Leaderboard

I appreciate your commentary on the subject of the tree break. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the following: So, there was no opportunity to educate? While I'm not necessarily doubting the reason you've given for his departure, I am doubting that he didn't leave in a huff... complete with parting shots at the BFF. It's my opinion that his name calling and insulting language were not only unnecessary, but meant to lash out at his critics and our forum. That may not seem to be a huff to some, but it sure does seem that way to me, again, IMO. When/if science becomes involved, the claim that being unable to further educate those that disagree, or that offer up tough questions won't cut it. Contending that there's no need in continuing on for that reason will be the ruin of anything he may have to present, as well as discrediting his claims with those he hopes to convince. If he handles tough inquiries like this, I sure hope he does indeed present a body. That would be the only thing that could overcome acting as he did as he departed our forum. I make no claim as to the validity of his claims, your claims, or any claims by members of the NAWAC regarding Area X. Like everyone else, I just expect evidence whenever claims of such a grandiose matter are made. You've said those claims were explained on his broadcast, which is great. Couldn't he had answered those questions here prior to his leaving, and if he chose not to, at least resisted lashing out at the BFF? I wish him, you and the NAWAC nothing but success. Perhaps a competent public relations representative will accompany any more claims that may be forthcoming.

It really was/is very transparent to me what the agenda was with some here with Bipto, as it was/is for a lot of us. I think the guy shows (hopeful present-tense usage intentional) remarkable class in having to field the same tired assertions over and over, veiled as questions. In my book, that qualifies as harassment. It was/is certainly not coming from a genuine quest for more information, but a need to play gotcha with his research findings. There is a mode of civil discourse and inquiry that doesn't require that tone or level of insinuation. Did it violate forum guidelines? Probably not. Was it disagreeable and counter-productive to arriving at answers? I think a lot of us here know it is never about arriving at answers for some, only about putting their markers down as oh-so "real." It does get tiring, in the extreme, to even just wade through all that dross to get to real information, and I can only imagine what I'd feel if it were my data, motives and abilities being questioned (but not really). It is a lot to ask of a body.

Having someone leave because they're uncomfortable with the questioning that is bound to accompany unsubstantiated claims and observations has nothing to do with those doing the questioning. If someone's uncomfortable enough with their inability or unwillingness to present evidence to substantiate their claims that they choose to leave, maybe they should have kept the claims made to themselves until adequate proof was available.

<If I was appointed King for a day, the first time somebody admitted here that BF "can't" exist, or is "impossible", they'd be bounced.> Then thank god you don't run things here.

Hi All: I just broke the tree. Using Drew's previous 200,000 lbs of force required to snap a 24" tree at the location, I've been messing around with some...well..math.... OK. A 700 lb force could outboard on a branch, then run along the branch at 20 mph (an easy feat for a BF, no?). When that force meets the tree and stops, the resultant force is 6,256 lbs. 6,256 lbs at 45 feet creates a 281,520 ft.lb torque at the base of the tree. Boom. Solved. Wag, if yer still out there, you owe me 20 bux.

Not once have I questioned his integrity, nor have I ever implied that he's not genuine in his efforts and his observations. I'm not there, so it's not for me to say. This is why I - like many others - look for evidence to support the claims. I want him and the NAWAC to succeed, and I'd like to see evidence that shows that they're making progress. I'm not so much hurt by the comments about the BFF as I'm disappointed that a long time member of the BFF - and the founder - would malign the forum like he did. I don't run this forum alone. There are many others that make this place click. This is why I'm disappointed. Those pot shots weren't just directed at the BFF, they were an implied reflection on the staff, too. Whenever I see this, I'll stand up for them, regardless of my personal feelings. Even with everything that's been said, Bipto is welcome here anytime. There's no need to make up as far as I'm concerned because we're all adults here. We can all get along, but he can't keep firing off insulting banter at the forum. As the chief Admin, I expect no more or no less from Bipto than I did before his exit. Nobody has the ability to run anyone off of the BFF except a select number of staff - The Admin and myself. The individual member makes the call on what and when they'll post. Bipto made his decision to leave for whatever reason. He was not run off. While it is indeed unfortunate that Bipto has exited, thus shutting down dialogue for skeptic and proponent alike, it was his choice to leave, presumably in the face of direct questioning regarding the tree break incident. Nobody is responsible for the stoppage of dialogue except Bipto. He wasn't run off... he left. Some member claims are more believable than others, wouldn't you agree? Just as in any field, some people have a reputation, be it credible or otherwise. Because of this, the higher the reputation, the more responsible they should be. Bipto has a good reputation regarding Bigfoot research, so I'd expect him to be held to a higher standard than someone touting a Bigfoot/UFO correlation. Wouldn't you?

It's an arrogant and hypocritical mistake to think one can educate while offering nothing but anecdotes to do it. How long would you or bipto allow that from anyone else?

I guess the vikings and the first europeans hoaxed the Native Americans?

MODERATOR STATEMENT I know that in lieu of recent events there will be discussion that includes aspects of proponents v. skeptics, existence v. non-existence, BUT.... that's not the topic of this thread. This thread is the NAWAC thread! And, there was an earlier Mod Statement asking that everyone remember not to let it get personal. This is notice that if it does... It likely will be a 2 point offense for rule violation and disregarding a Mod Statement. I felt maybe I should emphasize this!

Speaking of bets the McSquatch bet is pretty safe for him. Notice he requires the person making the bet to prove existence, not someone else. The likelihood of any BFF member establishing proof of existence is pretty small due to the rigorous scientific nature of that proof. As a researcher that does frequent field work, the likelihood that I could ever get the required proof of existence (that is a body on a lab table) is pretty small. BF are not real cooperative in that aspect of research. I cannot say I blame them. Randy

Ridiculous! Where is your cartoon tree!???? No cartoon tree? Didn't happen!

We steering commitee members just voted this in. Put your money where your mouth is, you can then allow in who you want and throw out who you don't. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/forum-19/announcement-27-attention-all-group-and-independent-bigfoot-researchers/

Valid questions asked, but not answered. Happens quite frequently, in our chosen interest.

Thank you See-Te-cah , I know where the report button is , and I know your answer ahead of time is that everything is looked at fairly here but we all know human nature. We will just have to see how long I last against reporting someone with a higher position and a constituency here. I have never witnessed a cloaked sasquatch but I fear the cloaked trolls more.

^I don't see any bigfoots in there Drew. :-)

Thx for sharing. My pal had a daylight sighting in SE Wisconsin. Surprised the creature (my pal was 17, walking home from the school bus drop off and looked over the edge of a bridge and the thing was bent over drinking), according to him, the creature's eyes nearly popped out of its head (same as my pal), and they both turned and ran opposite directions. Apparently it was as scared of him as he was of it.

No pretenses are required. If you have the goods, you put them on the table. If not, you don't advertise them and expect to be believed because you say so.

Oh the drama...(sigh) My .02 cents. The NAWAC's work is fascinating and I am thankful for their dedication. Drew's supposed "stick figure" (post #1128) seemed to be a genuine effort and helped me visualize the event. I wish it could be confirmed or clarified. Oh well. I enjoyed reading the NAWAC's updates here. I also enjoyed the back and forth debate and tough questions and answers between the skeptics and Bipto. It's Bipto's right to hit the eject button. Hopefully he comes back but if not I will get my updates from the BFS. (Back to lurk mode)

Dmaker: Like I said, me and Alice have had our cards punched already. Pasadena. I do encourage you though to venture in your life to more of the remote areas of the U.S., especially those in the S. tier, and spend some nights on the ground there... preferably alone. You may find all is not what you assume it to be ensconced in your N. redoubt. You've got a sharp mind dmaker, and I enjoy your contributions, but you lack the kind of hard practical experience that is required to make sense of what is being reported. Relying on others to tell you what that that is like, and what is possible, or not, is exactly the same shortcoming you accuse some of us of, only many of us have that experience to back it up. You are debating facts concerning environments, terrain and people you only read about, which is a handicap you might want to address to truly be serious about this debate, and not be just be another guy with a keyboard and an agenda. Even if it is not to do BF research, I hope you can do that. The U.S., like Canada, has some astounding stuff out there that is only accessible to those willing to risk it. I wish that for you most sincerely. If you are healthy, fit and not too risk averse, any number of people here could point you in the right direction. PM me anytime and I'd be glad to give you some destinations and gear tips.

I have often said that the UFO Bigfoot proponents have exactly as much credible evidence as the Physical Footers. I try to focus on the physical-Bigfoot claims, since they say that Bigfoot is an animal, and thus adheres to the laws of nature and science. Unfortunately, many claims are of attributes which do not parallel those of an animal in the natural world. These I question. The 24" tree break, avoidance of trail cams, the mass hucking of rocks and nuts at a cabin, these are things that I question. The 'Bzzt' blipping in and out, the stealing of cigarettes, the UFO stuff, I don't question that. I went toe to toe with Burgstahler and Beckjord over that stuff years ago. You can't argue science with non scientific boundaries.

It's kind of NAWAC's loss that they've taken their ball and gone home mad. The BFF is a large, captive audience for their questionable claims. t.

*slaps forehead* The NAWAC is a pro kill organization!!!! So you cannot see the difference??? Anecdotal accounts are not the end all goal for Bipto's group unlike most others. Also, I see your agenda clearly now, the UFO Bigfoot proponents have no credibility? So go after the ones that do? Is that about right? That just makes skeptics look all the more petty in my eyes Drew...... Sure. But would you prefer the BFRO? That's all they promise is anecdotes.......forever.

Done and done! t.

I have tried to stay out of this discussion, but I think this has kind of gotten out of hand. First of all, I am a NAWAC member and I have seen two wood apes in Area X, possibly a third last year. I really think everyone should back up and listen to the Bigfoot Show's last show and absorb the details of the tree break...I think there is some miscommunication going on here. The tree certainly wasn't 96 feet tall but I think Drew (although the tree type isn't right) may have had the tree "failure" right - around 16-20 feet up (as stated in the Bigfoot Show podcast). Also, bipto didn't leave the BFF in a "huff" like a few of you have suggested. He left because his roll in the NAWAC is to educate the public about wood apes...once the education process ceases to exist, then there is no point in continuing on.

For the skeptics and doubters, don't waste your time reading my entry because you won't believe it anyway...but here goes. I have been within 15-20 feet of these subjects and the emotional overload is extremely intense, which clouds your mind and any clear thinking. Everything you thought you could, would or might do becomes clouded in a blur of mixed feelings that are extremely difficult to sort out. There are other things going on I don't fully understand and have a hard time putting into words. It is experienced based and those that have been there know exactly what I am referring to! Some folks react by hyperventilating, feeling dizzy, sick to their stomach or even passing out. Others run with the fight-flight instinct kicking in. Until you have been there and done that, there is no way you can plan what you will do, that is based on my personal experiences. The powerful, dominating presence I felt was likened to standing under a high voltage electrical transmission line snapping and popping with power. As far as the subjects, they knew the land owner and were not the least bit threatening. I couldn't imagine what I would have done with charges and growls!! For those of you who read this and think this is a line of _ _ _ _, just consider it to be in the fantasy section of reading...but it really is no-strings attached truth regarding my experiences that I wanted to share..

That's your opinion, and as such, it's subjective according to your qualifications. All members are allowed to ask as many questions and make as many comments as they like, as well as state how unbelievable they find the claims to be. Feel free to hold yourself to whatever standards you see fit, but the other members are under no such obligation.

My personal opinion? I don't see it as an issue of number but of intent. Straightforward questions to gain additional detail are great. (Well, unless the same question is asked over and over and over ... I think the questioner should take the time to review what has already been put on the table.) Questions intended only to badger the witness or disparage their character are not. All I need, personally, is the details of their claim. I don't need to argue them, I just need to know what they are. Once I have a clear enough picture of the substance of the claim, I can make up my mind whether to believe or not. There's nothing in there that requires or justifies rude behavior. I don't have to prove how proper a disbeliever I am to my disbeliever clique by being putting my "jerkness" on public display.. To me that's a sign of insecurity. I just don't happen to be that insecure. I'm not disparaging the forum staff, ya'll are enforcing the letter of the rules which is really all you can do. I think the problem is built into the rules, maybe even deeper than the steering committee has control over, it might be a CFZ-level forum charter issue. However, we can individually "police" our own behavior and require a higher standard of ourselves that just whatever the "law" allows. MIB

I'm not one of his supporters, but IMHO, yes. Within the rules? Probably, else you'd have taken care of it. Within the boundaries of polite company and conversation? Not even close. It's possible to question someone without conducting an inquisition. Some folks around here don't know the difference. I don't really see any point in challenging him or anyone else, just ask enough questions to get whatever information you need to make up your own mind, do so, and move on. It's really not necessary to try to change anyone else's mind. Attempted brow beating isn't a way to do that anyway, it just gets their dander up. And, in this case, it chases away someone who was sharing info of use to people doing research in the field whether the armchair / internet researchers liked what they heard or not. MIB

As defined by the forum rules? No. As defined by his supporters? I'm sure the answer would be "yes."

Irrelevant to my question. But since harassment is against forum rules, if anyone was, it would have been dealt with.

You know, I'm tired of others being blamed for Bipto's exit. He didn't mind sharing his info and observations when members were in agreement or otherwise enamored with his conclusions, yet when someone wanted to question some of those observations, he left. I'll say this once again - If you make claims of any type without expecting questions from the skeptical, you're being unrealistic. Also, if you expect others to not ask questions for fear of the OP becoming offended and leaving, that's unrealistic, too.

So, no rebuttal to the comments made? THAT'S your response? There's even math and all that in there. There's even a path you can follow to look at the reports. And that's the comment you make? The first time in 3 months I view a response from you and this is what it is. I chose wisely putting you on the short list of folks I ignore. So now a book sold on the internet is instantly non-credible? Care to rebut the findings? Say, by reading the reports and conducting your own statistical analysis? The 'silliness' of the website should not take away from the 'facts' that were presented in this excerpt. There were 2 Smithsonian reports evaluated and statistical methods applied to determine the probabilities of a population like this existing. I don't care what speculations are produced by the author regarding this finding, other than the finding itself is there and intriguing. It shows that not only large bones being found in America is possible, it's beyond probable as it has been shown to happen. It directly answer's the OP's question and shows that this phenom has happened. So far, the rebuttals from Bonehead's links are "crackpot UFO sight", "everything on the internet is true", and "it's a book on the internet". Excellent skepticism there.

DM for your own sanity, give it up... Your objective of stopping people "believing" in Sasquatch will never be met no matter how hard you try to preach. And that must be your objective unless you just love driving yourself crackers daily. That's the key part DM from the opening post, why you then need to start screaming and shouting via a your keyboard and polluting another thread is beyond me. Good find Explorer, now we will start to dig a little more about it.