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

[Guest Stan Norton]

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.

 

Look. You clearly have insider knowledge and are less than enamoured with NAWAC, that much is plain. I would query why you seem so anti NAWAC when you evidently believe in sasquatch or uhs or whatever. What personal gripe do you have with NAWAC? Please appreciate that ALL of this is unknowable to those of us with no local knowledge. I don't get it. Are you claiming that you know that the only sasquatch stories are coming out of a 10 acre area? That, outside of X, or what you think of as X, there is nothing and thus NAWAC are mistaken? It's all very odd. Seems like there is personal politics going on to me.

[Guest zenmonkey]

I know a few members very well and am becoming very close to the group, I think thats all I should say for now. I also know the area around X very well I have spent a lot of time there and know many members of the closest community to X very well. Some I call close friends. The area is "crawling" with activity of all sorts rather that be Bigfoot or magical hillbilly people that I can't say but am going to do my best to figure out. No X isn't a magical area where these things fall out of the sky but something unique is within this mountain range. We have all talked on here some of us for years can we not get so upset and take a step back and re evaluate what all is going on. Its hard not to get ego involved sometimes on a forum but lets all calm down and remember why we are here. Even myself

[bipedalist]

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. 

 

My sentiments exactly, not to take anything away from their research efforts.   Perhaps it is that many of their membership are part of the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers, who knows.  Perhaps it is the alpenglow from the Bigfoot Show.  Perhaps they are just studly.  LOL. 

Edited July 12, 2014 by bipedalist

[dmaker]

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?

Where is NAWACs evidence? Oh yes, sent off to Sykes never to be heard of again. And the blood sample, sent off for testing, never to be heard of again. Strange pattern that is..

[norseman]

My sentiments exactly, not to take anything away from their research efforts. Perhaps it is that many of their membership are part of the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers, who knows. Perhaps it is the alpenglow from the Bigfoot Show. Perhaps they are just studly. LOL.

I think it's a perfect storm of sorts....on one hand you have the denialists that have painted a bullseye on the back of the NAWAC, like the fastest gun at the OK corral. UFO bigfooters are not credible so why bother? Take down the NAWAC ? Big feather in your cap.

Then you have some sort of back story between BFF 1.0 vs 2.0 with bad blood that I don't even pretend to understand.

And finally you have this "insider" that supposedly has the real scoop on area x, contradicts the NAWAC and calls them names like "mercenaries" because of the "echo incident".

It's all rather confusing to me other than the denialist part, their motive I understand clearly.

Project Grendel supports the pro kill mission, and we have people running patrols from British Columbia to Maine and from Arizona to Florida. It was great to have this thread here to have easy access to the NAWAC and ping ideas off of them. It's no more. And it's not only a lost resource to us but it also hard not to feel a kindred spirit with these guys that go hump the brush day in and day out looking for a type specimen to collect. But most importantly I think it's a important lesson for Project Grendel and what not to do. Which is to be too open and share too much information with something that is ongoing......no body no proof. But observations are key to lining up a shot!!!! Rock throwing, trackways, tree breaks? Yah we have observed them also and no where near area x.

Evidently these drug cartel guys get around.

Peace out!

[Guest]

I think it's a perfect storm of sorts....on one hand you have the denialists that have painted a bullseye on the back of the NAWAC, like the fastest gun at the OK corral. UFO bigfooters are not credible so why bother? Take down the NAWAC ? Big feather in your cap.

Then you have some sort of back story between BFF 1.0 vs 2.0 with bad blood that I don't even pretend to understand.

And finally you have this "insider" that supposedly has the real scoop on area x, contradicts the NAWAC and calls them names like "mercenaries" because of the "echo incident".

It's all rather confusing to me other than the denialist part, their motive I understand clearly.

Project Grendel supports the pro kill mission, and we have people running patrols from British Columbia to Maine and from Arizona to Florida. It was great to have this thread here to have easy access to the NAWAC and ping ideas off of them. It's no more. And it's not only a lost resource to us but it also hard not to feel a kindred spirit with these guys that go hump the brush day in and day out looking for a type specimen to collect. But most importantly I think it's a important lesson for Project Grendel and what not to do. Which is to be too open and share too much information with something that is ongoing......no body no proof. But observations are key to lining up a shot!!!! Rock throwing, trackways, tree breaks? Yah we have observed them also and no where near area x.

Evidently these drug cartel guys get around.

Peace out!

I'm pretty sure there are other ways to contact or read about the NAWAC. The Facebook page was mentioned in this thread.

But I'm still having trouble seeing what was so awful that happened after the tree break story. Anyone want to dig up an example? It also seems unfair to criticize skeptics as putting a bullseye on the NAWAC. That happens equally on both sides frequently.

Edited July 13, 2014 by mbh

[Rockape]

What happened was Bipto made a statement about something that happened at Area X before he had the facts. That brought about what to me seemed to be a reasonable discussion on how the incident could or could not have happened. The only reason the discussion took the course it did was due to the bad information given by Bipto. If the discussion had been based on the actual field note information it would have been completely different.

 

All Bipto had to do was make a post explaining his error and give the correct information about the tree break. Instead, he made a post insulting the forum and left in a huff. By doing so all he did was make things worse. He has handled this entire situation very poorly. Apparently other NAWAC members are handling it just as bad. It seems they also made things worse by telling Bipto who knows what was going on here, since Bipto said he didn't read what had happened in the thread and was going by what was told to him by others.

 

All this because Bipto won't admit he was wrong. Some might say it is a sign of weakness by admitting you made a mistake. I would say it is the sign of being a man.

 

So man up Bipto, apologize to everyone you have insulted and admit you caused all of this by posting incorrect information.

[Yuchi1]

Look. You clearly have insider knowledge and are less than enamoured with NAWAC, that much is plain. I would query why you seem so anti NAWAC when you evidently believe in sasquatch or uhs or whatever. What personal gripe do you have with NAWAC? Please appreciate that ALL of this is unknowable to those of us with no local knowledge. I don't get it. Are you claiming that you know that the only sasquatch stories are coming out of a 10 acre area? That, outside of X, or what you think of as X, there is nothing and thus NAWAC are mistaken? It's all very odd. Seems like there is personal politics going on to me.

Stan,

 

I'm not anti-NAWAC.  I do have the following concerns about:

 

The Echo Incident involved their apparent best "shooter", Mr. Colyer and if his actions (spray & pray by emptying the gun as fast as possible, in lieu of a carefully calibrated shot) represent the best NAWAC has to offer in that respect, then yes, I would have a problem with people that "cowboy up" out in the forest at a target they lack a frontal (read: accurate) view thereof.  That (IMO) displays a reckless disregard for the entire process and represents a serious lack of emotional preparedness for the task.

 

Are they operating only on property they have permission/permits to trespass upon? Bipto indicated a willingness to accept consequences for killing something that might well turn out to be far more than a simple Wood Ape. Does this indicate a predisposition to possibly break other laws as well, as long as the mission is accomplished? Under the "fruit of the poison tree" legal doctrine, I would wager mainstream science might not wish to touch their "results", with even a ten foot pole, that is if LE doesn't intervene, beforehand.

 

There is UHS activity in other areas of that region as well as other locations in Oklahoma that I have personal experience with over the past ~12 years. With what I know (regarding possible UHS activity) in the area in question, given the number of claims coming off a 10 acre parcel of land and with the dearth of forensic evidence proffered and behaviour (lately) of the principals, it is not a leap in logic to ask, what's the deal?

 

TBRC, NAWC's predecessor was taking a passive approach to evidence collection until there was an apparent split, coup and the breakaway group decided to change the public mission statement to more of an applied psychology M.O..

 

What I have observed over the past few months, with all the discussions regarding NAWAC is not really all that unique, for it's not the first time (IMO) an endeavour shifted from a purity of mission to more of a cottage industry.

Edited July 13, 2014 by See-Te-Cah NC
Staff Edit

[David NC]

Exactly rockape. Bipto had taken a vacation I assume with his family because he stated he was at Disneyland. He could have cleared up a lot of these questions when he got back. But before he did an opening was seen, the statements were jumped on with both feet and after that the blood was in the water. I would not want to wade back into the water either. His statements before he left were his opinions , and he is not allowed to have his own opinions. Throwing a straw onto a camels back no big deal,  but that last straw that's the doozy.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Stan,

 

I'm not anti-NAWAC.  I do have the following concerns about:

 

The Echo Incident involved their apparent best "shooter", Mr. Colyer and if his actions (spray & pray by emptying the gun as fast as possible, in lieu of a carefully calibrated shot) represent the best NAWAC has to offer in that respect, then yes, I would have a problem with people that "cowboy up" out in the forest at a target they lack a frontal (read: accurate) view thereof.  That (IMO) displays a reckless disregard for the entire process and represents a serious lack of emotional preparedness for the task.

 

Are they operating only on property they have permission/permits to trespass upon? Bipto indicated a willingness to accept consequences for killing something that might well turn out to be far more than a simple Wood Ape. Does this indicate a predisposition to possibly break other laws as well, as long as the mission is accomplished? Under the "fruit of the poison tree" legal doctrine, I would wager mainstream science might not wish to touch their "results", with even a ten foot pole, that is if LE doesn't intervene, beforehand.

 

There is UHS activity in other areas of that region as well as other locations in Oklahoma that I have personal experience with over the past ~12 years. With what I know (regarding possible UHS activity) in the area in question, given the number of claims coming off a 10 acre parcel of land and with the dearth of forensic evidence proffered and behaviour (lately) of the principals, it is not a leap in logic to ask, what's the deal?

 

TBRC, NAWC's predecessor was taking a passive approach to evidence collection until there was an apparent split, coup and the breakaway group decided to change the public mission statement to more of an applied psychology M.O..

 

What I have observed over the past few months, with all the discussions regarding NAWAC is not really all that unique, for it's not the first time (IMO) an endeavour shifted from a purity of mission to more of a cottage industry.

 

 

So if I read this correctly...you may have been involved/invested in the TBRC or an affiliate at some point and resent the split which formed NAWAC. Your key gripe is that you prefer a passive approach to research rather than shooting one. Could I ask what evidence your approach has brought or is bringing to the table? Is it any more or less likely to gain acceptance than that of NAWAC. Seems to me that that approach has not worked for the last half century. Why not something more aggressive? Why the personal affront? Seems more than a simple disagreement with methods, but rather a personal issue with NAWAC or certain individuals therein. 

 

Bottom line is that, whilst NAWAC have the continued consent of the landowner, it is nobody's business what they get up to. 

[ohiobill]

It's everybody's business as long as they continue to post about the 10+ years ongoing investigation on a 10 acre property with no proof (photo, video, DNA etc) whether it is posted here, on Facebook, or even on their website. How long would it take you to professionally investigate a 10 acre property for evidence of a troop of wood apes? How many clients would continue to pay you after 10 years of searching their 660'x660' property with no definitive results? You do this professionally correct?

[Wingman1]

It does appear that at least two Drug Cartels operate in Oklahoma. The Federation and Juarez cartels, according to a Justice Department report

One cartel was using an Oklahoma Horse Ranch as a front for it's money laundering. The cartels have been setting up shop in some National

Forests so if you are hiking in the forest and come across an area that has some nice neat rows of cannabis planted, I would turn and run for your

life. So I don't think it is too much of a stretch that they would hidden somewhere in Oklahoma's forests. Though the idea of them acting like a BF

to scare off intruders is giving them too much credit! Round up 20 of them and ask if they know what a BF is and I bet you will get "No Se'" from all

of them. No Se' is slang for "Don't Know" I really don't think they are that creative! Is what it comes down to is it Possible?  I suppose it might be, or

is it probable? not in our lifetime would be my answer! The cartels have come up with some very ingenious methods for hiding and protecting their

operation, but posing as BF's or are doing something that would make a local person say "Holy crap, that is a BF" is above their intellectual level.

They will have lookouts, guards, and growers and would be at least smart enough to know that mimicking BF activity would probably bring more

people out to investigate! "No Bueno". Most of them are more than likely just enforcers, traffickers, sellers and such are hardened criminals with

not much more than a 5th grade education. In all seriousness folks please don't go wandering around out the woods too far and mistakenly walk

into one of their areas, you will become a statistic very quickly

[Wingman1]

Maybe it's me, but I think that if NAWAC were a little more open about what they have found in Area X I think most folks here would see them in a different light.

