Operation Persistence

[Guest]

Is a theory a claim? A supposition? Is that a claim?

[Drew]

Right. So is he lying or did he see a bigfoot? Or was it something else? Tell me.

You already said you are either lying or telling the truth. By your defined goalposts, until you provide some part of a wood ape, he must be lying.

I would probably, if you hadn't defined my two options, called it storytelling, or folk-art.

Is a theory a claim? A supposition? Is that a claim?

Let's see your hypothesis, and then I'll tell you.

[salubrious]

If I had to guess, it sounds like it was a bluff charge. If it was a bear it would have kept on coming wouldn't it? This one stopped when it still had good cover.

I'm no expert but I thought bluff charges were a primate behavior...

[Drew]

Bears do bluff charges all the time.

Humans who read Bigfoot reports would also know about the bluff charge.

[Guest]

By your defined goalposts, until you provide some part of a wood ape, he must be lying.

I would probably, if you hadn't defined my two options, called it storytelling, or folk-art.

I defined nothing. I said those were the two most logical choices. Now you have said he's lying. Why didn't you just say that before?

Now in the cases of other witnesses with similarly specific accounts, they're all lying, too?

Let's see your hypothesis, and then I'll tell you.

Nope. That's not how this works. Is a scientist who proposes a theory making a claim?

Are they allowed to form hypothesis based on the evidence before them, even circumstantial evidence?

Bears do bluff charges all the time.

Do they do on two legs? At more than six feet tall? Do you think someone who's spent his whole life in the woods would know the difference between a bear and something upright like a man or a wood ape?

Edited April 8, 2013 by bipto

[the parkie]

The total field time that has been spent in NA looking for wood apes, over the past 50 years, is approximately that Africans spend looking for bush meat in a month.

That's a very specific comparison - what are the numbers behind it and how were they obtained?

Is it all Africans?

Edited April 8, 2013 by the parkie

[Guest]

This one stopped when it still had good cover.

It also stopped when the rifle went off.

I'm no expert but I thought bluff charges were a primate behavior...

It sure is.

[Drew]

Do they do on two legs? At more than six feet tall? Do you think someone who's spent his whole life in the woods would know the difference between a bear and something upright like a man or a wood ape?

That guy reenacting looked just like a Bigfoot until he got too close to the edge and they told him to back up.

If you watch him coming through the woods, you can't tell he is a human until he appears and they tell him to back up.

Your guy shot at a clearly humanoid form, and from his description of how close the beast got, he could not make out if it was human or ape.

Do they do on two legs? At more than six feet tall? Do you think someone who's spent his whole life in the woods would know the difference between a bear and something upright like a man or a wood ape?

This is where it was when he took the shot, this is not a clearly defined target, no matter how much time you spent in the woods. I would have gotten the crap beat out of me if my dad or granddad ever heard of me taking a shot like that at anything.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited April 8, 2013 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

^^^....which proves that wood apes aren't real. Come on. Wow, talk about a pointless cag. What the heck is this? Here's somebody who's putting in the closest to serious field time that anybody is, and let's just picayune everything he says while not noticing in the meantime that you aren't making any points that require your being taken seriously.

The total field time that has been spent in NA looking for wood apes, over the past 50 years, is approximately that Africans spend looking for bush meat in a month.

That's a very specific comparison - what are the numbers behind it and how were they obtained?

Is it all Africans?

All Africans except Senegal and Mali. I always pull those out.

Actually, if I really checked the numbers, which most folks would know there is no reason to do, i'd find out that Africans spend *more* time per month than 50 years of sasquatch field work. I'd make a bet, but bipto has made his point. If we're all good with him fighting the good fight, then why not let him fight it, and see how it pans out, huh?

Edited April 8, 2013 by DWA

[Cotter]

Well, that's when the 3 S's would be employed. :-)

Drew - you have a lot of concern regarding the safety of alleged hoaxers down there. I find it interesting.

Question - you don't have to answer, but weren't you the guy on a BFRO expedition that was going to use a knife to 'collect' a sample from a BF if you saw one? I understand the difference in that a knife isn't nearly as lethal, but you catch my drift.

I apologize if I have my info criss-crossed.

[Drew]

I defined nothing. I said those were the two most logical choices. Now you have said he's lying. Why didn't you just say that before?

Now in the cases of other witnesses with similarly specific accounts, they're all lying, too?

No. don't try to move the goal posts again. You said :

We are either lying or wood apes are real. Period. There is no in between.

That is your definition on March 19th of this year. Nothing about 'the two most logical choices' PERIOD, NO IN BETWEEN, your words.

Well, that's when the 3 S's would be employed. :-)

Drew - you have a lot of concern regarding the safety of alleged hoaxers down there. I find it interesting.

Question - you don't have to answer, but weren't you the guy on a BFRO expedition that was going to use a knife to 'collect' a sample from a BF if you saw one? I understand the difference in that a knife isn't nearly as lethal, but you catch my drift.

I apologize if I have my info criss-crossed.

I have never been on a BFRO expedition, but I have boasted that I would use a knife on a Bigfoot if one tried to sneak into camp while I was sleeping.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Drew

[dmaker]

Well, that's when the 3 S's would be employed. :-)

Drew - you have a lot of concern regarding the safety of alleged hoaxers down there. I find it interesting.

Question - you don't have to answer, but weren't you the guy on a BFRO expedition that was going to use a knife to 'collect' a sample from a BF if you saw one? I understand the difference in that a knife isn't nearly as lethal, but you catch my drift.

I apologize if I have my info criss-crossed.

Cotter, if I am misunderstanding you, then I apologize and look forward to correction. But are you actually implying one of two things?:

Drew is somehow involved with hoaxing and worried about his own safety?

Or, you find it interesting that he would be concerned about the safety of some anonymous hoaxer(s)?

Hoaxers are not good for this endeavour, but they certainly do not deserve getting shot for Pity's sake!!

[Guest DWA]

Aw come on. No warning shots? No taking a little piece off the ghillie suit? Nothing? Aw rats!

[Guest]

Your guy shot at a clearly humanoid form, and from his description of how close the beast got, he could not make out if it was human or ape.

"My guy" had been sitting there for more than an hour listening to two animals in the bush across the creek make mouth popping sounds at one another repeatedly. He did the same, got growled at, and something big and black came charging through the brush at him. And you think that could have been a human. Though "my guy" was clearly armed, had been for a week, and sitting in a hunting blind. Logic!

I would have gotten the crap beat out of me if my dad or granddad ever heard of me taking a shot like that at anything.

They would have beaten you for shooting at a big animal charging through the brush at you? What, didn't they like you? Please, be serious.

Edited April 8, 2013 by bipto

[Cotter]

Well, that's when the 3 S's would be employed. :-)

Drew - you have a lot of concern regarding the safety of alleged hoaxers down there. I find it interesting.

Question - you don't have to answer, but weren't you the guy on a BFRO expedition that was going to use a knife to 'collect' a sample from a BF if you saw one? I understand the difference in that a knife isn't nearly as lethal, but you catch my drift.

I apologize if I have my info criss-crossed.

Cotter, if I am misunderstanding you, then I apologize and look forward to correction. But are you actually implying one of two things?:

Drew is somehow involved with hoaxing and worried about his own safety?

Or, you find it interesting that he would be concerned about the safety of some anonymous hoaxer(s)?

Hoaxers are not good for this endeavour, but they certainly do not deserve getting shot for Pity's sake!!

Hi dmaker - no problem....I'll clarify.

To start, the first comment was a joke (3 S's - Shoot, Shovel, Shut up), it's in poor taste, but some humor is like that.

I do find it a bit odd that Drew is so concerned about NAWAC's activities in the woods. Not sure exactly why it strikes me the way it does, but he's extremely concerned about something he's not involved with in a situation where he's not present. Perhaps he's concerned about the safety of unknown hoaxers, but I don't read it like that - and I haven't seen him really concerned with hoaxers' safety in general. Just, in general, hits me as weird.

I don't think Drew is in any way involved with hoaxing the folks in NAWAC.

I agree, hoaxers do NOT deserve to get shot. And they don't, so I'm confident that NAWAC's crew won't do it either.....which amazes me - why we haven't had ANY scenario where a hoaxer was shot, yet they're out there messing around with hunters, military, and police personnel - sometimes in some very high stress situations.

I was confused, I had thought Drew was the guy that went to (what I thought) was a BFRO expedition with a knife to 'collect' a sample if one came poking around camp. Seems as though I got my wires crossed between Drew saying something along the lines of sample collection and the story floating around about the dude on an expedition. I thought it odd that he would be willing to collect a sample from a BF using a knife, but would not condone shooting one.....either way, it's water under the bridge.....