Leaderboard

What happened was Bipto made a statement about something that happened at Area X before he had the facts. That brought about what to me seemed to be a reasonable discussion on how the incident could or could not have happened. The only reason the discussion took the course it did was due to the bad information given by Bipto. If the discussion had been based on the actual field note information it would have been completely different. All Bipto had to do was make a post explaining his error and give the correct information about the tree break. Instead, he made a post insulting the forum and left in a huff. By doing so all he did was make things worse. He has handled this entire situation very poorly. Apparently other NAWAC members are handling it just as bad. It seems they also made things worse by telling Bipto who knows what was going on here, since Bipto said he didn't read what had happened in the thread and was going by what was told to him by others. All this because Bipto won't admit he was wrong. Some might say it is a sign of weakness by admitting you made a mistake. I would say it is the sign of being a man. So man up Bipto, apologize to everyone you have insulted and admit you caused all of this by posting incorrect information.

It's everybody's business as long as they continue to post about the 10+ years ongoing investigation on a 10 acre property with no proof (photo, video, DNA etc) whether it is posted here, on Facebook, or even on their website. How long would it take you to professionally investigate a 10 acre property for evidence of a troop of wood apes? How many clients would continue to pay you after 10 years of searching their 660'x660' property with no definitive results? You do this professionally correct?

Yuchi , You have a great way of playing words and reconstructing the same posts in order to call them a unique new question. I am not pro-kill outside self defense, but your agenda is crystal clear to everyone here. For one that range of a slug is in vacuum or flat desert environment ( conveniently left that out huh) a slug would not travel very far if , it hits a tree (thousands of them on the property) it hits the ground ie; shooting from a stand or elevated position or if they have a bank behind the target. Secondly NAWAC has already stated if the subject turns out to be closer to human than ape they are ready for the consiquences. They can not be charged for murder or really any other charge for shooting an unclassified species because they are not recognized so there are NO LAWS in place right now protecting them (something that can change very quickly when NAWAC succeeds. As to the gun rules , you just went on a recent rant about drug cartels in the region, LOL you just gave them their justifiable out when and if they get checked on the private property for carrying very large and semi-auto weapons. It goes like this " Officer these weapons are for our protection, we have seen on the news media lately were the dangerous cartels are working the woods and forests here and we want to make sure we do not fall victim to them while we are conducting our field research here". In conclusion , I am not the OP but in my opinion that would be harassment.

I have never been involved/invested with TBRC and aside from a lunch meeting with Dr. Higgins ~8 years ago, have had no interaction with the principals. If, you examine many of my original posts on this thread, you'll quickly ascertain that I was questioning the actual basis of NAWAC's mission statement. The claim(s) that UHS/Sasquatch were on the verge of extinction and that habitat loss was the proximate cause were challenged via a request for substantiation thereof. Those requests have yet to be legitimately answered. Given the proximity of NAWAC's operational base to the lease and with the actions of the participants in the aforementioned Echo Incident, IMO, any reasonable person would be justified in giving pause to safety concerns for adjoing property owners/occupants. To wit, the effective lethal range of a 12 gauge shotgun slug (a .720 bore projectile) approaches almost one (1) mile. Further, given my knowledge of two (2) individuals (one of whom I have personally known for 19 years) who had UHS/Sasquatch/Wood Ape(s) in their rifle scopes for hundreds of yards and/or extended time periods, and who did not/would not pull the trigger, for the identical reason(s) in that their faces looked too human, leads me to the conclusion (based upon their published dialogue) NAWAC is either way more reckless and/or desperate than prudence dictates. Digestion of the above comments should lead a reasonable person to conclude that while I am not predisposed to "shutting" NAWAC down, as it's still somewhat of a free country (here in the USA), that such discretion should in no way preclude the common sense necessary for behaving in a fashion that encompasses basic public safety. Wouldn't you also agree with this premise?

