is/No it isn't" argument! I thought I had somehow wandered into a Forestry Service forum for while there. Then I see references to a place called Area X and thought, Great, now I've been abducted and brought to a UFO forum! How did that happen!! All kidding aside now, everyone here seems to have opinions that they are reluctant to break away from even if a BF ran up to them and smacked them upside their heads! For some folks it appears that they see themselves as always being right, but the line between confidence and arrogance appears to be getting blurred a bit. The skeptics on this thread seem to think that they are the immovable object in front of an unstoppable force so to speak and they will make us see the err of our ways! Good luck with that! If you beleive in BF then this is the place to be!  If you are sitting on the fence and are trying to gain knowledge to help you determine which side you want jump to, Then this is the place be! If you completely reject the idea that BF does exist and will never change your mind, then why are you here! I don't beleive in Psychic phenomena, and pretty much the same towards Ghosts, but you will never catch me on one of their forums! not worth my time and I hate arguing with brickwalls. (Except when arguing with the wife! With the brickwall I can actually get in a few words!) There is apparently some reason that keeps the hardcore skeptics coming to this forum, and I will probably never figure out why! You know, now that I think about it, I really don't want to know anyway. Again, I mean no offense as I see the skeptical folks as being the checks and balances system the helps keep the BFF scales on an even keel. It is unfortunate that a few do cross the line sometimes. But I do give them the benefit of the doubt by understanding they may not realize they are crossing it at the time.

 

Bottom Line:

1. BF is still currently a being that does not exist to science.

2. There is a fair amount of evidence out there to warrant further investigation, but no detailed research can or has been conducted so

far. This adds up to we just don't have enough to prove existence Which of course everyone should know that by now, and the yes I did/No

you didn't arguing is getting old fast and does not add one iota of credence to what is trying to be accomplished here. I don't buy into this

business of "We have to prove their existence in order to preserve their habitat, and if anyone thinks that they stay in one area for any extended

period time are just fooling themselves.They are at the very least semi-nomadic! if they weren't we would have been able prove their existence by now,

and It will be a difficult task to nail down any area as BF habitat. It comes down to the simple fact that we know next to nothing about them and not enough

to compile even a simple hypothesis. This can be frustrating for some and I think it is why there are some groups out there want to kill one and just get it

over with and done! Which is a bad idea! You can try to argue with me about that until the cows come home and will never convince me. What is the hurry

people? I just don't see the american forests completely disappearing any time soon (although the wild fires are sure trying to do it) Let's face it, the current

processes used to track, locate, and prove their existence are woefully inadequate. I think a big helping of creativity and some ingenuity would really help

our efforts! Now of course that takes a considerable amount of man-hours, man-power and man-money but it can be done. I can somewhat understand the

pro-kill reasoning because it is stemmed from the critical and logical thinking mentality, but how about we add some common sense in there as well! You just

might be surprised at how well it works. For me I do not need everything proven to me! I come from a time when a mans word was as good as gold! but also

I know that in our current time, it worth a little less than BF Scat, but I refuse to just toss it aside. Besides I love a good mystery in life and will never become a

slave to blind logic! I enjoy the good things in life whether real or perceived. I wouldn't have it any other way. I am comfortable with the fact that I will never be able

to know everything or have it proven to me in triplicate and I don't need to hit myself on the head to find out if it will hurt. Finally..... When did we start referring to

them as Wood Apes, I do see the connection, but the last time I checked we were still calling them Sasquatch or BF. I call them Big Hairyass Critters, but on this forum

I just stick with Sasquatch or BF! It is catchy though huh! and just because it displays apelike behavior or something close to it does not mean we get to arbitrarily classify it as an ape. There is far too much presumption now as it is!. I learned in the early 90s over the skies of Iraq that just because it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it doesn't necessarily mean it is duck. -- A guy with an RPG never looks like a guy with an RPG until it is too late! ---- And yes I am as long winded when I talk as well ---

 

Time to Turn and Burn and RTB as my RWR is picking up AAA and SAM,s locking on!!!! and I **** sure ain't sticking around for that!

[Yuchi1]

(First, some basic background data regarding NAWAC’s Area “Xâ€, published as being, the “Branson propertyâ€) 

 

Mr. Branson's 10 acre plot sits on the SW corner of a ~80 acre cluster of similar parcels that are basically mountain cabin sites developed/sold by a land developer some years back. Said land developer still owns some of those parcels contained within the ~80 acres. Over the past ~20 years, black bears have become a major nuisance for such development projects in that they are apparently "master burglars" at breaking into cabins, looking for food and/or shelter. Many of the cabins observed up there have bars on the windows and doors such as you'd find at the county jail. Point being, bears are in that area (Area X) in numbers and have a history of being problematic. 

 

Outside of the 10 acres in Area “Xâ€, the closest public access hunting area (Honobia Creek GMA) is located ~1/2 mile south of Mr. Branson's place. 

 

The northern line boundary of this 80 acre cluster adjoins the southern boundary of our ~3300 acre hunting lease which runs E-W for ~3.3 miles along the mountain ridge top, extending ~1/3 mile west of the 80 acres and running east there from for the remainder. The membership of this lease includes ODWC biologists, ODWC LEO & USFW LEO and these guys, along with myself have noted nothing in the way of evidence (vocalizations, tracks, tree breaks, bows, X formations, pinwheels, hair/tissue, et. al.) to indicate the presence of UHS (unidentified hominid species) activity. 

 

Why would there be no apparent activity in this particular area of the Kiamichi Mountains?  

 

IMO, would you abide in an area where you were being shot at on a regular basis? Information was conveyed to me by two sources who are believed to be reliable, of a couple incidents where a UHS was shot and killed by night time deer poachers in the general area. They were both killed over bait stations put out for the "mountain bucks" that basically live their entire lives operating in a nocturnal fashion so that a hunter almost never sees one during legal hunting hours. The first one, upon being shot and then identified by the poacher was left for dead and the second one, shot by another poacher, (as he crouched in a blind at the base of a cedar tree), was carried off by two other UHS while it was thrashing and gurgling in it's own blood.  IMO, there is probably a substantial history of like events hence, the reason they are not found in several areas and yet are in others, within the region.

[Cotter]

  and not break the trunk, is not going to be moved by a 700 pound creature at 20 mph

 

You are simply incorrect on this one.

[Drew]

No. the 24" diameter base of a White Oak tree is not going to be moved by a 700 pound creature at 20mph 45' up in the tree.

 

The 24" diameter base of the tree can handle 70mph winds blowing against a 50'x50' canopy cross-section.

 

Your scenario is nonsensical.

 

 

.  

[1980squatch]

Ok, lets take Drew's pic there and have some fun.  This time, for variety, we will use kinematics rather than energy conservation.  Looks like a double cab there, but not a dually, so say 6000lbs/ 32ft/s squared = 187.5 slugs.  Looks like the center of mass moved around 3ft, I'm just going to guess 40mph (58.7 ft/s).  So over the 3ft the average speed would be 58.7/2 = 29.4ft/s, which gives a stop time of .102 s (distance = speed*time).  The de-acceleration is then the change in speed / time, or 58.7/.102 = 575.5 ft/s squared. F=ma, so the force is 187.5*575.5 = 108000 lbs.

 

So yes, much higher force than the BF's 6256 lbs.  But then the kicker - the torque.  That truck's impact does not look more than 1 ft off from a possible break point, so that is 108000*1 = 108000 ft lbs, much less than the BF!

 

And I did a little digging on the moments (torque) required to take down large trees and it does seem to start around 225000 ft lbs (reported as either breakage near trunk or root ball fail), in line with what we were assuming before.

[Drew]

The energy at 45' up in the tree is going to to be expended MOVING the more flexible upper branches and smashing the Bigfoot's face/shoulder, it would either break there at the point of impact, but not at the base.  a 6" or 8" diameter trunk at 45' up in the tree, is going to yield long before the 12", 16", 20" or 24" diameter trunk down below is going to break.

[masterbarber]

ATTENTION:

 

Unless someone is planning on demonstrating (read video presentation) the various issues with the "Tree", let's move FORWARD! Some of you are doing nothing more than trying to impose your will on the other party and quite frankly it's akin to beating a dead horse. 

 

If you have pertinent information regarding the NAWAC Field Study then please post it. If this thread continues to dwindle, and the snide pot shots don't stop, I will close it for good. 

[chelefoot]

I want to add that there is another thread in the Premium area, without the rule restrictions.  This discussion is also taking place there.

[WSA]

Dmaker, I've participated in dragging this thread OT enough, but you and I don't differ as to what a premise is, I see, only what my premise offers for debate. You want it on one plane, and I another, of course. Preponderance is 51% or more, nothing less. My premise is only to engage the debate at that point, which I believe is the minimum level of conviction for most forum contributors....ranging up to 100% certainty for some. Where you fall out with me and  many others is the idea that until something is categorically proven, evidence of the kind we now have can't be taken seriously...ever. Those who pronounce the idea as preposterous are not capable of evaluating this evidence, by definition, because there can't be any kind of evidence of something that doesn't exist.  And around and around it goes... 

 

I kick myself for even being pulled into this same circular discussion yet again, so I yield the field to you and others with greater stamina than me, but with the hope they show more forebearance than I sometimes do. Cheers.    

