Leaderboard

Oh jeeeeez..........

Where to begin...... 1) From day one you have attacked the NAWAC, Project Grendel and the pro kill stance in general. And while you were not able to dig up any dirt on me, you and I traded barbs in my Kill Club thread quite a while ago philosophically. But for the NAWAC this isn't true...... You have done your best to undermine public opinion against the NAWAC! 2) Specifically? Area X ! You openly admit you do not know where area X is.....but you SUGGEST it's Mr. Branson's 10 acre plot. That's simply slanderous....... 3) The Echo incident. STOP! You feel pro kill proponents are bad people, bad people shouldn't carry guns.......fine! That's your opinion! The bill of rights disagrees with you! Get over it!!!!!! It is not illegal for me to carry a gun in the woods because I believe in Bigfoot, Zombies or the Mothman. 4) Pro kill proponents are in it for the money? What money? You would be better off taking your money and playing powerball! 5) There are no squatches in area X? Again you have no idea where area X is! Do you deny that reports come from this region of Oklahoma? 6) What about you? What did the tribal leaders teach you about them that made you shuck your evil ways?

@ Inc, as far as what it has produced "it's called discussion" which is why I thought a forum like this exists. I do believe the people who frequent this forum come here to "discuss" what they've experienced. Ask questions, compare notes, what they've experienced, etc. Seriously, if any of us had hard core, set in stone evidence and the mystery was solved then we would be discussing what "is known as fact" until then this is all we have "discussion of what we have experienced" . Hypothetical as it all may be, it's still discussion.

gun safety should always be a concern....firearms handling 101 and basic knowledge among most credible outdoorsmen / hunters , or should be. fwiw, that " willing to face the music" stance might vary depending on which end of the weapon you're standing on.

the discussion about X would get very real should one of those researchers poor gun handling practices result in a bipedal non-BF death. explain that one to a judge. considering how much negative publicity firearms / shooting gets these days it is our duty , imo, to promote safety first and discourage any risky behavior involving guns. no BF is worth accidently capping a neighbor, regardless of how much of a hot spot a property may be.

@ nod, dis·cus·sionnoun \di-ˈskə-shən\ : the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something : a speech or piece of writing that gives information, ideas, opinions, etc., about something Each has their own "perception" interpreting how things are "discussed". It's your opinion on how you want to interpret the discussions. Everyone's beliefs are different and if they don't jive with yours...oh well. No one has the right to "police" someone else's thoughts on what they do or don't believe. No one is obligated to incorporate someone else's advice if they don't desire to, it doesn't make it right or wrong it's just a differing of opinion.

That is a well illustrated point Doc! and couldn't agree more. Firearm safety should always be the first concern when you you first pick up the weapon in any situation ---- + 1

Nod4eight. I was/am in a similar situation and I did collect "physical" evidence. If you have audio it is not good enough, if you have tracks it is not good enough. I have even been told that these things are not even evidence. The fact is when dealing with sasquatch the bar of evidence has been set straight to proof , a body. I found footprints, got good pictures of the prints with a good scale for measurement. got a cast of one of them.

Points concerning gun safety are axiomatic to me...a gun owner and shooter for 45 years. My point is that it is hardly our business to police adults from our armchairs and does nothing to further the real discussion of evidence in X.

All I am saying is that he better be careful what he shows me!

Yuchi1, just wish to throw out a little encouragement. You, my friend, have come a far piece in my estimation. You're providing local perspective that's tough to come by, otherwise. Thank you.

Am not sure what these precautions you're referring to as the publicly available reports/videos show (IMO) an apparent total lack of regard for basic firearm protocols. Based upon this (public) evidence, it isn't a leap in logic to conclude a homo sapien (or, bear(s)) may well be shot before any UHS/Sasquatch. Back in the early days of my experiences with this endeavor, similar wild-eyed type behavior was observed with people in the forest, carrying firearms, having a heightened level of (self-induced) anxiety and seeing things (i.e., "boogers") that were not there, in the form they so imagined.

To answer the original question: No, not seriously. Still awaiting some credible evidence of "urban bigfoot." This does not include purported, linked, yet not produced "casino dumpster diving bigfoot." Reports? Sure. One can produce "reports" of urban reptillians, unicorns, and mermaids. Really? Reports are not proof. The OP has mentioned purported audio encounters from a year ago, maybe he found suspect footprints, but what else? A "pinned" thread, and what has it produced? Rampant speculation, check. Facts, or even worthy evidence? Eh.