bipedalist Posted July 11, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted July 11, 2014 I just want to know if the meth eating Mariachi's are the ones creating the "pinwheels", and what the hell is a pinwheel as it relates to bigfoot structures anyhoo?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) I just want to know if the meth eating Mariachi's are the ones creating the "pinwheels", and what the hell is a pinwheel as it relates to bigfoot structures anyhoo?! When they're on the meth they can create anything! They and the sasquatch get down with some twig weaving... Edited July 11, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) I dunno. I sometimes pick up on a somewhat petulant vibe around this whole aspect See....and I suppose it is the nature of humans to want mysteries cleared up as soon as possible. Some of that is a good thing, too much of it is not. I'm always trying to strike that balance in how I view this subject. Of all the arguments pro and con, the mere passage of time is probably not the strongest one to make. I was watching a documentary the other night about the discovery of the remains of Richard III. Without a doubt, that was due in large part to just stumbling, blind luck. Everyone involved marveled at the turn of circumstances. Put that on a comparison with the happenstance of the P/G film, and you've got a pretty good fit, I believe. Because something like that arguably happened once, we might tend to think it is easy to accomplish, and the lack of something similar in 50 years tends to cast doubt on the original event. But, it would the same error in logic that would make somebody believe we could easily locate the grave of Alexander because a stab in the dark found Richard. Nobody would believe one event informs the other, but here we seem to have that idea. There are dead rulers littered across the planet, and only a few will be found. When they are found, it is on a timetable not of our choosing. Looking helps, yes, but I for one will telll you that it is better to be lucky than good. Luck keeps its own schedule. I could be long in my own grave before that number hits. So be it. Were Richard IIIs remains reported by thousands of people all over North America? Edited July 11, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Were Richard IIIs remains reported by thousands of people all over North America? Of course not, and the point of the anecdote was not that Richard III and sasquatch are analogous. The example demonstrates that, in the face of knowing mockery from academia and armchair experts, amateur research can once in a while turn up trumps. Finding Richard's remains was a mix of pig headedness and luck that hit paydirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 If we add the bones of Richard III to the Area X story, that would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Yuchi Were you told when this happened? What is it about the sources that makes you consider them reliable? Were you told the locations of the bait stations? Thanks These events occurred ~16 & 21 years ago. One of the sources was the (self-confessed) poacher, and he will not hunt that area anymore nor go into the mountains after sundown as he (per his comments) fears retribution. Approximate locations were given. A couple other notes: IMO, the drug operators would likely kill any UHS/Sasquatch (upon sight) and practice SSS, so as to eliminate the basis for groups such as NAWAC to be searching in a given location. After all, its not like the UHS/Sas is going to the local LEO and report a homicide such as would be the case with a homo sapien's demise. Someone posited the comment as to what "pinwheels" consist of and I apoligize for not explaining such in greater detail. These are sticks (~18-30") arranged in a fashion that resembles a large asterisk type presentation. I/we have observed them (Rogers county, OK) in the fork of a bois d'arc tree (~3' off the ground) as well as lying on the ground, along an established game trail. Am not sure of their meaning or purpose. The principal in the lease is retired (~4 yrs.) USFS LEO and personally worked (and, made) many of the drug cases in that region over a ~30 year span and is still called out as a consultant. He grew up there and still resides on the property and has indicated no encounters or evidence of UHS/Sasquatch have occurred (w/him) in the 60+ years he's been there. FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Indeed it would be. My larger point is just the way fortuitous events influence expectations for future outcomes. It is just the way we 'umans work. It is most destructive in the gamblers' belief in the hot streak. None of us are immune to it. In the area of BF apostasy, I don't think I ever hear anything mentioned more than the "50 years of looking since P/G, etc." It is a valid point to make, but I think you can make too much of it. Most often the path is traced from being captivated by the film at the time it was made public, but then as every decade passes, that certainty erodes. (Leaving aside the reasons for disbelief that appear to some in the film itself. I don't see those, but you wouldn't ever be swayed by the film at all if that was your initial reaction.) What I think is missing from this evolution of disbelief is the very real possibility that two cowboys with a rented film camera were extraordinarily lucky, and nobody has been as lucky since. If it is true, then we also have to accept that nobody up until that point had been that lucky either. If so, then the NAWAC are truly trying to catch lightning in a bottle, and we may be imposing the unreasonable expectation that it should be easy, so why don't they hurry up and do it already? You could answer that the reason they can't is because such isn't possible. Or, the opposite view (as my Old Man used to say about the game of golf): If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 How many thousands of reported sightings per year in virtually every corner of North America? In populated and settled areas? In the case of NAWAC, alleged wood apes are literally falling out of the trees in Area X and throwing rocks at the cabin on a regular basis. And you want to call this lightening in a bottle? Not hardly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 You got to get to them though. In that regard, a little local knowledge of the conditions is helpful, something Bitpto emphasized when this question was raised, repeatedly. Yuchi can confirm those for you if you don't know. I'm able to tell you because I live and have backpacked for decades roughly on that same line of latitude. I once did a solo walk of the Buffalo National River in Arkansas in August ( I would not recommend this to anyone, LOL) very similar. This kind of knowledge matters, and it doesn't come easy. Even with that experience, I would always defer to the people on the ground to tell me