[masterbarber]

(First, some basic background data regarding NAWAC’s Area “X”, published as being, the “Branson property”) 

 

Mr. Branson's 10 acre plot sits on the SW corner of a ~80 acre cluster of similar parcels that are basically mountain cabin sites developed/sold by a land developer some years back. Said land developer still owns some of those parcels contained within the ~80 acres. Over the past ~20 years, black bears have become a major nuisance for such development projects in that they are apparently "master burglars" at breaking into cabins, looking for food and/or shelter. Many of the cabins observed up there have bars on the windows and doors such as you'd find at the county jail. Point being, bears are in that area (Area X) in numbers and have a history of being problematic. 

 

Outside of the 10 acres in Area “X”, the closest public access hunting area (Honobia Creek GMA) is located ~1/2 mile south of Mr. Branson's place. 

 

The northern line boundary of this 80 acre cluster adjoins the southern boundary of our ~3300 acre hunting lease which runs E-W for ~3.3 miles along the mountain ridge top, extending ~1/3 mile west of the 80 acres and running east there from for the remainder. The membership of this lease includes ODWC biologists, ODWC LEO & USFW LEO and these guys, along with myself have noted nothing in the way of evidence (vocalizations, tracks, tree breaks, bows, X formations, pinwheels, hair/tissue, et. al.) to indicate the presence of UHS (unidentified hominid species) activity. 

 

Why would there be no apparent activity in this particular area of the Kiamichi Mountains?  

 

IMO, would you abide in an area where you were being shot at on a regular basis? Information was conveyed to me by two sources who are believed to be reliable, of a couple incidents where a UHS was shot and killed by night time deer poachers in the general area. They were both killed over bait stations put out for the "mountain bucks" that basically live their entire lives operating in a nocturnal fashion so that a hunter almost never sees one during legal hunting hours. The first one, upon being shot and then identified by the poacher was left for dead and the second one, shot by another poacher, (as he crouched in a blind at the base of a cedar tree), was carried off by two other UHS while it was thrashing and gurgling in it's own blood.  IMO, there is probably a substantial history of like events hence, the reason they are not found in several areas and yet are in others, within the region.

 

Thanks for your contribution to the thread, so in your opinion and with your apparent knowledge of the area, how likely does it seem that there is legitimate "Woodape" activity in the region? Is it possible that poachers may be trying to run off anyone (like woodape investigators) by various means including pelting cabins with rocks, acting squatchy, and creating a general sense of Bigfoot-ness? Seems like that would be a dangerous game....

 

Also, is there any history of Bear poaching in that area?

[dmaker]

Dmaker, I've participated in dragging this thread OT enough, but you and I don't differ as to what a premise is, I see, only what my premise offers for debate. You want it on one plane, and I another, of course. Preponderance is 51% or more, nothing less. My premise is only to engage the debate at that point, which I believe is the minimum level of conviction for most forum contributors....ranging up to 100% certainty for some. Where you fall out with me and  many others is the idea that until something is categorically proven, evidence of the kind we now have can't be taken seriously...ever. Those who pronounce the idea as preposterous are not capable of evaluating this evidence, by definition, because there can't be any kind of evidence of something that doesn't exist.  And around and around it goes... 

 

I kick myself for even being pulled into this same circular discussion yet again, so I yield the field to you and others with greater stamina than me, but with the hope they show more forebearance than I sometimes do. Cheers.    

My bold. There can certainly be evidence that would change my mind. No one has presented any yet. Had Sykes confirmed some samples with something interesting and even remotely " bigfooty", then that could have been the start of a major shift for quite a few people I would guess. Don't paint me as stubborn or hard headed because the current state of bigfoot evidence is so weak.  Accept that it needs to be better instead of painting those that challenge it as incapable of evaluating bigfoot evidence.  

 

And please stop with this hit and run point making of late. How many posts now have you made with a final, reluctant tone to it, only to return to the same fray a day later? If you don't want to participate in a certain debate then don't. It's that simple. But please stop with this dipping your toe in, making a point and then declaring yourself outside the discussion. It doesn't work that way.  You will get responses whether or not you declare yourself a non-participant. Non participants don't participate. Period.

[norseman]

Does every thread have to devolve into a proof of existence thread???

[Drew]

No.  We were doing quite well just trying to prove the physics of the tree-break.

 

No proof of existence arguments were involved in that.

[WSA]

Norseman is right Dmaker...if we want to continue this, it needs to be somewhere else, but I'm folding my hand. I have momentary delusions of taking this to a higher plane, but those quickly pass, as this one has. Ignore me and feel free to say whatever you care to say about me in my absence.  I just don't feel like coming out to play today.  

[dmaker]

That is fine. I have no wish to derail this thread, I was merely responding to you.