bipto
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 73
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
great blog. I could get into a project like that. But I sure as hell wouldn't be using an ax on those big logs. good exercise but really, efficiency has to count for something. Chain saw and/or come-along.
AttorneyTom
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 883
Everyones questions were missed ?! Classic hit and run away from the facts.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Yeah, Deacondark that was great, especially the reporting and photos on Blue Bouncer Mountain trail. Outstanding.
That blog is written by a guy who took it upon himself to volunteer clearing the trail, the worst damage of which was trees blown down by a tornado, but from many years of neglect since 1988 when it was apparently constructed. He said the Forest Service had planned to let that all grow back, so they weren't maintaining it. Yow, what a glutton for punishment. No chain saw!
The TBRC site does score high for the lower '48 in locating next to what is probably about the best you can do in Oklahoma for "remote". We have to be truthful in our own characterizations of it. Google Earth sure keeps everyone honest for many things, but this guy gave us pictures on the ground of before/after on his trail work. Nice picture of a four foot rattlesnake too.
The four-wheeler trails, on the other hand, are well-maintained and practicaly living on one myself that's a no-brainer. He has a picture of a four-wheeler trail too. Nothing stops a four wheeler. We carry chain saws and winches, nice big camp, make multiple trips in a jiffy. This guy was on foot, and on a foot-trail. You can compare the obvious four-wheeler and 4wd truck trails to that feeble foot trail on google earth. Big difference. That area west of the cabin is the remote stuff. To the south gets more traffic, and motorized traffic at that.
But it sounds like there are multiple confirmations including the recording of Brian Brown on Operation Endurance at the TBRC stating they spent most of their time at the cabins. The cabins are their research site. It is the noises they heard outside the cabins at night that form the centerpiece of their bigfoot research. I'm going to review Brown's tape in another post.
I wanted to keep this to remarking that yeah, this place is nice for its remoteness.
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
Way to backup your claims Bipto. I guess you forgot about the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" thing right? What a joke. You can't even live up to your own set standards.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
I just listened to Brian Brown's presentation on Operation Endurance at Area X (Two months starting June 2011). It's on the TBRC website.
Brian's description of the area was a 60,000 tract wrapped inside a 550,000 acre tract of land. The Oachita National Forest is 1.8 million acres, but only 255,000 acres are in Oklahoma. Immediately adjacent to the cabin site we have 7,500 acres in the Beech Creek National Scenic Area. The Cucumber Creek bird preserve to the NW is the most remote land of all, and it is 3,200 acres.
When you go beyond this immediate radius you cross roads and highways in every direction, so what can they mean by these 550,000 acre and 60,000 Acre figures? Using google earth, the approximate plot for 550,000 acres, on a rectangle includes Mena Arkansas, population 20,000.
It appears what they have done is made up their own figure. It doesn't correspond to anything actually designated. It includes so much area it has to be a jerry-mandering of some kind, across both states.
He said that people don't live for 20-30 miles around. Highway 63 is 4 miles north. County Road 260 is 4 miles south. To the East its about 7 miles to Polk 48, and to the west is US 259 at 8 miles. All have homes along them. The closest town by road is less than ten miles (Big Cedar).
Brian received directions to this site himself, and other "researchers" were given those same instructions. On the way, all of them went past people's homes. Owners of rental cabins, retirees, concessionaires, off-grid hippies growing the good bud - within a mile of that cabin. You can see tracts of private property, including logging, within a mile of the site.
A 20 mile radius gets us into 7 different counties in two different states and a 30 mile radius gets us into 11 counties. It's tens of thousands of people. Just compare the internal directions the researchers give to one another to the descriptions given in public to evaluate whether this is a conscious misrepresentation.
The thrust of the research was night-time Sasquatch activity, but not getting out of the cabins. The excuse was the difficulty. We go three months with almost nothing but dark in the winter here. We use headlamps. It isn't any big deal. We mush dogs, drive snowmachines, land our planes, drive our boats, hike, ski, bike - everything.
The equipment list on these expeditions included 3rd generation night vision goggles, top of the line camera traps, thermal imager, high end audio recorder, and who knows what else - but no $5 headlamp and just walking out to look.
Tsk, Tsk Bipto. My four-foot eleven inch Filipina comes down from that tree fort in the dark, while raining, alone, and over half of it without a trail.
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
bipto: Do you have any evidence to support your claims of their being multiple (or single) bigfoots present at the location you've mentioned?
Can you please present any evidence supporting yours and others claims? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you're out there "looking for woodapes" and supposedly have an organized effort to collect evidence or specimen yet after many claimed encounters from multiple members of your "team" no one has offered anything to support these "extraordinary claims"
Hopefully you can understand that. You've made some big ones, lets hear and see any supporting evidence please?
Can you please present any evidence supporting yours and others claims? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you're out there "looking for woodapes" and supposedly have an organized effort to collect evidence or specimen yet after many claimed encounters from multiple members of your "team" no one has offered anything to support these "extraordinary claims"
Hopefully you can understand that. You've made some big ones, lets hear and see any supporting evidence please?
Yes, great blog about real life, and Paco doesn't fear any figboot apparently. I wonder, how a footer's mind would interpret sounds made by someone clearing a trail with an axe ?...Wood knocking maybe?
The BFF folks aren't too fond of that phrase. That line got me called out as a "troll" on BFF 1.0 a few years back. Apparently, just reminding "bleevers" of that concept while they gushed again and again and again about the PGF was considered offensive. Who knew?
APB: Fantastic work on narrowing down the "X" location. Bang up job, that.
Suggestion for Bipto: As is evidenced by the responses on this forum, the "experiences" outlined in your Podcast aren't convincing anyone here that there is, in fact, a "Wood Ape" in OK. I have a possible solution: Bring someone who is not inclined to buy into the Bigfoot myth on one of your next extended duration operations. Let them do the "field ops", scout the locations, and experience your encounters with "Old Gray" and the "bio-luminescent eye-shine." If the experiences are as compelling as is being claimed then this will go a long way to getting more interest in uncovering their source at that site.
How about it?
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
In the TBRC presentation the claim is made that nobody is harder on them than themselves. They did not go to Area X expecting to find bigfoot.
Their evidence was sounds in the night, rocks appearing on a roof after the roof is cleared of rocks, and best of all a piece of firewood they carried in themselves that was found to have been moved, next to a tree. When they knocked that firewood against the tree, it sounded just like the bigfoot knocks. They have a picture of the piece of split wood. One of the juicier comments was that many of the team members felt they were being "toyed with" insofar as the noises.
My wife wants to know why they haul firewood from town into the woods. Seems backwards to her, but there's probably some deep insight we're missing.
edit: thanks Avindair, remirol and everyone else. Raining a lot right now so this is easier than being out in the elements.
Last edited:
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
tube
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 917
1. I doubt that anyone associated with the TBRC will ever publicly confirm whether or not the location(s) being proposed here are correct.
2. If the location is confirmed by other means then the Bigfooters still have an "out" as they always do, which is "the wood-apes were here, but now they're gone, gosh darn it."
3. Being a "knower" in Bigfootery is really nothing special. Consider that the world is full of people who "know" that we all have auras.
4. Being a "knower" is to have a Giant Magic Wand which is able to brush aside all skeptical criticism.
5. The lack of physical evidence for extraordinary claims means nothing when a "knower" retroactively defines their quest as a personal one; "I've always been interested in Bigfoot, and now I KNOW the truth."
6. If there was substantive evidence, like a carcass or even clear, unambiguous photos or video, I think we would hear about it. Numerous Bigfooters have been very public about making skeptics "eat crow" when solid physical evidence is produced. If that's the case, and there is no physical evidence, then this is simply another "habituation" scenario, this time including individuals with social status in the subculture. In 5 years this will all be forgotten, or perhaps the mysterious details will be available to "premium" members in a mystery-cult forum somewhere.
2. If the location is confirmed by other means then the Bigfooters still have an "out" as they always do, which is "the wood-apes were here, but now they're gone, gosh darn it."
3. Being a "knower" in Bigfootery is really nothing special. Consider that the world is full of people who "know" that we all have auras.
4. Being a "knower" is to have a Giant Magic Wand which is able to brush aside all skeptical criticism.
5. The lack of physical evidence for extraordinary claims means nothing when a "knower" retroactively defines their quest as a personal one; "I've always been interested in Bigfoot, and now I KNOW the truth."
6. If there was substantive evidence, like a carcass or even clear, unambiguous photos or video, I think we would hear about it. Numerous Bigfooters have been very public about making skeptics "eat crow" when solid physical evidence is produced. If that's the case, and there is no physical evidence, then this is simply another "habituation" scenario, this time including individuals with social status in the subculture. In 5 years this will all be forgotten, or perhaps the mysterious details will be available to "premium" members in a mystery-cult forum somewhere.
LOL.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
So, do dogs cower in fear at these cabins? How about horses?
bipto
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 73
I haven't missed any questions. Why in the world would I answer them here? Over at the BFF, I've answered each and every one put to me because they were done so with the barest modicum of civilization I require for an exchange.
From what I can tell, members of this community think I'm either lying, hoaxing, being hoaxed, prone to hysterics, afraid of the dark, or just plain stupid. The other members of my organization are the same but also include trigger-happy rednecks. Honestly, would any of you wade into such a "discussion" were you in my place?
I am actually very happy to answer questions and am also willing to admit when I don't have an answer or are unable to answer. But you don't want my answers. You want me and my friends to be your pinatas. You want to construe my words to fit your perceived notions. Fine. Go ahead. Enjoy yourselves.
So now, I'm going to leave this conversation and not come back (at least not for a while - maybe never). You will likely attribute that to me cowering from your rapier-like skills of logic and deduction. In reality, it's to stay away from some of the most unpleasant people I've had the misfortune to interact with on the internet. If you want to ask me questions, please feel free to do so over on the BFF.
Cheers.
For someone claiming solid evidence for a highly-disputed crytpo-creature, this is a very odd post. You'd think he/she'd want to rub noses in it, not run away.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Bipto,
I would definitely be interested in hearing the answers to the questions that have been put to you. And as far as being the thread's pinata, I will give you my personal assurance that that won't happen (and, as a moderator, I have the power to make sure it doesn't.)
I do hope you'll come back and give discussion a fair shot here. And, to the rest of you, if he does come back, you can rest assured that the civility rules in any discussions will be strictly enforced.
So, bipto, what do you say?
I would definitely be interested in hearing the answers to the questions that have been put to you. And as far as being the thread's pinata, I will give you my personal assurance that that won't happen (and, as a moderator, I have the power to make sure it doesn't.)
I do hope you'll come back and give discussion a fair shot here. And, to the rest of you, if he does come back, you can rest assured that the civility rules in any discussions will be strictly enforced.
So, bipto, what do you say?
- Status