Guest Stan Norton Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Very cool vid...wouldn't really say that was competent throwing though, and absolutely nothing like what is reported at X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 ^^^Right, so right there, is the germ of many an important discovery. The next step? Let's see if we can find an explanation. And right there, at that intersection of the admission of ignorance and the profession of curiosity, stand the members of the NAWAC. It is not so difficult a path to trace, is it? But yet, we burn up our days avoiding this truth. I want explanations that make sense(And video clips of non-native wildlife picking up and dropping rocks ain't even close to what was described)I don't want to snipe at folks who are doing this work for the benefit of all of us. If they are failing to deliver on what I proclaim to be my timetable, I'm to blame, not them. Sure, rigor in analysis is essential (NOT requiring their process be perfect, but reasonably so) and we've seen them deliver on that requirement often, but rigorous analysis does not include just merely responding to what they report with an: "I don't believe you." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) When a claim is unbelievable then what is the proper response WSA? I don't know what did it, but let's all act like it was bigfoot and deny any other explanations presented? That does not seem reasonable. It seems perfectly fine and proper to respond to the wildly unbelievable with " I don't believe you". Where in the world does it say every outlandish claim must be humored? Or does that golden rule only apply to BF claims made by BF proponents? I know you want to whitewash this with a veneer of child like curiosity. But this is not the case. This is a claim presented to adults that does not stand up to even the mildest of scrutiny. And then you want to chide people for questioning it? The explanation given does not make any sense. Even if such a beast as a wood ape existed, the explanation still does not make sense. Why do you insist on sticking your foot in the door for bigfoot as the explanation? Just because we may not know what did it, does not mean we cannot reasonably state what did NOT do it. And it does not seem possible for any animal to have done this. Do you not agree? Or is your answer more along the lines of " Yes, except for bigfoot?" Edited June 23, 2014 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 You presume my default setting is BF. It might not be in this instance, nor is it in every other one. I've been through a process where, at the start, it wasn't even in the top 100. Lots of strange things happen in the woods, and many I'm sure are not attributable to an unlisted primate. I'd say curiosity is not only child-like, it is "human"-like, and (especially) science-like. You go with what explains it best, or you are forced to concede the field to a great uncertaintly, shrug, and walk away from it. Some have chosen that, and this is not for me to question at all if they do. So far though, here, on this related event, I've not heard anything remotely plausible. I've been waiting a long time on many such accounts, and I don't expect it to be cleared up by someone today (not that this wouldn't be nice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 ^ I do agree up to a point. However, the decade long investigation at X has yielded much more than the one tree break that seems to be the latest single-data-point fixation. There are the routine rock throws, footprints, vocalisations and sightings. All of that, together, makes things more not less compelling to many. And no. I have no proof that what is in those woods is sasquatch...but I happen to consider that it is highly unlikely that NAWAC are being duped, are hoaxing or that professional biologists and other highly intelligent people are just stupid enough to mistake a bear or pig or deer or cow or hunter or tourist for sasquatch. Why, if people are wilfully mistaken or hoaxing, would there not be more sightings? Why are the descriptions so mundane? Why would it take core group members years to have a purported encounter? Nothing about it suggests any faking or anything else untoward. It is intriguing and fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) "So far though, here, on this related event, I've not heard anything remotely plausible. I've been waiting a long time on many such accounts, and I don't expect it to be cleared up by someone today (not that this wouldn't be nice)." WSA, Do you consider bigfoot to be remotely plausible? Edited June 23, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 23, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 23, 2014 ^^ Bipto was simply reporting an event as it was reported to him. I suspect he is well away from internet contact right now. When he returns he may be able to shed light on this particular missive. I for one would be very interested to know that there are critters out there that have a method of taking out a tree 2 feet in diameter. In the meantime I see no point in speculation- I am holding the whole thing in abeyance until I learn more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I've begun my experiments. Here is a photo of the first test. Wish us luck! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Oh Dear Heavens. You would risk falling to try and see if a 700 pound Bigfoot had shaken a 24" diameter tree, and snapped it off at the trunk? This is not smart, even if it works... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 That is very optimistic. First of all no one here could know 100% that it is even the tree in question, that simply is an objective fact and not an attack on anyone. It may help if qualified persons here could identify potential signs of preexisting weakening in the tree. But again, it's just a picture of a tree. Maybe it's the wrong one? I don't think a picture of a snapped tree is going to provide much here, but it might help a little bit. Trees snapping due to natural causes is not an uncommon event. A picture of that, and only that, is not going to help the idea that the snap was caused by a wood ape. A picture of the alleged unclassified ape that caused the break? Now THAT is what you should be asking for. " I also hear the sound of rapid tap dancing! :-) " WSA Then sit down and put your feet up. If Bipto said that (pic) was the tree, why would I not believe him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I would like to present a roughly scaled image I created, to show the absurdity of this situation. The mass of a 24" diameter tree DWARFS the mass of a 700 lb Ape. Does anyone honestly think that a 24" hardwood tree would be snapped off by such a minuscule dynamic force? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 "So far though, here, on this related event, I've not heard anything remotely plausible. I've been waiting a long time on many such accounts, and I don't expect it to be cleared up by someone today (not that this wouldn't be nice)." WSA, Do you consider bigfoot to be remotely plausible? At this point, on this discussion. of this event? It is pretty easy to trump "I got nuthin'. " "It didn't happen" is saying the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) "If Bipto said that (pic) was the tree, why would I not believe him?" Yuchi1 I'm not saying that you wouldn't. However in this case the story is related by another person to him. He did not see this particular tree break. Maybe when going back for a picture, they are mistaken? With all those Wood Apes running around snapping trees, it must get hard to keep track of them after awhile. WSA, your answer is unclear. Do you consider bigfoot to be a plausible explanation for the 2 foot diameter, healthy tree break at the base story? Yes or no please. Edited June 23, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Outstanding work Drew!!! Now tells us what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I would like to present a roughly scaled image I created, to show the absurdity of this situation. The mass of a 24" diameter tree DWARFS the mass of a 700 lb Ape. Does anyone honestly think that a 24" hardwood tree would be snapped off by such a minuscule dynamic force? The alleged wood ape was grey, not brown. Maybe they are stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts