Leaderboard

Mod Statement: Please see this statement in regard to why some people may be present on our forum: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative. Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€. Please understand that the membership of this site is quite diverse. We have those who have dedicated large portions of their lives to the study and investigation of these animals side by side with those with just a lifelong curiosity in them. We have those who have had encounters and those who have not. We have housewives, hunters, those living in urban, suburban, and rural environments, government workers, public service workers (police, fire, and EMT), blue collar, white collar, those with PhD's and those with no formal education, men, women, and people from every part of North America and several other countries throughout the world (but there's always room for one more!). Therefore, the BFF is not of one mind, viewpoint, or experiential background. It is the thoughts, ideas, and opinions of all of its members that are its greatest strengths.

"Nobody has found or shot a bigfoot" I guess I am a nobody because I have found bigfoot more than once. A statement like "nobody has found or shot a bigfoot" implies the person who makes the statement knows what everyone in this continent has done since mankind first set foot here. I did not know we had a deity member of BFF since it would take a deity to know what everyone has found or shot in 10,000 plus years. A skeptics standard would insist that someone who knows that or what I have done or seen in the past should be able to state with absolute certainty what I had for lunch today since it would take that kind of personal knowledge about me to know what I have seen and done. That is the sort of standard skeptics apply to witnesses so we should apply the same standards to skeptics. Any skeptic know what I had for lunch? Unless you can come up with that, don't tell me what I have found or seen. MIB, I was in Richland.

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.

Bipto may be gone, but there are still discussions to be had. Members may visit his other outlets and discuss the claims of the NAWAC here, and there are other points to discuss, such as these: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/47032-n-a-w-a-c-field-study-discussion-2/?p=850318 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/47032-n-a-w-a-c-field-study-discussion-2/?p=850343

I believe that the show "Finding Bigfoot" had an affect when it first came on, but with never really getting much evidence, I think the average person lost interest rather quickly. The total non believers, this show had no affect at all. As for the rest of the population which includes die hard Squatchers, Skeptics, and even Knowers, I believe the show is entertaining. Most of their tactics are pretty far fetched,IMO, but Like alot of members here on the forum, are suckers for anything Bigfoot. I don't expect much and Ranae really gets on my nerves, but I still watch all of the time. I am just that interested in the subject of Bigfoot, I am drawn to anything Bigfoot, like a Moth to a Flame. On the negative side, I think that the show may be behind people returning vocalizations during research. Lots of knuckleheads out there.

Oh my word, those stories are rather heartbreaking. So you never could get back there again? I'm in agreement with y'all and a little concerned about posting photos now. It's a cheap older digicam, so I don't think it identifies anything. Will need to find out, tho. Re: the op, I was nearly 100 percent before I decided to start looking for myself. Finding my own evidence has been icing on the cake. Now, it's getting a little weird.

So why waste your time with a group of people you don't believe or take their word because this forum is on the net ?

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.

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

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.

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. .

(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.

Do these people say you could see one in plain site? No, "There he is, you just can't see him because he is cloaking", or 2 ft tall shadows in the leaves of trees? And, please don't take this as me poking fun at anyone... I see these claims made all the time on FB, with these accompanying reasons. I just don't understand. Habituators talk of wanting protection for the Forest People, so why not provide the proof. Bring in the scientist, on terms of no kill, no touch.. To set up an observation station, take notes, learn, provide a peer reviewed paper to prove they exist and go for whatever form of protection they feel is or is not needed? Makes no sense to me. ETA: I hope you do go Susi. I would love to hear what happens.

Anecdotes and sketchy video doesn't cut it. Sorry. I wanna believe. But what's been put forth just doesn't cut the mustard.

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.

Dmaker... Good, keep on that path, would be my advice, but until you've spent consecutive days alone in deep woods (leave the phone at home) you'll not really be aware of what I'm talking about. Then, come back here in 40+ years and tell us what you think you know now didn't change. It will. Trust me on that one. In the meanwhile though.... your holiday outings? There are those here who are spending every spare moment out there, weeks on end. They know things you do not, and even all my years doing that have to give way to the things they are bringing back to me. A smugness in the face of that knowledge is somewhat unbecoming, and I try to avoid that if I can. I hear you to say for you it doesn't matter, and I accept you for who you are. (Not sure I'd want to share a tent with you though...but hey, I have close friends that applies to as well...)

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 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 disagree. I believe the shots were directed at the BFF for not providing a cushy stomping ground for NAWAC stories. I appreciate that in the case of the tree break, we were not forced to withhold our critical questions, to protect the NAWAC story from inquiry. Since the beginnng BFF has always stated that if you make a claim be prepared to back it up. Bipto didn't want to. He left. That is fine, it's not the fault of the BFF that he didn't want to back it up. What would you suggest Norseman?

100% sure on the Sasquatch. Sheri, white knight is a destructive behavior. The only person you will be able to save is yourself. We all walk our own path and we all need to walk our own path, support of others is honorable but you cannot save others from themselves. You just have to let them experience their own life lessons, we all learn the most from our own mistakes.