I personally don't like they way they operate with cute little operation names, long drawn out statements of their purpose and methodology, and from some of the

pictures that I have seem of them, it's looks like they try to emulate Navy Seals prepping for a an OP downrange. Now don't get me wrong as I see that as kind

of cool, well sort of. I do not wish them any ill will and I bid them a safe journey, I just want to see them held to the same standards the rest of us are. Their past work,

reputation, and research along with the many skilled members in their group should be noted, but not revered to the point that they are above reproach! To a certain

extent their work should be doubly scrutinized, but I would have to say not by the hardcore skeptics. Now all of you skeptics calm down now, I am not cutting you out

at all, it is just that there should a recognized process for evaluating evidence by the pro BF community to determine if the evidence merits further investigation. If

it does then this is where you folks come in and have at it! Work it over it, pick it apart and then what is leftover can then be researched further and then everyone involved

might just be the ones lucky enough to break this thing wide open (Skeptics and believers working together, Who'd of thunk it!!!!.) I know it is probably not my place to ask

but if you would grant me one favor my skeptical friends, try to play nice even if you have to bite your tongues - and that goes for the Pro BF community too! Constructive

criticism and fault finding is paramount for success. Anything less and you become part of the problem and not the solution. If we cannot come together on this, the battle is ultimately lost. This environment of arguing back and forth, mutual distrust, and downright in-fighting is one of the main reasons the scientific community laughs at us and will

not work with with us. A functional, cohesive unit of believers and skeptics is needed to crack this case. I realize that this will not happen overnight, nothing of this magnitude

ever does but if we keep stacking the building blocks and not knocking them down it will never happen! When a person wakes up in the morning and says I can't - They won't

but if that person says I Can - They will. There are a ton of very intelligent people contributing to this forum and would be a **** shame if that went to waste! So what do you say

folks!

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I say it's possible, but in real life science requires evidence. Whether the BF community is at odds or at peace with skeptics has little bearing on the interest science takes in the subject.

 

It would be nice, though. +1.

[Yuchi1]

So if I read this correctly...you may have been involved/invested in the TBRC or an affiliate at some point and resent the split which formed NAWAC. Your key gripe is that you prefer a passive approach to research rather than shooting one. Could I ask what evidence your approach has brought or is bringing to the table? Is it any more or less likely to gain acceptance than that of NAWAC. Seems to me that that approach has not worked for the last half century. Why not something more aggressive? Why the personal affront? Seems more than a simple disagreement with methods, but rather a personal issue with NAWAC or certain individuals therein. 

 

Bottom line is that, whilst NAWAC have the continued consent of the landowner, it is nobody's business what they get up to. 

 

I have never been involved/invested with TBRC and aside from a lunch meeting with Dr. Higgins ~8 years ago, have had no interaction with the principals.

 

If, you examine many of my original posts on this thread, you'll quickly ascertain that I was questioning the actual basis of NAWAC's mission statement.  The claim(s) that UHS/Sasquatch were on the verge of extinction and that habitat loss was the proximate cause were challenged via a request for substantiation thereof.  Those requests have yet to be legitimately answered.

 

Given the proximity of NAWAC's operational base to the lease and with the actions of the participants in the aforementioned Echo Incident, IMO, any reasonable person would be justified in giving pause to safety concerns for adjoing property owners/occupants.  To wit, the effective lethal range of a 12 gauge shotgun slug (a .720 bore projectile) approaches almost one (1) mile.

 

Further, given my knowledge of two (2) individuals (one of whom I have personally known for 19 years) who had UHS/Sasquatch/Wood Ape(s) in their rifle scopes for hundreds of yards and/or extended time periods, and who did not/would not pull the trigger, for the identical reason(s) in that their faces looked too human, leads me to the conclusion (based upon their published dialogue) NAWAC is either way more reckless and/or desperate than prudence dictates.

 

Digestion of the above comments should lead a reasonable person to conclude that while I am not predisposed to "shutting" NAWAC down, as it's still somewhat of a free country (here in the USA), that such discretion should in no way preclude the common sense necessary for behaving in a fashion that encompasses basic public safety.  Wouldn't you also agree with this premise?