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

[LeafTalker]

Dead on, MIB. 

[See-Te-Cah NC]

My personal opinion?  I don't see it as an issue of number but of intent.  Straightforward questions to gain additional detail are great.  (Well, unless the same question is asked over and over and over ... I think the questioner should take the time to review what has already been put on the table.)   Questions intended only to badger the witness or disparage their character are not.    

 

All I need, personally, is the details of their claim.   I don't need to argue them, I just need to know what they are.  Once I have a clear enough picture of the substance of the claim, I can make up my mind whether to believe or not.   There's nothing in there that requires or justifies rude behavior.   I don't have to prove how proper a disbeliever I am to my disbeliever clique by being putting my "jerkness" on public display..  To me that's a sign of insecurity.  I just don't happen to be that insecure. 

 

I'm not disparaging the forum staff, ya'll are enforcing the letter of the rules which is really all you can do. I think the problem is built into the rules, maybe even deeper than the steering committee has control over, it might be a CFZ-level forum charter issue.  However, we can individually "police" our own behavior and require a higher standard of ourselves that just whatever the "law" allows.

 

MIB

 

That's your opinion, and as such, it's subjective according to your qualifications.

 

All members are allowed to ask as many questions and make as many comments as they like, as well as state how unbelievable they find the claims to be.

 

Feel free to hold yourself to whatever standards you see fit, but the other members are under no such obligation.

[Hairy Man]

I have tried to stay out of this discussion, but I think this has kind of gotten out of hand.  First of all, I am a NAWAC member and I have seen two wood apes in Area X, possibly a third last year.  I really think everyone should back up and listen to the Bigfoot Show's last show and absorb the details of the tree break...I think there is some miscommunication going on here.  The tree certainly wasn't 96 feet tall but I think Drew (although the tree type isn't right) may have had the tree "failure" right - around 16-20 feet up (as stated in the Bigfoot Show podcast).  Also, bipto didn't leave the BFF in a "huff" like a few of you have suggested.  He left because his roll in the NAWAC is to educate the public about wood apes...once the education process ceases to exist, then there is no point in continuing on.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I appreciate your commentary on the subject of the tree break. However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the following:

 

Also, bipto didn't leave the BFF in a "huff" like a few of you have suggested.  He left because his roll in the NAWAC is to educate the public about wood apes...once the education process ceases to exist, then there is no point in continuing on.

 

So, there was no opportunity to educate? While I'm not necessarily doubting the reason you've given for his departure, I am doubting that he didn't leave in a huff... complete with parting shots at the BFF.

 

Greetings! Having just recently returned from "Disneyland" refreshed and reenergized, I find myself presented with multiple warnings from various friends and acquaintances regarding what's been going on here in my absence. I have not read one post from my last to this (with the exception of the two immediately proceeding this one which I couldn't avoid) and I won't.

 

I participate here solely for the purposes of acting as a liaison between the NAWAC and the larger community of bigfoot enthusiasts. I have always felt it was an important part of our mission of education to pass along the things we've learned (or thought we've learned) to those interested in hearing them, even in the face of denialism and obtuse behavior. However, I've come to a couple of conclusions after a few weeks in the clear Dislandian air. 

 

Obtuse behavior? So, those that had questions regarding his claims are lacking perception, as well as being unobservant dullards?

 

First, I'm a much happier person not having to deal with the negativism of this group. I generally enjoy discussing this subject and am open to answering any questions respectfully asked, but I hadn't noticed until I wasn't dealing with it how much of a drain it is interacting with a annoying minority of the members here. Life is too short to deal with that.

 

What was disrespectful about inquiring about the tree break incident? Was it the fact he was questioned about the details of the incident, or that he wasn't believed based on the claims made initially?

 

Second, the BFF isn't as necessary a part in my outreach and education mandate as I thought. Back in 2005, the BFF was indeed the crossroads of the bigfooting world. Today, not so much. I can reach people through the NAWAC Facebook page, our website, or though The Bigfoot Show website and Facebook page. I even answer many questions through Facebook Messenger. Today, the BFF is less a crossroads as it is a sideshow.

 

A sideshow, eh? Funny, it wasn't claimed that the BFF was a sideshow before the tree incident, and before he failed to read the discussion(s) prior to his departure. Based solely on the negative reports from those that told him what was supposedly happening while he was on vacation, he leaves and takes pot shots at those he disagrees with, as well as the forum he'd previously been presenting his observations on.

 

If the BFF is a sideshow, it was that way during his participation.  

 

I really don't know what I or the group have been accused of recently. And really, I couldn't care less. Being out in the woods doing what most of you only talk about has a way of resetting one's perspective. I'm going to log out of the BFF now and, as far as I can tell, I'll never log in again. I'm done here. It's unfortunate and not an inconsequential decision. I started this place. Well, not *this* place. And there are more than a few of you who are smiling right now.

