Guest Stan Norton Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Right, can we now have some field method based questions then? Several have been asked recently but have been subsumed by the usual silliness and so on...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Sure, as long as they don't derail the topic by delving into character assassination, the validity of the organization's tax status, or making accusations of possible hoaxing or being hoaxed by the homeless.
Incorrigible1 Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Character assassination is a two-way street. Certain posters, no mater the number of reports they've read, present no more valid "scientific method" than the most rank skeptic. 1
See-Te-Cah NC Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 That's not necessarily the character assassination of another. To make claims without presenting evidence is assassinating one's own character, IMO. 2
Guest DWA Posted March 16, 2014 Posted March 16, 2014 Implications being what they are, Inc1...you are wrong unless you can supply evidence, which, so far, squat. I'd appreciate folks leaving this thread alone if they cannot come to terms with people relating their experiences.
roguefooter Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) I'd appreciate it if people would just learn to suck it up. Bipto put the organization into the limelight and I'm sure he knows the drill. People just want all of the facts, and part of the facts are the answers to the hard questions. I'm sure he also understands that people will make suggestions and throw out possibilities that he probably doesn't want to hear. Just remember that it didn't take a bunch of 'out in the field' astronauts to figure out how to get to the moon and back- it was a collaborative effort. If people don't want to be questioned, or don't think they need suggestions, or think they're knowledge is the pinnacle of research because they're 'out in the field' and you're not, then all I can say is knock yourselves out. Researchers of this field have been stubborn and vain from the beginning, with lots of fighting and producing virtually nothing in the process. I'm sure another few decades won't make any difference. Edited March 17, 2014 by roguefooter 1
hiflier Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Helo rogufooter, You bring up some good points there. I will say that my biggest complaint with the entire Sasquatch subject is what I consider to be the ridiculous proprietary mindset that doesn't freely share any and all information to include fully available databases. I don't see that particular issue going on with the NAWAC group. So far anyway I think they've given us all they have and have held back nothing. Entities like the BFRO? nnnnnnnot so much. In fact they're the worst IMO when they are in fact in a position where they should be the best. Hello See-Teh-Cah, That's not necessarily the character assassination of another. To make claims without presenting evidence is assassinating one's own character, IMO. (salutes)SIR!...Permission to sprinkle this quote around the Forum as needed...SIR! (salutes) Edited March 17, 2014 by hiflier
Drew Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 That's not necessarily the character assassination of another. To make claims without presenting evidence is assassinating one's own character, IMO. I'll plus this! Wow.
dmaker Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 As I've said, skepticism isn't the problem. Creating a thread "for skeptics" suggests this thread is specifically not for anyone expressing an skeptical POV. I think this is a step in the wrong direction. I've seen countless threads opened by members here to discuss various aspects of any number of contentious subjects (Ketchum, Dyer, etc.) only to see them shut down by admins and mods because a thread already existed for that topic (I used to do the very same thing myself back in the day). Now we see a mod doing the exact same thing. And for what reason? Presumably so the rabble rousers and trouble makers who can't play nice here can go over there and make fun of people in this thread? Isn't that what the JREF is for? Honestly, this makes no sense to me. No, that is not what JREF is for. There is intelligent discussion that occurs there on a regular basis. There are snide comments made regarding BF in general, and sometimes, the BFF specifically. But it seems that is a two way street
Guest DWA Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I think that what is setting NAWAC apart from the pack is their insistence on playing fair, keeping their noses out of most of the pointless brouhaha, forming theories based on wildlife biology and their experience, and making the maximum commitment they can to time in field. BFRO has an outstanding database, maybe the best, and some excellent researchers. But there is too much of the scattergun theorizing; a general inability or refusal to use that database as the foundation for theory and search strategy that it should be;...and should I say a bit too much enthusiasm about TV ratings...?
Guest Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Bipto, This apparently is the beginning point of involvement in “Area X†for field researchers now associated with NAWAC. http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/457 I’m assuming the retired forest service employee is Charles Branson. Am I correct? About 6 years after the Higgins track find, a Rick Branson called attention to possible Bigfoot noises and activities behind his home, a cabin in Honobia. http://searchingforbigfoot.com/Winter_2006_Bigfoot_Expedition_Diary_-_Honobia,_Oklahoma Would you happen to know if Rick Branson and Charles Branson are related? Do you happen to know if Rick’s cabin is indeed in Honobia, which the “searching for Bigfoot†webpage seems to imply? I do not think the location of the two Bransons’ cabins are the same, even if both have Bigfoot related histories, because JavaBob makes no mention of the remoteness of the cabin or the valley nearby . Am I correct to assume these cabins are at different locations (or would you happen to know)? One more question, if you will indulge me. In Higgins’ report, he notes that the ex-forest ranger’s cabins are on the Little River and says “the road to the remote area was extremely rough.†I’m taking that statement to mean he went to the cabins on the Little River, i.e., now known as Area X. Yet, the river in the map is the Kiamichi. The Little River would be south and west of this location and not even on the map. Did I read the article or the map wrong?
Guest Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I’m assuming the retired forest service employee is Charles Branson. Am I correct? Charles Branson has essentially already identified himself as such. Would you happen to know if Rick Branson and Charles Branson are related? Do you happen to know if Rick’s cabin is indeed in Honobia, which the “searching for Bigfoot†webpage seems to imply? I do not think the location of the two Bransons’ cabins are the same, even if both have Bigfoot related histories, because JavaBob makes no mention of the remoteness of the cabin or the valley nearby . Am I correct to assume these cabins are at different locations (or would you happen to know)? One more question, if you will indulge me. In Higgins’ report, he notes that the ex-forest ranger’s cabins are on the Little River and says “the road to the remote area was extremely rough.†I’m taking that statement to mean he went to the cabins on the Little River, i.e., now known as Area X. Yet, the river in the map is the Kiamichi. The Little River would be south and west of this location and not even on the map. Did I read the article or the map wrong? I cannot participate in any conversation that may inadvertently disclose the location of place we call Area X. This is due to the previously stated agreement we have with the property owners and our own obvious desires to maintain as secure an operation as possible (thinking of the safety of both our members and those from outside the group). Any previous description of the region I've made has been truthful, as far as I know, but I won't go beyond what I've already said.
Guest DWA Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 ^^^I'm just casually wondering why every scientist doesn't get put through this wringer. Some of the things they say - we have evidence of the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang! - are the most smh you can imagine.
Guest Cervelo Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 That's not necessarily the character assassination of another. To make claims without presenting evidence is assassinating one's own character, IMO. 10-4!
Guest Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Thanks Bipto for the straightforward reply (as far as it went.) I wasn't trying to extract information about the location of Area X. I was wondering aloud about whether or not NAWAC has engaged in a benign subterfuge related to that location on its website. As far as I'm concerned, NAWAC would be right to do so, as the reasons you gave for keeping the exact location secret are valid. Here are photos of tracks found in the region in question (scroll down.) http://searchingforbigfoot.com/Oklahoma_Photos_February_2006 Do they look like the kind of tracks NAWAC has discovered?
Recommended Posts