masterbarber Posted July 12, 2014 Admin Posted July 12, 2014 Does the possible Mexican Drug Cartel presence in that area seem somehow incredible? How about poachers? You're right that "I" don't have anyone in the area, but there is a member in this thread claiming knowledge of the surrounding area. You'll have to dispute that with them or ask them specifics. 1
Hairy Man Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Really masterbarber...really....I am quite disappointed in your response. You are the BFF Director and if you really think I don't know what I'm talking about, then please remove me as the Chair of Steering Committee.
masterbarber Posted July 12, 2014 Admin Posted July 12, 2014 I guess I'm equally disappointed we can't have a discussion and disagree without you feeling as if you must throw down that gauntlet.
Hairy Man Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 I'm not throwing in the gauntlet. I'm just saying that's pretty clear that the FMT is not united in how to handle this situation...when I have been forced to make some serious hard decisions that I didn't necessarily wanted to make, I stood untied with the FMT. I am quite surprised that you and See have taken this stance. I am not sure that the stances taken are informed on the actual information. Maybe that's my fault...
masterbarber Posted July 12, 2014 Admin Posted July 12, 2014 Our only stance has been that every member has a right to an opinion. So long as they post squarely within the rules, they are free to express themselves. We can continue this discussion in the proper staff area so as not to derail this topic, if you'd like. 2
Yuchi1 Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 http://www.pittsreport.com/2010/06/oklahoma%E2%80%99s-no-1-threat-is-the-mexican-drug-cartels-crossing-a-mexican-drug-cartel-usually-comes-with-a-price-%E2%80%94-death/ http://www.newson6.com/story/22277291/mexican-drug-cartels-bring-more-crime-violence-to-oklahoma http://www.wbur.org/npr/114351018 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2875060/posts (note the part (para. 4) about cartel beheadings, in Arizona and Oklahoma)
Guest Stan Norton Posted July 12, 2014 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. Yes. Strange that the evidence that NAWAC has provided is dismissed offhand, yet it is the same type of evidence that, to date, is the only thing we do have for the crest of bigfootery. Why are NAWAC prints, encounters, hairs viewed differently from the endless stream of similar events from elsewhere? Do these forms of putative evidence mean nothing, no matter who submits them? Or do they mean less when from NAWAC? Why would that be? Is there a personal backstory here? Begs the question as to what forms of evidence are left which make folks continue to think sasquatch might be real. Does belief hinge on the PGF?
Guest Stan Norton Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 To clarify... I presume that BFF management have a core base belief in sasquatch. That belief must be based to some degree on evidence that each individual finds compelling. By default, that must be either a personal encounter (an anecdote to the rest of us) or one or all of the remaining types (prints, hairs, pics etc etc). Therefore, anyone who considers sasquatch to be real must buy into at least one of the several types of evidence that crops up endlessly. Why then do NAWAC get special mention for failing to front up? What is so different from their purported evidence? Heck, their encounter stories are less fantastical than most of the stuff held up by bigfootery as being the creme de la creme. I don't get it. It makes no sense. NAWAC claims are no more extraordinary than anyone else's. NAWAC repeatedly state that a body is the only thing that will get us where we need to be. To have both the scofftical and the supposed proponent establishment here on BFF essentially singing the same tune is just odd.
chelefoot Posted July 12, 2014 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. HM, I didn't see a pic showing the hollow-ness of the tree, can you provide a link? Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right place. Thanks in advance for helping me to understand all of this. I appreciate it!
Guest Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Isn't there a skeptical member of this community that made a pretty extraordinary claim related to the PGF? He was unable to deliver evidence to support the claim for what ever reason, and it's now brought up and thrown in his face constantly. Where is the outrage for that situation?
chelefoot Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 There is more outrage in those topics than you know. I can't discuss details, but there are a lot of them.
Guest Stan Norton Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Isn't there a skeptical member of this community that made a pretty extraordinary claim related to the PGF? He was unable to deliver evidence to support the claim for what ever reason, and it's now brought up and thrown in his face constantly. Where is the outrage for that situation? The PGF threads get very catty. I always wonder why Bob H doesn't sue for slander! Don't think anyone is asking for special dispensation for NAWAC claims...just seems that their activities more than most attracted a particularly borderline aggressive and repetitive form of sceptical questioning. That seems very odd considering their encounters are less weird than almost any others discussed here or elsewhere. That's just my opinion btw.
Yuchi1 Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 The PGF threads get very catty. I always wonder why Bob H doesn't sue for slander! Don't think anyone is asking for special dispensation for NAWAC claims...just seems that their activities more than most attracted a particularly borderline aggressive and repetitive form of sceptical questioning. That seems very odd considering their encounters are less weird than almost any others discussed here or elsewhere. That's just my opinion btw. IMO, the fact NAWAC's purported Area "X" is ~10 acres makes for a rather interesting situation, given the sheer volume of incidents reported. It would be somewhat clarifying should it turn out these reports encompass a much larger area of territory. Given that the recently released drone video appears to include footage of having flown over part of the lease (rough canyon), it makes one wonder just exactly where these operations are being conducted.
Rockape Posted July 12, 2014 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); Is this the blood from the shooting incident, where it wasn't collected at the time but the next day? Or is there another blood sample obtained?
Recommended Posts