N A W A C - Field Study Discussion (2)

[See-Te-Cah NC]

You're free to disagree. In fact, that's what makes the world go 'round.

 

If and when he gathers the "proof," he's welcome to come back and rub it in the faces of everyone that questioned his claims.

 

Bipto wasn't exactly very accommodating of the skeptical questioning, which is understandable. However, that doesn't mean that they needed to stop questioning him, or putting forth their opinions.

 

No matter why he did it, offering claims of what you say you've experienced without accompanying evidence is bound to cause inquiries, as well as opinions regarding those claims. To expect otherwise is unrealistic.

[dmaker]

It's one thing to claim you see Wood Apes. It's another thing to claim one accomplished a virtually impossible feat of strength. 

 

The first claim will garner almost no skeptical inquiry here, the latter will attract a pile of questions from a wide spectrum of members. It's the impossibility of the act described that caused most of the inquiry. Recently at any rate.

[Doc Holliday]

another thing that stagnates is the faithful few that groupie around nearly anything, hanging on every word......we've seen it with ketchum , biscardi and "the one we cant mention"... blindly following these stories until they've crashed and burned, again and again......

 

almost invariably the same old judgmental  armchair quarter back" accusations and "I'm a real researcher , not just an internet researcher" get made online ,lol, as if they aren't online as well........ too funny, considering those making them don't want to be judged either.

 

and while those accusations apply sometimes,  perhaps it would pay to remember there are many of us who are in the woods , are out there,  and do look  but don't  broadcast every move . not everyone that's looking wants that sort of attention or finds it necessary to keep an audience.   

 

if the area in question is all its said to be eventually this will sort its self out, or should anyways if it hasn't already. 

 

I wish them the best in their efforts .

[Guest Stan Norton]

I absolutely agree that unsubstantiated claims of extraordinary happenings require evidence, no question. I think where Bipto took umbrage was when there were (and there were) repeated insinuations regarding deliberate hoaxing, reckless use of weapons and general grandstanding. After a while that has to grate, especially when a) the insinuations are against your close friends and b)the folks making them appear to be doing it just for mischievous ends. Not saying I agree with his position but I do at least understand where he may be coming from.

 

The NAWAC are quite clear in their mission, which is not to serve up yet more of the same refuted evidence, so again I can understand Bipto's annoyance at being constantly chided about that. I believe he is on record as stating that he doesn't care if anyone believes him: that's not his objective. 

 

Again, I don't agree with his position viz a vis BFF and feel that he is better placed answering all questions. 

Edited July 4, 2014 by Stan Norton

[Rockape]

<I believe he is on record as stating that he doesn't care if anyone believes him>

 

I'd say hm leaving in a huff shows he does.

[masterbarber]

I totally disagree, and could not possibly disagree more, that bipto has no evidence backing him up.

 

There is A LOT of evidence backing him up, and everything with this volume and consistency of evidence science has searched for, and confirmed.

 

 

If ya got the goods, you don't have to advertise....

[Squatchy McSquatch]

CavemanChris:  I understand you as favoring skepticism.  Jeff Meldrum is skeptical.  Grover Krantz was skeptical.  John Bindernagel is skeptical.  When they have their scientist hats on, scientists are skeptical.

 

Your upset at the 'skeptics' you're encountering here stems from this:  they aren't skeptical.  Their entire 'position' is a tissue of assumptions.  What 'skeptic' means is someone who questions anything that isn't backed by evidence.

 

The reason you couldn't do what the 'skeptics' you read here are doing is that it's basically true belief:  a firm conviction repeated over and over and over, in the face of all the evidence that it is incorrect.  That's not fun; it's not particularly intellectually stimulating...and it sure isn't science, as my quote down there illustrates.

 

'Skeptic' is rarely more inappropriately used than it is when it comes to this topic.  Bipto is skeptical.  That's why he and NAWAC are taking the scientific approach:  it's based on evidence and the very diametric opposite of true belief that something can't be so because...it....can't...!!!!

 

Neither Meldrum, Krantz or Bindernagel are/were Skeptical. 

 

They are/were the antithesis of Skeptical.

 

I noticed you left NAWAC out of your diatribe.

 

Oh yeah, nawac left the building.

[Guest Stan Norton]

<I believe he is on record as stating that he doesn't care if anyone believes him>

 

I'd say hm leaving in a huff shows he does.

 

But there is clearly a difference in someone not believing and making accusations of deceit. That's why he chucked it in I believe.

[Guest]

Here is a new overhead HD video of "X" for its beauty shared by Bipto on FB http://vimeo.com/99886444

[Rockape]

But there is clearly a difference in someone not believing and making accusations of deceit. That's why he chucked it in I believe.

Are there posts in this thread where someone accuses him of being a hoaxer? Isn't that against the rules?

[Guest Stan Norton]

Are there posts in this thread where someone accuses him of being a hoaxer? Isn't that against the rules?

 

Insinuations. No-one was silly/honest enough to say it straight.

[norseman]

another thing that stagnates is the faithful few that groupie around nearly anything, hanging on every word......we've seen it with ketchum , biscardi and "the one we cant mention"... blindly following these stories until they've crashed and burned, again and again......

 

almost invariably the same old judgmental  armchair quarter back" accusations and "I'm a real researcher , not just an internet researcher" get made online ,lol, as if they aren't online as well........ too funny, considering those making them don't want to be judged either.

 

and while those accusations apply sometimes,  perhaps it would pay to remember there are many of us who are in the woods , are out there,  and do look  but don't  broadcast every move . not everyone that's looking wants that sort of attention or finds it necessary to keep an audience.   

 

if the area in question is all its said to be eventually this will sort its self out, or should anyways if it hasn't already. 

 

I wish them the best in their efforts .

 

 

A couple of thoughts........

 

Foremost, I think this thread has taught me that keeping people in the community abreast with what Project Grendel is doing is a waste of time. The skeptics want proof of everything............well, that is why we are out there, and would love nothing more than to provide proof of the existence of Sasquatch. Which I think is a very KEY distinction between a pro kill group and the rest of them out there. But if I share my observations with the community about a tree break, or a track way, or a howl, it's a gosh dang slap in the face to have every observation shared turn into a existence debate. Nobody is saying that a tree break is PROOF of the existence of Sasquatch. Hunter's follow sign so that they can hopefully close with and dispatch their prey. We observe sign of the animals passing as well as calls, smells and all the rest. That's how you put yourself in the right place at the right time and in the right place. It took me ten years of elk hunting before I killed my first one, doing it by myself. I choose the wrong places to go, either too high or too low. I choose places that had low numbers because it was cheap to go. I tracked Moose instead of Elk, so on and so forth........... Nobody taught me, I did it myself, and I learned something each time I went out.

 

So sharing observations is very important to a hunter, and this is why it's a shame that Bipto has been run out of here, I don't see it as grandstanding, I see it as a opportunity to share observations, nothing more. People who are skeptical or feel it's an ego trip should simply call BS and move on........instead what you see are a series of questions that play out like a game of gotcha.

 

Secondly, to address the "groupee" follow ons......... I have said from day one, that I'm not there so I cannot say for sure what is being observed. And it's perfectly natural for someone to say the same thing about my observations. I have never been to the Ouachita NF. Again, this is the flip side of the coin from skeptics and the other side of the circular debate that goes round and round. As if the winner of the debate can either prove or deny the existence of Sasquatch JUST BY WINNING A DEBATE. No way........ It takes days, months and years of busting the brush with a ruck on looking. Some of us do this already, some don't, on both sides of the coin. Either way, unless a log truck saves all of us proponents the trouble? If it's out there? Then we are gonna have to go out and go get it and drag it out feet first............PERIOD.

 

I highly HIGHLY suggest if that is your end goal that you find threads like this and READ..........don't post anything. Soak it in and try to use it to your advantage on your next outing.

 

I recently just found a Bigfoot sighting on a fly fishing forum, completely unrelated to the community. So other outdoor activity forums like hunting, fishing, camping and hiking forums are a wealth of information as well.

 

Happy hunting folks!

[Guest zenmonkey]

A couple of thoughts........

 

Foremost, I think this thread has taught me that keeping people in the community abreast with what Project Grendel is doing is a waste of time. The skeptics want proof of everything............well, that is why we are out there, and would love nothing more than to provide proof of the existence of Sasquatch. Which I think is a very KEY distinction between a pro kill group and the rest of them out there. But if I share my observations with the community about a tree break, or a track way, or a howl, it's a gosh dang slap in the face to have every observation shared turn into a existence debate. Nobody is saying that a tree break is PROOF of the existence of Sasquatch. Hunter's follow sign so that they can hopefully close with and dispatch their prey. We observe sign of the animals passing as well as calls, smells and all the rest. That's how you put yourself in the right place at the right time and in the right place. It took me ten years of elk hunting before I killed my first one, doing it by myself. I choose the wrong places to go, either too high or too low. I choose places that had low numbers because it was cheap to go. I tracked Moose instead of Elk, so on and so forth........... Nobody taught me, I did it myself, and I learned something each time I went out.

 

So sharing observations is very important to a hunter, and this is why it's a shame that Bipto has been run out of here, I don't see it as grandstanding, I see it as a opportunity to share observations, nothing more. People who are skeptical or feel it's an ego trip should simply call BS and move on........instead what you see are a series of questions that play out like a game of gotcha.

 

Secondly, to address the "groupee" follow ons......... I have said from day one, that I'm not there so I cannot say for sure what is being observed. And it's perfectly natural for someone to say the same thing about my observations. I have never been to the Ouachita NF. Again, this is the flip side of the coin from skeptics and the other side of the circular debate that goes round and round. As if the winner of the debate can either prove or deny the existence of Sasquatch JUST BY WINNING A DEBATE. No way........ It takes days, months and years of busting the brush with a ruck on looking. Some of us do this already, some don't, on both sides of the coin. Either way, unless a log truck saves all of us proponents the trouble? If it's out there? Then we are gonna have to go out and go get it and drag it out feet first............PERIOD.

 

I highly HIGHLY suggest if that is your end goal that you find threads like this and READ..........don't post anything. Soak it in and try to use it to your advantage on your next outing.

 

I recently just found a Bigfoot sighting on a fly fishing forum, completely unrelated to the community. So other outdoor activity forums like hunting, fishing, camping and hiking forums are a wealth of information as well.

 

Happy hunting folks!

Nice and thank you I really have nothing to say about all of this.

[Rockape]

 it's a shame that Bipto has been run out of here,

 

Excuse me but Bipto was not "run out of here". If there were a few who were pressing too hard he could have simply used the ignore function.

Insinuations. No-one was silly/honest enough to say it straight.

 So a few made insinuations. Again, he could have put them on ignore, not blame the entire BFF because he was facing hard questions. Seems to me he was made to look a bit silly with this tree break thing so took his toys and went home.

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

 

He is gone isn't he?

 

Obviously there were enough nay sayers that he didn't feel it was worth his time.

 

Bottom line? If you don't like what is in a thread? Speak your peace and move on.