norseman Posted December 4, 2014 Admin Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 Interesting...... So by observing first the tree is green and reporting that, only to discover later that the core of the tree was rotten? Destroys his credibility with you? Do I have that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Destroys the fact he was adamant in that there could be no other reason for the break. He was unreasonable and unwilling to discuss the possible facts of the case. He took his ball and stormed off the field of play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Interesting...... So by observing first the tree is green and reporting that, only to discover later that the core of the tree was rotten? Destroys his credibility with you? Do I have that right? There was more than that. However it doesn't destroy his credibility, I don't trust the information he is giving anymore. Not that I would think he is lying, I just wouldn't be sure he is relaying it correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 4, 2014 Admin Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 ^^^^^^^ Even after he corrects himself? Wouldn't you rather have someone eat some crow and correct the information presented than to 86 it? I see that as admirable. Destroys the fact he was adamant in that there could be no other reason for the break. He was unreasonable and unwilling to discuss the possible facts of the case. He took his ball and stormed off the field of play. He stated his case why he left, and it's there for everyone to see. Water under the bridge. But he absolutely continued to discuss the case on other venues, which is why we now know the tree was rotten. Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 ^^^^^^^ Even after he corrects himself? Wouldn't you rather have someone eat some crow and correct the information presented than to 86 it? I see that as admirable. Agreed it is admirable, but I don't think his actions at the time were, that's my main problem with what happened. He just threw gas on the fire. What he is doing now is a little to late for me. I have no problem if it is not for others, I understand their position and I am glad NAWAC did not lose all support. I know you and I disagree about this norse, so this is just going to be a dog chasing his own tail and I won't derail your thread further on the subject. It is a personal thing for me and I am not going to try to convince anyone else that they are wrong, because we all arrive at our opinion at different ways. All I can say is I always had respect for you on these issues even though we might disagree, and I don't think any less of you simply because you support Bipto and NAWAC. I have no problem with NAWAC anyway, I'm just not going to listen to Bipto any longer. If someone else wishes to however, that is their prerogative and who am I to say they are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 4, 2014 Admin Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) ^^^^^^^ I respect you as well Rockape;) But I support the pro kill mission where ever it takes root. Boiled down to brass tacks this is the only thing that's gonna vindicate ALL proponents and witnesses no matter their slant on the issues..... But I think Kathy said it best: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Proof will be a body and no we don't have that yet. But from Biptos perspective he reported everything he saw as he saw it. And when it was observed that the tree was indeed rotten he reported that too. But the tree was never proof nor did he ask us to believe it to be. I just wanted everyone on the BFF to know that the tree was indeed rotten in its bole. Edited December 4, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 What happened to the blood sample? If they do not think that not getting the results back after this long is fishy then they need to really get to know the people doing sample analysis for them and then they still should have a member body guard that evidence until it is tested. That kind of evidence is to rare to have leave someone in the team's sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I was wondering the same? Did the samples even get sent to the lab, along with the hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) IMO, where Brown went off reservation is when he left here and spewed such a vitriolic response over on his home field, in the process, burning bridges that only a highly flammable ego could have ignited. In that context, the "explanation" is...a day late, dollar short. Edited December 4, 2014 by Yuchi1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ksu4 Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Agreed. Regardless of the truth of the matter, it came off as fantastical claims being made, and then leaving in a huff when questioned. With the amount of activity being reported, with all evidence being untested and/or missing, it's natural to expect that people will have questions about reported incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Raider Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 I'm curious as in the podcast the presenters alluded to hundreds of footprints and numerous instances of hair smaples being found and also how they had spent thousands of pounds as a group and also thousands of pounds as individuals to support the operations. If they did have hair samples collected, would it not be prudent to get multiple hairs tested for DNA at several different private labs and publish the results? It would cost not an insignificant amount of money, but I'm sure as the members are obviously prepared to spend thousands of dollars as they've stated that would be very worthwhile in that if an unusual result were obtained it could create interest from a potential sponsor or backer generating funds and potentially increase the interest and profile of the organisation I think the 'evidence' that they are overlooking could be used as a means to and end so as to speak, to help attain the final goal. This should not be overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 IMO, where Brown went off reservation is when he left here and spewed such a vitriolic response over on his home field, in the process, burning bridges that only a highly flammable ego could have ignited. In that context, the "explanation" is...a day late, dollar short. Agreed. Regardless of the truth of the matter, it came off as fantastical claims being made, and then leaving in a huff when questioned. With the amount of activity being reported, with all evidence being untested and/or missing, it's natural to expect that people will have questions about reported incidents. ^^ these...... and there was no more questioning than that would've been leveled at anyone else with similar posts on Bips own previous version of this forum. that's what surprised me on this... why not expect to be held to the same standard ? .. or considering the standing rep in this community, perhaps a higher standard would be expected ? IDK, seems odd, but I wish them the best in those efforts anyways. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 7, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted December 7, 2014 What happened to the blood sample? If they do not think that not getting the results back after this long is fishy then they need to really get to know the people doing sample analysis for them and then they still should have a member body guard that evidence until it is tested. That kind of evidence is to rare to have leave someone in the team's sight. IIRC the blood had degraded so much that it was worthless...... I recall some of their sound files were very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted December 7, 2014 Share Posted December 7, 2014 With absolutely no disrespect whatsoever intended for the OP/author, I am having a difficult time in not chalking the entire Area "X" chronology as akin to a lot of wind blowing with no trees bending, much less breaking. "Heart Rot" of the alleged tree would have been immediately discernable by the individual(s) present at this event and a basic component to be reported by any professional/scientific person(s). Apparently, this was missed/omitted for an extended period of time before being brought to public attention. IMO, there could be parallels drawn to this event with the infamous Echo Incident where many people have voiced concerns that PResque statements came out afterwards and received the perception of damage control. Having spent several years hunting/hiking in the vicinity of this "area" w/o observing any UHS evidence whatsoever nor any such by the ODWC LEO, ODWC biologist and USFS LEO (landowner) on the premises as well, it casts the appearance of at the very least, a unprofessional (logistically) operation, especially with items such as the "Krispy Kreme" guy (Youtube video) that got spooked and racked off a clip from his AR platform rifle into the woods. Tends to render the impression these guys are shoot first and then ground-check the results. IMO, at some point, with the dearth of verifiable evidence regarding this operation, reasonable persons are likely going to conclude there actually is no wolf, coming to the village. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 7, 2014 Admin Author Share Posted December 7, 2014 Yuchi, You don't post for quite sometime and then descend on this thread and bring up the echo incident for the umpteenth time........why? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts