Cotter Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I think, as indicated above, that some simply aren't doing their required reading prior to asking questions. It is typically a good idea to become versed in the subject at hand. Additionally, 'legitimate' questions are not what folks are having a problem with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 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. Excellent example. I have said repeatedly that we've found tracks. I've even posted pictures/videos of one or more of them, if I recall. I've also said repeatedly that the terrain is not suited to recording tracks so they're rare. You said, "I must confess that I haven't followed this thread closely for quite a while." So you're another one of those who swoop in, ask an already answered question, are displeased with my response, and assume I'm not willing to suffer "skeptics." Tell me what percentage of your life you would dedicate to answering questions you've already answered a six times. How much answering questions you've answered a dozen times? Two dozen times? Bottom line, a track wouldn't prove anything to a "skeptic." They never have. That's why we don't bother casting them when we find them anymore. Track finds are, when trying to use them to sway "skeptics," a lose-lose scenario. I don't need to waste time having conversations about them. That's not my purpose for participating on this forum. 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? We have plans to create a more sturdy overwatch that provides a more comfortable/sustainable environment for our people as well as a bit of height to allow for better sight lines. Unfortunately, the severe ice this year has put us far behind schedule. The new structure may not be ready in time for the start of operations. WRT to distance from the cabin, my estimation is it was about 25' from the cabin. 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. Truth. How many tracks have been found and cast over the years, subject to professional analysis and interpretation, and led to absolutely zero progress towards recognition of the animal? We're keeping our eyes on the prize, not distracting shiny objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 It's silly to expect skeptics to refrain from legitimate questions that erupt in this thread. The point is that the 5500th time a habituator says bigfoot is eating at his breakfast table and he doesn't have to prove nuttin to you, it's stopped being legitimate....oh, sorry, but point made, huh. 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. I agree. Totally unsubstantiated tossing turds at walls should be encouraged, just keep it out of the way of a scientific inquiry and thank you much. (The 'overbearing' tone is precisely what one should expect from crap-fielders who are tired of it.) We really need another thread on Area X that is not limited to questions that only you have the answer to. Well, they are the ones who are there; we are the ones who are not. I'm not sure what the point is of repeatedly saying "you are being hoaxed by a Beyond-Seal Team. Besides, there are no animals left in OK." Scientists engaged in research don't pop their heads up every five days to take abuse. If I wanted the answer...I would want to wait for the proof. What "open science" is is people who can provide advice or tips based on experience to do so. It's not an egg toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2014 Share 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. Agreed. But, the issue isn't whether "skeptics" should be allowed to ask questions, the issue is how much effort they should put into finding out if the their question has already been asked and answered and whether or not we can, as a group, stay on topic. The topic of this thread is the NAWAC's ongoing field operations. Not whether or not bigfoot exists. Staying on topic is a basic tenet of forum participation. As far as I know, I've answered each and every question put to me as best I could at the time. We really need another thread on Area X that is not limited to questions that only you have the answer to. I would argue that the entire forum is filled with nothing but this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Wood Apes are able to detect cameras. Would this sensory capability extend to hair catchers? A few well placed barbed wires in areas where they are chucking rocks from may catch a random hair, or they might use one as a scratching tool. Disclaimer: I don't remember asking this. If I did I am sorry. Just ignore if this has already been asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post See-Te-Cah NC Posted March 13, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted March 13, 2014 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? I've never implied any such thing. You can ask questions, but that's not what's happening here. A question gets asked, the answer is considered to be inadequate by those skeptical of the endeavors, and the speculations of hoaxing and being hoaxed start. And they continue regardless of the fact they've already been answered. How is questioning a tax exempt status, or implying it's undeserved, challenging the events in Area X? That seems to be aimed at the member's credibility in an attempt to besmirch their efforts. You'll not imply anything on my behalf, just as you won't continue to badger Bipto about the activities in Area X. It's fine if you don't believe him, but make that case and move on. There's no need for the constant attempts to badger his efforts or to question his motives, i.e. - tax status. That has nothing to do with the activity. In fact, I'll go on the record to say that it's just an effort to call another member's integrity into question to tarnish their efforts, which is an attempt to antagonize and provoke the member. How this is seen as productive by the skeptical is beyond me, as it accomplishes nothing except to promote antisocial behavior. If the skeptical believe that the creature's existence is an impossibility, why do they see the need to belittle and tarnish those that are searching for proof? To build up their own egos, to make themselves feel better, or to convince themselves that their stance is correct? Possibly, but I believe it's to discredit those that want to find evidence in an effort to make them look foolish in public, or to hinder their efforts by casting doubt on their motives and methods. There, I've put it out there to remove the need to claim I'm implying anything. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) ^^^I haven't had in the whole time I have been here enough plusses to give for that one. Edited March 13, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Squatchologist Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 LETS BRING HOME A BODY THIS SPRING/SUMMER BIPTO! and get all this nonsense over with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) Looking forward to the discussion on the thread offered in contrast to this one. What would be 'discussed' on that thread? "Can you believe how they're getting hoaxed?" "I knooooooooooooow; gotta be hillbillies; Navy SEALs; Texas Rangers; really organized and trained and armored and stealthy good ol' boys; or they are like takin' something; ...or you know SOMETHIN'!" "HAR HAR! I KNOW, MAN! Can you bleeve them bleevers?" Is, um, that, um, it? See, discussions of a scientific topic involve a little something called evidence. What is going on, on this proposed thread, other than a bunch of people who don't really want to think about evidence too much having their stance justified for them by similar minds? Sorry, but "crazy people have happened, so have liars, and people cheat to get federal funds...so bigfoot ain't real" doesn't smack as something I would give a first look, much less a second. (WHOA! You won't have to worry about posts from me! INCENTIVE....!!!!! Just keep it off of this one, please.) I mean, the habituators are much maligned by skeptics...but their purpose for a habituators-only thread, which of course turned out not to be one, is at least equally legitimate. They are discussing things that are happening to them...cool support group, and central to the Forums' stated purpose...and they need to provide proof to no one. Who cares - indeed, who here can claim they know - if the things they are talking about are really happening? One can leave them alone until one sees better evidence. Unless one just can't leave something, you know, alone. Easy enough for me to do. Edited March 13, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 If the skeptical believe that the creature's existence is an impossibility, why do they see the need to belittle and tarnish those that are searching for proof? To build up their own egos, to make themselves feel better, or to convince themselves that their stance is correct? Possibly, but I believe it's to discredit those that want to find evidence in an effort to make them look foolish in public, or to hinder their efforts by casting doubt on their motives and methods. An excellent question. One I've tried to answer before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 13, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 13, 2014 Bottom line, a track wouldn't prove anything to a "skeptic." They never have. That's why we don't bother casting them when we find them anymore. Plussed this post. I got roasted for posting a photo of a track. I'm not sure if I will post one again if I ever find any again. People have been arguing about Patty's tracks for decades. That's not likely to change any time soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 OK bipto the most important question....who farted near you while your avatar pic was being taken......sorry my attempt at making a little humor with all this fighting back and forth....ill grow up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Let's review. There is no way a reasonable person could reasonably believe that NAWAC is getting hoaxed, that humans are risking their very lives, for any sensible reason other than a desire to die quickly, which we have seen many consider sensible and it's called suicide, to do what NAWAC is reporting. Because, if humans tried it, one would either be on a slab or under arrest, or publicly embarrassed at the very least, by last summer latest. Because, if you don't believe me, talk a SEAL team into trying this and watch how fast you find out I'm right. That leaves halluciinating or lying like a stinkin rug. (Unless you can find the known animal that routinely rains rocks on us.) Which is it? Is the purpose of the "alternate skeptical thread" to determine the answer to 5? (Really? Now you know how annoying it gets to read the same, put-to-bed-times-beyond-counting assertions, over and over. Presented as - SNORT! - "skepticism.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 That leaves halluciinating or lying like a stinkin rug. (Unless you can find the known animal that routinely rains rocks on us.) Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 ^^^But now, bipto, I plum fergot that a SEAL could flash up to you, before you could raise your weapon, buddy! and knife you in a flash! thereby ending your efforts to expose him as a hoaxer pronto! then VANISHING into the brush! Um. A SEAL in a monkey suit is a guy in the woods. Probably unarmed. Against a trained shooter, armed. Maybe you guys should employ a paintballer as one of your shooters. Or, you know, rubber bullets. Shoot on sight. The rules of engagement for those Suit People would change, pronto. Man, Drew, why didn't you come up with that one? Too simple, huh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts