Guest Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 ^^^That. If one doesn't have proof of what precisely is happening in X, one isn't contributing anything asking bipto why he hasn't adjusted his meds lately...which most of the skeptical posts here have been, essentially, doing. No one who wants answers to this question is going to get them by constantly badgering the people looking for them with posts that generate heat without light. Then all the better to have a skeptical look at Area X on another thread, yes?
Guest Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) We don't have threads for believers only or skeptic only on the BFF. All points of view are welcome in the same thread. Frame your comments or questions to the point of the thread...and there is no issue. Whether you are answered or not is up to the person who can answer the question. Whether you accept their answer or not, is up to you. I am pretty sure at this point every question that could be asked, has been answered. Is the answer you want, I have no clue...but a new thread isn't going to solve that. I wasn't suggesting separate threads for skeptics and enthusiasts, only a skeptically oriented thread that would hopefully draw skeptics away from the acrimony and threat to report found in this thread. Of coarse, enthusiasts would debate the issues on the new thread. What would be different would be the point of the thread, and thus the commenters would have the frame opened up. Are you suggesting NAWAC's accounting of events in Area X should not be challenged, period? Or are you just saying that it should not be challenged at BFF, as See-Te-Cah seems to be implying? Edited March 12, 2014 by jerrywayne
Guest DWA Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 jerrywayne: Guess what I'd say, amigo, is that I'm more interested in the truth of what's going on in X than the speculation. I tend to go with the accounts of folks who are there, not so much as The Unassailable Truth as their story, which I'm interested in either being proven or refuted, neither of which purpose seems to be getting fulfilled here. So I'd rather just hear their version and await corroboration or refutation. If skeptics want to take this up somewhere else, sure. I just won't be visiting, unless somebody proves that these guys are being taken (or taking themselves). I mean, I know some of these folk personally, and while that alone isn't enough to take anything as proven, it tells me that a side bet on their veracity is well worthwhile.
Guest Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Then all the better to have a skeptical look at Area X on another thread, yes? Chiming back in for a moment to give my take on this. "Skepticism" isn't the issue. It's the relentless revisiting of questions already asked and answered. Questions that fundamentally have no answer other than what I say (i.e., you're being hoaxed by hillbillies). Many of these are untestable questions. I can respond with all the various reasons why we think the way we do (i.e., hoaxing by other people is impossible due to terrain, location, firearms, etc.) and the asker can either believe me or not. But making the same assertions again and again with barely any variation is non-productive and annoying. I'd be terrifically skeptical of what I've reported here about our activities and experiences, too, but I wouldn't be rude doing it. I wouldn't essentially do exactly what I knew would eventually either get the thread locked or cause the sole source of information on the topic (me) leave in exasperation. Were I running a forum, I'd call that behavior trollish. But my forum-running days are behind me.
salubrious Posted March 12, 2014 Moderator Posted March 12, 2014 Chiming back in for a moment to give my take on this. "Skepticism" isn't the issue. It's the relentless revisiting of questions already asked and answered. Questions that fundamentally have no answer other than what I say (i.e., you're being hoaxed by hillbillies). Many of these are untestable questions. I can respond with all the various reasons why we think the way we do (i.e., hoaxing by other people is impossible due to terrain, location, firearms, etc.) and the asker can either believe me or not. But making the same assertions again and again with barely any variation is non-productive and annoying. I'd be terrifically skeptical of what I've reported here about our activities and experiences, too, but I wouldn't be rude doing it. I wouldn't essentially do exactly what I knew would eventually either get the thread locked or cause the sole source of information on the topic (me) leave in exasperation. Were I running a forum, I'd call that behavior trollish. But my forum-running days are behind me. ^^ This. 100%
Guest DWA Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Here is what bipto and his crew are doing: Science. Ongoing. Do you honestly think scientists - citizen or otherwise - pop their heads up every five days to prove they've done what they've done? Or that anyone cares to gainsay them until the proof is in? Cut the crap out, and let bipto tell us what's going on without all the uncorroborated slinging-feces-at-walls.
Drew Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Bipto- I understand your frustration. I will only say this. Six months have passed since this thread started, there was another one before this I believe. Some things can change in six months. For example: You took down the game cams, well maybe in the three months since you announced that, someone in your group put up another one, so questioning game cam results becomes open again. We don't know all the time frames and tactics that you are using, so have some flexibility on this please. If someone asks a question that you feel has been answered already, just say you already answered it, or ignore it. This is a lot of posts to digest and remember. Until the day you get one of these beasts, you have to at least allow people to offer other possibilities as to the nature of the incidents. Even if you don't personally think it can be any other cause, someone simply reading your posts, should still be wondering what else can be causing it. Until you get one, then the floor is all yours of course. Edited March 12, 2014 by Drew
Guest DWA Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) ^^^NOPE. Bipto's entire point is that this is nothing but slinging unsubstantiated crap at walls. IN OTHER WORDS: the same thing bigfoot skeptics incorrectly think proponents are doing...is what they in fact are doing. And it is all they are doing. If you were not there, and do not have evidence for an alternative interpretation, then you have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion by introducing that alternative interpretation, and that is all. Your last sentence is accurate: the floor is all bipto's. Purpose of this thread. Edited March 12, 2014 by DWA
Guest zenmonkey Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Ok soooo enough of this crap I will try to loop Bipto back in with a question about X. Maybe he will bite! Bipto are you guys making any plans to redesign the overwatch tent (or tents) this year or was last years design to your liking? Also how far out from the cabin did you guys have the last one?
Incorrigible1 Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 It's silly to expect skeptics to refrain from legitimate questions that erupt in this thread. Those that state otherwise are doing so contrary to the posted rules of BFF. I do think a dedicated, skeptical thread contrary to this one would be a worthy and welcome relief to the sometimes overbearing tone added to this thread. Looking forward to the discussion on the thread offered in contrast to this one. Don't get me wrong, I much appreciate Bipto's excellent thread.
Guest Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Chiming back in for a moment to give my take on this. "Skepticism" isn't the issue. It's the relentless revisiting of questions already asked and answered. Questions that fundamentally have no answer other than what I say (i.e., you're being hoaxed by hillbillies). Many of these are untestable questions. I can respond with all the various reasons why we think the way we do (i.e., hoaxing by other people is impossible due to terrain, location, firearms, etc.) and the asker can either believe me or not. But making the same assertions again and again with barely any variation is non-productive and annoying. I'd be terrifically skeptical of what I've reported here about our activities and experiences, too, but I wouldn't be rude doing it. I wouldn't essentially do exactly what I knew would eventually either get the thread locked or cause the sole source of information on the topic (me) leave in exasperation. Were I running a forum, I'd call that behavior trollish. But my forum-running days are behind me. I must confess that I haven't followed this thread closely for quite a while. Whenever I would drop in for a read I found mostly testy comments aimed at skeptical posters. I remember that the few questions I posted were either ignored or given sarcastic responses. To give an example. Last spring was a wet one in southeastern Oklahoma. Some early NAWAC operations occurred during this wet spell. I asked a simple question. Given the muddy conditions, and given the apparent free range behavior of alleged wood apes around the Area X location, I asked if your early team found any tracks, given the conditions there were ideal for track lays. Your response was -- track finds wouldn't prove anything. I replied (unfortunately ambiguously) that fake tracks would (prove something.) You offered some sarcastic remark about a skeptic's critical thinking skills, or somesuch. You didn't answer the question at that time. I wondered why. Of coarse, as a skeptic, my unspoken point was -- you should find tracks in muddy terrain there if wood apes are really out and about. Perhaps this is why you didn't answer the question -- because no tracks were found. When I mentioned "fake tracks," I was suggesting that if NAWAC found tracks that they believed were fake, then they would have evidence that someone was attempting to hoax them. (You apparently misunderstood my point to mean that all wood ape tracks would be fake, necessarily.) Your points above are well taken, otherwise. This thread is limited in its scope for the reasons you mentioned. Also,I don't think we should be rude to one another. But what each of us may find rude, of coarse, is based on whose ox is being gored. We really need another thread on Area X that is not limited to questions that only you have the answer to.
Drew Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) It's silly to expect skeptics to refrain from legitimate questions that erupt in this thread. Those that state otherwise are doing so contrary to the posted rules of BFF. I do think a dedicated, skeptical thread contrary to this one would be a worthy and welcome relief to the sometimes overbearing tone added to this thread. Looking forward to the discussion on the thread offered in contrast to this one. Don't get me wrong, I much appreciate Bipto's excellent thread. Send me a PM explaining the bolded part. Edited March 13, 2014 by Drew
the parkie Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 NAWAC are there to try to shoot a Bigfoot. My understanding is that they don't bother searching for, or recording, possible Bigfoot tracks full stop as it diverts their time and resources away from their efforts to shoot a Bigfoot. Plus, possible Bigfoot tracks are open to endless debate which diverts time and resources away from their efforts to shoot a Bigfoot. This has been established many times already.
Recommended Posts