Guest FootDude Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 I said about six times and I said I wasn't going to get drawn into conversations about them. We believe the animal from the first shooting was hit and we believe the blood we found belonged to it. Not looking for any details other than how many times a Sasquatch was confirmed hit. It looks like just one time of the 6 incidents blood was found. Is that correct?
Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 I'm saying we've publicly said that and nothing else.
Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 A truly critical thinker will stop with the double-guessing, take the available information for what it is, and wait and see how it all unfolds. In the meantime I applaud bipto for sharing whatever info he can, so let's give him an incentive to keep sharing, shall we? We're already starved for good news in the BF world... Plus one! Also enjoyed episode 41 The bigfoot show
Guest FootDude Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 I'm saying we've publicly said that and nothing else. So your Team confirms they may have it 1 Sasquatch but will not comment on the other 5 incidents. So there may very well be 6 injured Sasquatches in Area X. Let's pretend I accept your invitation and tell you the specifics of each incident. Not only would I be divulging behavioral attributes we're better off not releasing, Could you please explain that bolded' comment Bipto? Why in the world would there be a problem releasing Sasquatch behavior and attributes? You've had no problem releasing your analysis of the behavior you've managed to observe I have no idea. As I've said before, they act like apes. They don't act like people. They're smart, but then so are chimps and gorillas. To me (and others in the TBRC) they are apes. so why would there be a problem releasing examples of actual observed Sasquatch behavior?
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 1, 2012 Posted October 1, 2012 Don't forget Justin Smeja got in a good chest shot on the adult with his 25-06, but it still managed to get away. It's no surprise to me the TBRC is having trouble lol
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 So your Team confirms they may have it 1 Sasquatch but will not comment on the other 5 incidents. So there may very well be 6 injured Sasquatches in Area X. This is how rumors start. But yes, that's arithmetic. Could you please explain that bolded' comment Bipto?Why in the world would there be a problem releasing Sasquatch behavior and attributes? You've had no problem releasing your analysis of the behavior you've managed to observe Several reasons. One, if we've observed something specific and have not made it public and then have someone else report that behavior to us, it helps us know if the witness is credible. Two, there are people in the world who are actively trying to identify the location of X. Not knowing what their motivation is or if they've succeeded, we are well advised to keep certain things to ourselves that could conceivably be used by hoaxers or other foolhardy people to complicate our work. Three, everything I say is an implicit commitment by me to defend and deflect any crazy assertion made here or elsewhere. I don't need the headache. Lastly, as hard is it is to hear, I don't owe anybody here more than we're willing to divulge (which has been quite a lot, I think). Don't forget Justin Smeja got in a good chest shot on the adult with his 25-06, but it still managed to get away. Assuming he's telling the truth. And I'm not.
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Don't forget Justin Smeja got in a good chest shot on the adult with his 25-06, but it still managed to get away. It's no surprise to me the TBRC is having trouble lol I wouldn't say it got away, think it's more accurate to say they just didn't find it. They didn't look for the body very long according to Justins story.
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Sure, in the abstract, but we're talking, at least partially, about something I saw. I can tell you nothing has been added to the account of what I observed. If anything, I've not said things I can't be certain of. There was a very large, dark animal moving up a rocky mountainside at speeds vastly faster than a human could and in manner unlike that of indigenous specie. *Could* be misidentification, as I've said in the past, though luckily, I had co-witnesses who saw it better than me. Your remarks baffle. On your podcast you stated you saw a "black ball," smallish, moving up a steep hillside, after momentarily distracted by a couple of other objects in your field of vision. Afterwards, you converted this ambiguous event into a sighting of a "large, dark animal" (in your mind, a Wood Ape). Also, I believe somewhere you remarked on how graceful this animal was: how is a "black ball" graceful? You previously said its "silly" to think this wasn't a Wood Ape because, as you point out here, "I had co-witnesses who saw it better than me." O.K. One person near you saw nothing. The rest of the team's sightings lasted no more than, what, 5 seconds? There is really nothing compelling in your comments. The imagination anticipating giant apes triggered by a surprising declaration "There they are!," is apt to turn an ambiguous event into a profound one. You should know how this works. The statements of the team witnesses seeing scissoring legs, bent over at waist bodies, pounding legs and the like may be extremely astute observations considering the adrenaline rush of the moment, or merely the mind's eye seeing an anticipated pattern. There is nothing ridiculous in considering the second option. I'm troubled too by how easy you (and presumably other team members) have converted a person looking into a bush and seeing no Wood Ape into a person looking into that bush and seeing two Wood Apes. Remarkable. Or how easily you may have converted an owl's eyeshine into a Wood Ape's eyeshine or how you found marks on the ground indicating to you the classic "sniper's" position which you incredibly attribute to an anomalous ape. There is nothing ridiculous in pointing out that such connections are narratives, not demonstrable facts. As to hoaxing, there is no ambiguity. Either some humans were pelting the cabins and causing other mischief, or not. What we can say is that it is not ridiculous to suggest that hoaxing accounted for some of the phenomena. I do not know this with certainty, but it is not an explanatory option to be casually dismissed. You have withheld a lot of information, apparently. And that is your right. Since TBRC will likely not publish a full disclosure, we can go only on the small piece of the puzzle you have graciously provided. And that piece of the puzzle is not in any way definative in favor of a population of giant Wood Apes in Oklahoma.
Guest FootDude Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) This is how rumors start. But yes, that's arithmetic. I think it's reasonable for us to assume that if your Team had not hit any of the other 5 Sasquatch you would have simply reported that. The deduction that there are indeed multiple injured Sasquatch in Area X due to your Team's 'lack of success' therefore also seems reasonable. Several reasons. One, if we've observed something specific and have not made it public and then have someone else report that behavior to us, it helps us know if the witness is credible. Two, there are people in the world who are actively trying to identify the location of X. Not knowing what their motivation is or if they've succeeded, we are well advised to keep certain things to ourselves that could conceivably be used by hoaxers or other foolhardy people to complicate our work. Three, everything I say is an implicit commitment by me to defend and deflect any crazy assertion made here or elsewhere. I don't need the headache. Lastly, as hard is it is to hear, I don't owe anybody here more than we're willing to divulge (which has been quite a lot, I think). Your response about not releasing 'behavioral attributes' as you called them, was to a very specific circumstance posed by another poster, wherein a Sasquatch was possibly shot. How in the world would that compromise anything? Either hoaxers have found you or they haven't. If they have found you, posting 'behavioral attributes' is meaningless to them anyways. If they haven't posting Sasquatch behaviors under this narrow set of circumstances is trivial. Lastly... I have no reason to doubt you all believe your Team have found Sasquatch. I also believe based on your observations of certain of these Sasquatch, Big Grey for instance, they are most likely un-hoaxable due to certain physical attributes or physical prowess. Edited October 2, 2012 by FootDude
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) here's the problem I have with the whole shooting thing. You don't take a shot unless you are within range and have a clear enough view so you can 100% positively identify your target. If you're in that position you should have a pretty good shot at the subject. I could understand maybe one or two misses, but at least six different occasions? Don't sit right. You won't explain the circumstances, so it seems to me that the group needs to spend more time at the range, or you're shooting at shadows. Edited October 2, 2012 by squatting squatch
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Hey Bipto, I have a question regarding collecting a specimen. What would be the timeframe of an announcement should an attempt be successful? Obviously the TBRC would have a plan of action in place, so how quick would it be made public? Would it be a few days, a couple of weeks, or would someone tweet it before their barrel is cold? I understand that there is a lot of information being withheld at this point, just wondering if sitting on a wood. . . ape is gonna be one of those things.
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Ooo, good question AZ. Enjoying the shows lately Bipto.
Incorrigible1 Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 With some of the accusatory comments and attitudes, I'm surprised someone hasn't asked Bipto when he stopped beating his wife. Why not take the information he's been so kind to divulge and be pleased about that? 1
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Your remarks baffle. Consider me baffled right back. On your podcast you stated you saw a "black ball," smallish, moving up a steep hillside, after momentarily distracted by a couple of other objects in your field of vision. Afterwards, you converted this ambiguous event into a sighting of a "large, dark animal" (in your mind, a Wood Ape). What other dark objects could it be? A ghost? A UFO? Swamp gas? Weather balloon? Of course it was an animal. Also, I believe somewhere you remarked on how graceful this animal was: how is a "black ball" graceful? Had you seen it, you'd know. I'm troubled too by how easy you (and presumably other team members) have converted a person looking into a bush and seeing no Wood Ape into a person looking into that bush and seeing two Wood Apes. Remarkable. It was remarkable. I'm troubled by how you take the entirety of the event and boil away the supportive elements in order to shape it into what you want it to be. Excellent critical thinking skill there. Or how easily you may have converted an owl's eyeshine into a Wood Ape's eyeshine... Query. How many owls sit in bushes? On the ground? Instead of flying off when they're disturbed, put their faces down on the ground? Maybe Saskeptic can weigh in here since he's the resident birder. My experience with owls is they're up in trees and not especially shy. What would be the timeframe of an announcement should an attempt be successful? Obviously the TBRC would have a plan of action in place, so how quick would it be made public? Would it be a few days, a couple of weeks, or would someone tweet it before their barrel is cold? You have the competing imperatives of needing to document the find exhaustively while at the same time racing against leaks. My best guess is a couple of weeks, but it's impossible to say, really, and at least partially dependent on whatever partners we've brought in to help. Why not take the information he's been so kind to divulge and be pleased about that? Because how this works is you torment and berate the person who is saying things that rock your comfortable little world view. Wood apes do not exist, so therefore, anyone who says they do is ripe for ridicule and abuse. It's called "critical thinking," apparently.
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry you feel that way, but from what I have seen asking questions is critical thinking whether you agree with the bias or premise the person is working from.If those kinds of questions make you uncomfortable then these must be questions that have not been seriously entertained by your group because there was no immediate obvious explanation for how it could be accomplished in the group think. I realize that you are limited in what you can say but what measures have been taken to prevent hoaxing at the site? If this question was asked earlier and I missed it then please disregard the question. Edited October 2, 2012 by CTfoot
Recommended Posts