what is what in that neighborhood. They know, and I do not. That is why I pay particular attention to folks like Yuchi when he describes where he has been, and what he knows. It is why I would listen to somebody like Norseman on the subject of hunting Elk in his stomping grounds. He hunted 10 YEARS before he bagged his first elk. That accumulated knowledge is not something I can discount, in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 I'm not telling you anything, including that a band of merry BF are in that particular area creating havoc. I'm saying "Consider alternative possibilities" because there has been no tangible evidence presented. That's all. First of all, the NAWAC has presented tons of evidence - hair to Sykes that appears not to have been tested; blood samples that we haven't gotten the results back from (still after many years); audio evidence; videos presented at conferences, as well as host of very credible eye-witness sightings - including myself (with 3 other people) in broad daylight within less that 50 yards (narrowed down to less than that as I ran towards them). What you want is proof - that proof will require a whole body or part of it. We don't have that yet. The NAWAC doesn't believe that bigfoot is telepathic, can zap you, can shape shift, came from a UFO or any of the other paranormal stuff. What it appears is that members of the good BFF are having issues with is a member of the NAWAC suggesting bigfoot broke a tree?? A tree. Not crushing a rock with his teeth. A tree. Not killing a deer with his razor sharp incisors. A tree...can we take a step back and calm down? I am pretty sure dog piling is not allowed on the BFF. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 HM ^What you want is proof - that proof will require a whole body or part of it. We don't have that yet. I think some were just asking for a pic of the tree. Which even now after saying it was hollow, still no pic of the hollow tree ..even on the blog. BFF are having issues with is a member of the NAWAC suggesting bigfoot broke a tree?? I thought he said he thought that is exactly what happened. He probably did state that as an opinion. But his opinion is highly regarded by most here. So it carries more weight than some like those in the Hab thread or Physic threads...Much more. I would think when he realizes that he had given some inaccurate or even midunstood because of the way he relayed it - info, he would want to clear it up. Why walk away rather than clearly up the inaccuracies he reported? I wish he would answer at least that one question for me. I asked on the blog, but he didn't approve my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 His blog has a picture of the tree in it. You can reference that. I think that the issue is that while he was gone and unable to post, there was a dogpile and by the time he got back there was no point in posting a picture. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 First of all, the NAWAC has presented tons of evidence - hair to Sykes that appears not to have been tested; blood samples that we haven't gotten the results back from (still after many years); audio evidence; videos presented at conferences, as well as host of very credible eye-witness sightings - including myself (with 3 other people) in broad daylight within less that 50 yards (narrowed down to less than that as I ran towards them). What you want is proof - that proof will require a whole body or part of it. We don't have that yet. The NAWAC doesn't believe that bigfoot is telepathic, can zap you, can shape shift, came from a UFO or any of the other paranormal stuff. What it appears is that members of the good BFF are having issues with is a member of the NAWAC suggesting bigfoot broke a tree?? A tree. Not crushing a rock with his teeth. A tree. Not killing a deer with his razor sharp incisors. A tree...can we take a step back and calm down? I am pretty sure dog piling is not allowed on the BFF. Wouldn't you say, Area "X" has got to be the most active 10 acres in all of bigfootery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted July 12, 2014 Admin Share Posted July 12, 2014 First of all, the NAWAC has presented tons of evidence - hair to Sykes that appears not to have been tested; blood samples that we haven't gotten the results back from (still after many years); audio evidence; videos presented at conferences, as well as host of very credible eye-witness sightings - including myself (with 3 other people) in broad daylight within less that 50 yards (narrowed down to less than that as I ran towards them). What you want is proof - that proof will require a whole body or part of it. We don't have that yet. The NAWAC doesn't believe that bigfoot is telepathic, can zap you, can shape shift, came from a UFO or any of the other paranormal stuff. What it appears is that members of the good BFF are having issues with is a member of the NAWAC suggesting bigfoot broke a tree?? A tree. Not crushing a rock with his teeth. A tree. Not killing a deer with his razor sharp incisors. A tree...can we take a step back and calm down? I am pretty sure dog piling is not allowed on the BFF.d t We all want proof, right? I think most reasonable folks would just appreciate something tangible to support all of these incidents and encounters we're told about. Seems perfectly normal. There is also nothing wrong with considering alternate causes for some of the claimed/reported activity in area X. We have an independent forum member advising zero BF activity in the area surrounding x which, if accurate, seems peculiar. I haven;t seen anyone dog-piling Bipto and in fact until the tree incident, the discussion seemed to be going well.Where and when did that occur? Was it reported? From what I read, Bip admitted that he hadn't bothered to read, upon returning, the responses he was getting while he was away but was told by some people that it wasn't pleasant. So he came back to the thread, made an announcement, fired off a back handed insult about the BFF and left. Are a few unpleasant questions or unflattering remarks considered dog-piling? Perhaps the sources of the questions were somehow irritating? I can't comment on the tree incident as he explained his theory about what happened except that I personally found that far-fetched. Can I understand his frustration(?), sure! Can I understand why he'd let some cynical questioning/attitudes run him off of his own thread- instead of using the ignore feature (?), not really. He's always welcome here but he's not always going to be patted on the back by folks. That's just the nature of the forums. We have a wonderfully diverse membership... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Drug Lords are an alternative theory? Where is the evidence of that? You have an independent member doing something. Where is the evidence of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts