Leaderboard

and inc gets more +s, well said sir. some of the latest naysayers were proponents as well..... consider that norse. bottom line was they did speak their peace and it didn't set well. your point about hunters sharing observations cuts two ways... it is wise as a hunter to listen to other successful experienced hunters. but when a hunter has observations of their own also that don't jive with claims (or the laws of physics) then you have to wonder about what's being said.....sort of like if a guy told you to call in turkeys with a buck grunt call , it wouldn't add up. why soak in info that may seem off ? or info presented by someone who's woodsmanship skills potentially may not be as keen as their enthusiasm? the tree hasn't been the only thing in question here, read back through this thing and its more a culmination of things leading up to it. many of us started off listening respectfully with very high hopes for this that faded as it went on. I agree that we were not there to witness events, and I also agree that those with a promising area hoping to collect a body would do well to keep a lid on it until its a done deal. fwiw, I learned long ago if I located a mature buck to keep it under wraps until I had it in the truck. discovery of a resident BF wouldn't be any different, for me anyways. finally, nothing would silence naysayers better than a big plate of crow. I sincerely hope Bipto manages to serve a big dish of it here, I really do.....but putting down the efforts of a successful forum staff because of questions instead of ignoring the "questioneers" doesn't seem fitting ...... especially since his BFF1 was ran as a much more skeptical operation than this version.

The discussion seemed to be going along, well, until a fairly unbelievable posting about a creature snapping off a 24" diameter healthy tree and then jumping off. Pardon me, I find this quite incredible. I wasn't one chiming in with the disbelief, as there was already plenty proffered. That the OP chose not to respond to said incredulity, dissed this forum, and left in a huff speaks volumes. Would love for Bipto to return victorious. Would love to read of NAWAC in the morning newspaper or internet news feeds. But I do not feel he was mistreated in his time here. My two cents, too.

They can haul out a body tomorrow and I'll still argue them on the tree downing. If I saw that in a hab thread I would have ignored it. Just holding them to a higher standard...

Take your ball and go home. He would have been dissected, sliced, and diced on his BFF 1.0 forum. Harry Truman, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Stalking is defined as - the act or an instance of harassing another in an aggressive, often threatening manner, and from what I am reading here there seems to be no aggressive behavior being displayed. I think it is much more plausible that they are shadowing you to ascertain what you are doing in their backyard, or it could be that a family unit may be near by and BF is making sure that you do not come close to them. It may also be nothing more than plain old curiosity. I think if BF wanted to harm you it would have done so way before you began to notice it was following you. Could things turn bad at some point, sure! but I think proper behavior among them will go along way as to helping them decide on what they want to do with you. You have to remember that you are venturing into their backyard. This unfortunately is all conjecture since no one has been able to stay close to them or follow them over a long period of time and observe their behavior. Common sense along with caution should be utilized when you suspect that they are near you. you might just make yourself a new friend in the forest!

If ya got the goods, you don't have to advertise....

well said See, so a couple of plusses for these , and here's why.... long ago in BFF 1, iirc, I started some of those threads about skeptics / why they get involved, why pro BF with no sightings want to "bleev" etc ....... seems I remember Bip chiming in somewhere about how a dose of skepticism was needed when considering the BF phenomena, and should be expected and good for the discussions....... why make that point and then not expect it to be applied to yourself ? also,considering Bips pot shots at BFF2........... fwiw, a big part of his BFF 1 was much more skeptically minded . saskeptic , Parnassus and crew were much more aggressive in going after the BF stories than what we see now. the back and forth there made it more the sideshow . it certainly wasn't a research sight. BFF 2 is a more accepting forum , imo , or you wouldn't have the "habituating BF" or paranormal BF threads we have now. agreed again, I've been on forums where almost every one agreed . while its great to see all get along for a while, the fact was the forums dry up eventually. without an opposing viewpoint sooner or later the discussions fizzle out when everyone runs out of high fives and "cool story bro's " . the discussion dies, its that simple.

This is also in our rules: There has to be a degree of give and take from everyone. Trust me - I'd love nothing more than for ol' bipto to bust all up in here with a high-def video, or, better yet, photographic evidence of a type specimen. I want the experiences he claims to be true... complete with the evidence to support them. I'm rooting for X, and Grendel, too. It's my sincere hope that someone will be able to document the existence of Bigfoot.

Norse, you know I respect you and your opinion(s). However, you have to have a pretty thick skin if you plan to share your experiences on the forum. You know that this is a requirement for anyone presenting any type of claim in the Bigfoot world. Even with the slams on the forum, bipto is always welcome here. I know he was frustrated, and I realize that it is a tough place to make claims and to relay observations. Yet this is the place to put it out there, if for no other reason but to see how it's received.