Maybe it's me, but I think that if NAWAC were a little more open about what they have found in Area X I think most folks here would see them in a different light. I personally don't like they way they operate with cute little operation names, long drawn out statements of their purpose and methodology, and from some of the pictures that I have seem of them, it's looks like they try to emulate Navy Seals prepping for a an OP downrange. Now don't get me wrong as I see that as kind of cool, well sort of. I do not wish them any ill will and I bid them a safe journey, I just want to see them held to the same standards the rest of us are. Their past work, reputation, and research along with the many skilled members in their group should be noted, but not revered to the point that they are above reproach! To a certain extent their work should be doubly scrutinized, but I would have to say not by the hardcore skeptics. Now all of you skeptics calm down now, I am not cutting you out at all, it is just that there should a recognized process for evaluating evidence by the pro BF community to determine if the evidence merits further investigation. If it does then this is where you folks come in and have at it! Work it over it, pick it apart and then what is leftover can then be researched further and then everyone involved might just be the ones lucky enough to break this thing wide open (Skeptics and believers working together, Who'd of thunk it!!!!.) I know it is probably not my place to ask but if you would grant me one favor my skeptical friends, try to play nice even if you have to bite your tongues - and that goes for the Pro BF community too! Constructive criticism and fault finding is paramount for success. Anything less and you become part of the problem and not the solution. If we cannot come together on this, the battle is ultimately lost. This environment of arguing back and forth, mutual distrust, and downright in-fighting is one of the main reasons the scientific community laughs at us and will not work with with us. A functional, cohesive unit of believers and skeptics is needed to crack this case. I realize that this will not happen overnight, nothing of this magnitude ever does but if we keep stacking the building blocks and not knocking them down it will never happen! When a person wakes up in the morning and says I can't - They won't but if that person says I Can - They will. There are a ton of very intelligent people contributing to this forum and would be a **** shame if that went to waste! So what do you say folks!

Stan, I'm not anti-NAWAC. I do have the following concerns about: The Echo Incident involved their apparent best "shooter", Mr. Colyer and if his actions (spray & pray by emptying the gun as fast as possible, in lieu of a carefully calibrated shot) represent the best NAWAC has to offer in that respect, then yes, I would have a problem with people that "cowboy up" out in the forest at a target they lack a frontal (read: accurate) view thereof. That (IMO) displays a reckless disregard for the entire process and represents a serious lack of emotional preparedness for the task. Are they operating only on property they have permission/permits to trespass upon? Bipto indicated a willingness to accept consequences for killing something that might well turn out to be far more than a simple Wood Ape. Does this indicate a predisposition to possibly break other laws as well, as long as the mission is accomplished? Under the "fruit of the poison tree" legal doctrine, I would wager mainstream science might not wish to touch their "results", with even a ten foot pole, that is if LE doesn't intervene, beforehand. There is UHS activity in other areas of that region as well as other locations in Oklahoma that I have personal experience with over the past ~12 years. With what I know (regarding possible UHS activity) in the area in question, given the number of claims coming off a 10 acre parcel of land and with the dearth of forensic evidence proffered and behaviour (lately) of the principals, it is not a leap in logic to ask, what's the deal? TBRC, NAWC's predecessor was taking a passive approach to evidence collection until there was an apparent split, coup and the breakaway group decided to change the public mission statement to more of an applied psychology M.O.. What I have observed over the past few months, with all the discussions regarding NAWAC is not really all that unique, for it's not the first time (IMO) an endeavour shifted from a purity of mission to more of a cottage industry.

Our only stance has been that every member has a right to an opinion. So long as they post squarely within the rules, they are free to express themselves. We can continue this discussion in the proper staff area so as not to derail this topic, if you'd like.

I'm like WVF... a sucker for anything BF. I think it has raised awareness and had hoped it would make people have a more open minded attitude toward enthusiasts. Unfortunately, I don't think that has been the case. I don't really think I want to be likened to a MM or BoBo. I'm actually more like Renae, except I don't deny that I believe in the possibility of an undiscovered bipedal ape/whatever it is roaming the woods - she may deny it, but I think she does. But that could be because they pay her to be the non-believing skeptic, so she can't admit it... I don't know. I like Cliff. As nerdy as he comes across (It's cute how he always sounds like he is teaching an 8th grade science class) I think he is 100% an honest and a good guy with good intentions. Which probably why he has a good reputation within the BF community. But it's not about what I think about the individuals - I just threw that in there. I think it has hurt in that more people are out in the woods calling and knocking, causing more misidentifications and human responses -causing calls and wood knocks to be less credible evidence now, IMO.