 

Yet he knows enough to call our members obtuse when he's questioned, or when he isn't believed. He could have addressed questions about the tree break incident, but - as he admitted - he could care less. I suppose it's easier to depart when faced with the probability of being questioned further regarding those claims, and possibly for not being believed at face value by everyone on the forum.

 

It is unfortunate that his decision to depart was based on the supposed accusations of our more skeptical members. It was also unfortunate that even the proponents and regulars in his own thread were questioning the tree break incident.

 

Whenever extraordinary claims are made, it's normal for others to question them. People sharing such extraordinary observations should be prepared to substantiate them if they expect to be believed. Admittedly, he's under no obligation to do so, but that doesn't mean that others can't, or won't, question his claims. His failure to address the questions and to explain his observations was problematic if his claims were to be believed. 

 

Some will say this is proof I and the NAWAC won't answer tough questions. I say bull. I have more than 1,500 posts here and I'd wager north of 95% of them are related to the intersection of the NAWAC and Area X. It's not that I won't engage with critics. I won't engage in response to debased accusations rooted in willful ignorance. At the end of the day, nothing said here will do anything to to help bring wood apes into the light of science. The BFF is full of sound and fury. And that's about it. 

 

I'll go on record to say that he certainly chose not to even discuss the tree break incident on our forum, much less answer any questions about it, tough or otherwise, in the very thread he started for that very purpose. That just doesn't jive with his claim, which is in bold above.

 

How does he know that the accusations were debased and presented in willful ignorance? He said he didn't even read any of it. This makes me wonder if he comes to conclusions in X without adequate research. I have some bad news - The light of science will require critical thought, and calling those in the scientific community that may ask questions or that might critique his claims "debased" and "willfully ignorant" will do little to enlighten the existence of the wood ape. Scientific peer review will be much, much more demanding of evidence and/or proof, and describing those scientists in the manner displayed above will not win friends and influence people.

 

If asking for extraordinary evidence to substantiate extraordinary claims is being full of sound and fury, then I suppose our forum is as described.

 

Goodbye.

 

It's my opinion that his name calling and insulting language were not only unnecessary, but meant to lash out at his critics and our forum. That may not seem to be a huff to some, but it sure does seem that way to me, again, IMO.

 

When/if science becomes involved, the claim that being unable to further educate those that disagree, or that offer up tough questions won't cut it. Contending that there's no need in continuing on for that reason will be the ruin of anything he may have to present, as well as discrediting his claims with those he hopes to convince.

 

If he handles tough inquiries like this, I sure hope he does indeed present a body. That would be the only thing that could overcome acting as he did as he departed our forum.

 

I make no claim as to the validity of his claims, your claims, or any claims by members of the NAWAC regarding Area X. Like everyone else, I just expect evidence whenever claims of such a grandiose matter are made. You've said those claims were explained on his broadcast, which is great. Couldn't he had answered those questions here prior to his leaving, and if he chose not to, at least resisted lashing out at the BFF?

 

I wish him, you and the NAWAC nothing but success. Perhaps a competent public relations representative will accompany any more claims that may be forthcoming.

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

You won't find one. Bipto has had more patience in this long running thread than I ever could. I've read his responses, watched his videos and listened to his podcasts for years, the guy is a class act.

See, I understand that your hurt by his comments about the BFF and rightfully so. I sincerely hope that the NAWAC and the BFF can make up and move on. I love this forum and I think you do a stellar job running it. But trying to moderate is a thankless job, and it's easy for us to sometimes forget how hard it is to keep things running smoothly around here.

I certainly don't agree with his potshots towards the BFF, but I think they came from utter frustration and exhaustion.

[Drew]

I certainly don't agree with his potshots towards the BFF, but I think they came from utter frustration and exhaustion.

 

I disagree.  I believe the shots were directed at the BFF for not providing a cushy stomping ground for NAWAC stories.  I appreciate that in the case of the tree break, we were not forced to withhold our critical questions, to protect the NAWAC story from inquiry.   Since the beginnng BFF has always stated that if you make a claim be prepared to back it up.  Bipto didn't want to.  He left.  That is fine, it's not the fault of the BFF that he didn't want to back it up.  What would you suggest Norseman? 

[norseman]

If you skeptics want to run people off of the BFF? Why not start with the proponents of UFO Bigfoot? Mind speak Bigfoot? How come your not in there harassing them with silly questions constantly? It's only logical......as their claims are. 2000% more outlandish than a tree falling in the woods.

Comfy? Not really.......

I think what you fail to address Drew is that there were a lot of people that enjoyed the dialogue here in this thread. Go ahead and gloat all you like, getting this shut down by running off the OP, is not a win for anybody it's just unfortunate all the way around.

[Drew]

I didn't get it shut down.  Stop insinuating that.  Bipto left on his own free will.

 

Why would I question the UFO Footers?  They don't have other footers taking their stories HLS and patting them on the back, without any thought of questioning their claims.

[southernyahoo]

 

I have tried to stay out of this discussion, but I think this has kind of gotten out of hand.  First of all, I am a NAWAC member and I have seen two wood apes in Area X, possibly a third last year.  I really think everyone should back up and listen to the Bigfoot Show's last show and absorb the details of the tree break...I think there is some miscommunication going on here.  The tree certainly wasn't 96 feet tall but I think Drew (although the tree type isn't right) may have had the tree "failure" right - around 16-20 feet up (as stated in the Bigfoot Show podcast).  Also, bipto didn't leave the BFF in a "huff" like a few of you have suggested.  He left because his roll in the NAWAC is to educate the public about wood apes...once the education process ceases to exist, then there is no point in continuing on.

 

It's an arrogant and hypocritical mistake to think one can educate while offering nothing but anecdotes to do it. How long would you or bipto allow that from anyone else?

[norseman]

I didn't get it shut down.  Stop insinuating that.  Bipto left on his own free will.

 

Why would I question the UFO Footers?  They don't have other footers taking their stories HLS and patting them on the back, without any thought of questioning their claims.

*slaps forehead*

The NAWAC is a pro kill organization!!!! So you cannot see the difference??? Anecdotal accounts are not the end all goal for Bipto's group unlike most others.

Also, I see your agenda clearly now, the UFO Bigfoot proponents have no credibility? So go after the ones that do? Is that about right?

That just makes skeptics look all the more petty in my eyes Drew......

It's an arrogant and hypocritical mistake to think one can educate while offering nothing but anecdotes to do it. How long would you or bipto allow that from anyone else?

Sure.

But would you prefer the BFRO? That's all they promise is anecdotes.......forever.

[Terry]

It's kind of NAWAC's loss that they've taken their ball and gone home mad.  The BFF is a large, captive audience for their questionable claims.  

 

t.

[Drew]

Also, I see your agenda clearly now, the UFO Bigfoot proponents have no credibility? So go after the ones that do? Is that about right?

 

 

I have often said that the UFO Bigfoot proponents have exactly as much credible evidence as the Physical Footers.

 

I try to focus on the physical-Bigfoot claims, since they say that Bigfoot is an animal, and thus adheres to the laws of nature and science.  Unfortunately, many claims are of attributes which do not parallel those of an animal in the natural world.  These I question.

 

The 24" tree break, avoidance of trail cams, the mass hucking of rocks and nuts at a cabin, these are things that I question.   The 'Bzzt' blipping in and out, the stealing of cigarettes, the UFO stuff, I don't question that.  I went toe to toe with Burgstahler and Beckjord over that stuff years ago.  You can't argue science with non scientific boundaries.

[norseman]

I have often said that the UFO Bigfoot proponents have exactly as much credible evidence as the Physical Footers.

 

I try to focus on the physical-Bigfoot claims, since they say that Bigfoot is an animal, and thus adheres to the laws of nature and science.  Unfortunately, many claims are of attributes which do not parallel those of an animal in the natural world.  These I question.

 

The 24" tree break, avoidance of trail cams, the mass hucking of rocks and nuts at a cabin, these are things that I question.   The 'Bzzt' blipping in and out, the stealing of cigarettes, the UFO stuff, I don't question that.  I went toe to toe with Burgstahler and Beckjord over that stuff years ago.  You can't argue science with non scientific boundaries.

You mean like with your highly unscientific stick cartoon tree? Bipto saw it happen? But your cartoon proves that it didn't happen? Did you even research white oak before you started doodling Drew?

Bottom line? Despite whatever evidence is presented, you'll look to derail it like the tree, because you simply want to shout down the subject.

[WSA]

Dmaker: Like I said, me and Alice have had our cards punched already. Pasadena.

 

I do encourage you though to venture in your life to more of the remote areas of the U.S., especially those in the S. tier, and spend some nights on the ground there... preferably alone. You may find all is not what you assume it to be ensconced in your N. redoubt.  You've got a sharp mind dmaker, and I enjoy your contributions, but you lack the kind of hard practical experience that is required to make sense of what is being reported. Relying on others to tell you what that that is like, and what is possible, or not, is exactly the same shortcoming you accuse some of us of, only many of us have that experience to back it up. You are debating facts concerning environments, terrain and people you only read about, which is a handicap you might want to address to truly be serious about this debate, and not be just be another guy with a keyboard and an agenda.

 

Even if it is not to do BF research, I hope you can do that. The U.S., like Canada, has some astounding stuff out there that is only accessible to those willing to risk it. I wish that for you most sincerely. If you are healthy, fit and not too risk averse, any number of people here could point you in the right direction. PM me anytime and I'd be glad to give you some destinations and gear tips.    
 

[Cotter]

 

I try to focus on the physical-Bigfoot claims, since they say that Bigfoot is an animal, and thus adheres to the laws of nature and science.  Unfortunately, many claims are of attributes which do not parallel those of an animal in the natural world.  These I question.

 

 

Known laws of nature and science.

 

Known animals in the natural world.