Excuse me but Bipto was not "run out of here". If there were a few who were pressing too hard he could have simply used the ignore function. So a few made insinuations. Again, he could have put them on ignore, not blame the entire BFF because he was facing hard questions. Seems to me he was made to look a bit silly with this tree break thing so took his toys and went home.

this ^^ for starters..... if its an attempt by the ketchum camp to breath life into that debacle again ( not saying it is, just if ) then no thanks .

Neither Meldrum, Krantz or Bindernagel are/were Skeptical. They are/were the antithesis of Skeptical. I noticed you left NAWAC out of your diatribe. Oh yeah, nawac left the building.

<I believe he is on record as stating that he doesn't care if anyone believes him> I'd say hm leaving in a huff shows he does.

Couldn't the same be said for bipto? He offered no evidence, and saying that it was never his intent to do so is not any better than saying that the skeptics can't give anything to substantiate their opinion. Stagnation seems to be defined as allowing others to be critical of unsubstantiated claims. To me, stagnation is humoring the claims of others without asking them to substantiate their claims, all while walking on eggshells in an effort to avoid offending the person making the claims. I've raised my child, so I'm pretty much done with making an effort to boost egos, or should I say avoiding the truth to keep from offending. People have to learn that there is no right to avoid offense, and if they can't post their incredible, unsubstantiated claims to a forum without being able to handle a differing opinion or criticism, and want to take their tales elsewhere, then that's up to them. I wish the guy all the success in the world, but if he can't handle the skeptical and skeptical proponents questioning him here on the BFF, how's he going to handle an inquiry from the scientific community, who'll certainly critique his claims unless... ... it's accompanied by evidence, which is where all of this got started from - Claims that lacked evidence. If bipto wants to return and present evidence along with his claims, or continue to give unsubstantiated accounts, he's more than welcome.

Susiq: I flew 727s for many years until the airline got rid of them. Loved that airplane, very safe, flew in two of the three positions on them. Never got senior enough to be captain. Flew the 757 until I was forced to retire. Loved that airplane too in a different way. Anyway in spite of all the arguments about what is safer woods or highways, I stand by my feelings. If you cannot rationalize being in the woods for whatever reason stay out of them. Some of us have precognition abilities (this will send some people into a tizzy) but I have experienced it myself. And observed others having feelings they ignored at their peril. A classic case I can think of was a B-52 gunner who had a really bad feeling about flying one day. He went out sick and the airplane that he was supposed to fly crashed killing everyone on board right on base. Only it gets worse. The gunner was walking on base and the airplane hit and killed him on the ground. In my case I was driving along the road in California that parallels the Sierras. I had vision of a car running off the road and going out into a field with a big cloud of dust. Sort of like a day time dream. I slowed down trying to figure out what was happening. 5 minutes later I came around a corner and this time saw in real time the exact same scene. If I had not slowed down the car would have hit me as it crossed the road before going out into the field. The driver was fine and just shook up but if we had head on we both could have been killed. I had a couple of things like this happened when I was a fireman. A feeling not to go someplace or great danger then a roof fell in where I would have been. After my zapping thing which scared me quite a bit, I had to rationalize going out in the field again. I thought the local BF were my friends until that point. Now I don't know. I worked past it just like the many times I had to do the same thing in the military after crashes that killed flying buddies. But if you cannot rationalize your fears, by all means stay out of the woods. You will never be comfortable. Another thing that many who have made arguments is that they are assuming BF is a homogenous population. In my area they are pretty reclusive but can be provoked. A 100 miles away in Northern Washington they seem very aggressive and quite willing to show themselves and chase people out of the woods. If different species or subspecies are involved like, dogman etc, then all bets are off as to what they are like and how dangerous they are. One could be having a bad day or have been shot at recently too in any area. You never know when you have an encounter.

I'm perplexed as to how anyone can expect to publish details about an ongoing investigation without expecting any questioning, negative or otherwise. If you make claims on a public forum, you're bound to generate responses. If anyone expects to simply come here and chronicle their experiences without a critique, they are sadly out of touch. This also goes for those that expect only positive responses to such claims, as well. Just as those that claim things to be happening, those that don't think so can express their opinions, too.

Your welcome HWM. I know this is a very tough subject for some to discuss. Believe me, I can't even discuss this with some "researchers" and not get eye rolls. I can only share what I have experienced and I no agenda except to share the truth of what I see and experience. KB