Leaderboard

I do not create physical reality, in this case, it has a name called geography. Geography seems to be the component lacking in their account and is all that I have had issues with in their story. It is out there for all to see including the people that told the story in the first place. When they opened their mouth in a public forum, one would hope that they knew what they are talking about. For a story teller that is into entertainment, it makes little difference if their story matches the physical location. But when someone chooses to do that for whatever reason, we have every right to question all of it's content. How much happened, and how much is just a story? A couple of frequent skeptics here have called me a liar and a hoaxer and I do not recall you leaping to my defense.

If I had to choose just 1 of my rifles for self defense in the woods it would be my 450 marlin Not only is the winchester model 94 reliable and easy to shoulder, but I also love the ghost ring sight on it. My second choice would be my 338 winmag, however the 24 inch barrel and scope make it less than ideal for up close and personal ranges

No, it's mostly open pasture land with a few small clumps of woods & thickets scattered around. We have some cattle & a few horses & one neighbor has cattle, but that's all that could be called farms. They definitely don't live on this place, & all that noise was recorded when they were passing through & stopping by to do whatever they do out there.

So we are saying that it's okay to hoax and lie? We turn the other cheek and pretend it never happened? This isn't what we do. We pressurise guys like Dyer and Standing and push them out of the world of BF where they cannot continue to cause harm. It's clear some are having great difficulty in digesting the very clear case being made against these guys, but as unpalatable as it may be for some, it will be very difficult for the Sas Chronicles guys to survive this. Let's be thankful to the sharp minds who can cut through the BF BS.

Haha i'm with you BigTree.. Incredible country..

Bowcat, both MagniAesir and I hunt in British Columbia, Canada, he for more than 30 years, and I for more than 50. Black bears and cougars are common throughout the province, and grizzlies in most of it, especially where we hunt moose and elk, and more recently, they've moved into our local deer hunting areas, within 50 miles of our homes. Though neither of us has trophy hunted the carnivores, I have meat hunted blacks, and had to take down a charging grizz on one occasion. I was using the ubiquitous 30-06 at the time, and though it took more than 1 shot, that bear is now a beautiful rug, and I'm still here to tell you about it. BTW, both of us have at least a decade of bow hunting experience, as well. Two close friends have also taken grizzly under similar circumstances over the years, and both were downed with one shot, using a .270, and a wildcat 7mm-308, so I think that MagniAesir's statement that that magnums, or 'elephant guns" are not necessary to take the type specimen can stand, from my perspective of experience with large, dangerous game.

Forgot one, Okanogan National Forest 1,499,013 acres. For a total of over 16,000 sq. miles.

Besides the ones mentioned above by BobbyO, here are the rest of the Washington State national forests. Gifford Pinchot National Forest 1,312,000 acres. Colville National Forest 1,100,000 acres. Wenatchee National Forest 2,200,0000 acres. Umatilla National Forest 1,400,000 acres. Needle in the haystack indeed!

Everyone has the right to make their own decision about whether or not someone else is telling the truth. That decision, however -- especially if the decision is that someone was not telling the truth -- should remain private. Why does anybody else need to know whether you trust someone else or not? Only you need to know that. By expressing your opinion that someone is not telling the truth (and that's all it is, an opinion -- you weren't there, so you can't know what really happened), you're harming that person's reputation and exposing them to attack. Is it fair to do that, when the facts can't be known? What if you're wrong? How do you undo the damage you will have been party to, by publicizing your "doubts" about someone's integrity? "Oops, sorry old man. Sorry about the loss of family; of income; of reputation. No hard feelings, right?" That apology wouldn't work for me, and I doubt it would work for anyone else, either.

When your dog comes in smelling like dead fish, tosses a rock on your roof, & makes that howl that I posted, let me know & I'll totally reconsider what could have been in my yard. Of course, I would have to disregard the later Class A encounters...... And the fact that bigfoot is common to my area.

It doesn’t require one be a conspiracy theorist to be certain that this creature’s existence is known, to some degree, across a broad swath of state and federal agencies whose purview encompasses any aspect of wildlife and/or land management. Since the ending decades of the nineteenth century there have been ever increasing numbers of government employees, tens if not hundreds of thousands, whose job descriptions include spending a great deal of time in the outdoors and being observant. If even a small percentage of these folks have had an encounter it still amounts to a substantial number, many who have climbed the ladder to the upper echelons of their respective agencies, bureaus, departments, etc. For my money, it requires a much larger suspension of belief to think they don’t know than to acknowledge that they must. That being said, to my mind the primary responsibility rests with the government(s) to publically disclose that we have a large, powerful, intelligent and, sometimes dangerous and aggressive population of primates with a range covering much of the wild and not so wild areas of the continent. The buck may stop there, but it passes through a lot of other hands on the way. On one side of this particular debate, we have folks like Norse, who has always been forthright in his opinion on the issue and never shown himself to be anything but a true gentleman in my association with him. There is the N.A.W.A.C. that has dedicated several years, thousands of man hours and a lot of their own financial resources in achieving their stated goal of collecting a type specimen. There are also numerous other organized groups engaged in collecting sufficient evidence to prove existence short of collecting a type specimen, i.e. B.F.R.O. and smaller regional groups. Many individuals or small groups also seek evidence, not always with the goal of proving existence and not always willing to share what they have. Within this latter group I would include those such as Branco mentioned with legitimate habituation situations but who have satisfied their own curiosity and aren’t concerned with sharing . Human curiosity being what it is, someone is going to prove that Sasquatch exist sooner or later, one way or the other. Maybe, if some of the folks who have established close rapport with local clans organize to collect and share their best evidence with academia and the public, they may generate sufficient interest to prompt scientific investigation without a type specimen. That is of course assuming that the people involved are willing to obtain DNA samples along with clear, unambiguous photographic and video evidence of the source of the samples, i.e. video of subject eating apple and discarding core, then sample being obtained from core. Much time and thought has gone into painting bleak scenarios for Norse’ future should he be successful in his goal, subtly and not so subtly slighting his prowess as an outdoorsman and hunter and, most egregious, hinting that he and others sharing the same philosophy are little more than blood thirsty seekers of fame and fortune. I believe each of you is sincere in the desire to avoid deliberately taking the life of a Sasquatch in order to prove their existence. Would it not be more productive therefore to channel your efforts towards the kind of organized cooperation I’ve outlined above? It would take someone like Branco, who has earned widespread respect and credibility in the community and has the connections he mentioned, to spearhead the program. I suspect that Norse and others with his outlook would respect such a positive effort whether or not they were sanguine about its success.

You seem to live in the land of la la a lot. An 8 ft tall hairy creature that lives in the wild will never be classified as us. Patty exhibits morphology different from our own. How the foot has a mid tarsal break, how the knee rotates while walking and the limb proportions that are all wrong for human. Add to that they use no tools or fire and can live in cold that would kill any human? They are not us........... So it's not murder, but I could be charged with some form of poaching from Fish and Game. But being that it is a type specimen I doubt it. And I could bring charges back against the dept. for dereliction of duty of not telling the public that a large ape man prowled the woods.

That's just a tad melodramatic (hyperbolic, even), no? I especially liked the bit about the suicidal bigfoot hunter. Classy touch!