Leaderboard

Where have I said my end goal is species recognition? My concern is trigger-happy yahoos (as evidenced by the NAWACkie Wild Bunch) spraying lead all over the place at targets they have yet to positively ID. Now...that's pathetic. IMO, these entities are doing fine by themselves and probably enjoying the entertainment from the Hoss Cartwright types blundering through the mountains and periodically being thrown from their mounts.

Well, no. Fundamental difference is I do not believe Bob Garrett's story, not the campsite, not the supposed conspiracy to shut him down. Therefore, I do not believe anything which is built on any assumption that his story is truthful. You came from law enforcement. Did you assume that one felon vouching for another was telling the truth? I doubt it. I see this as the same. One liar and fraud vouching for the integrity of another or relying on the integrity of another does not count for much. MIB

Fair enough. Sadly there are a lot of couples where one of them has had an encounter and the other refuses to believe it. That cannot be good sign in their relationship.

Squirrels & racoons do too, but they don't seem like apes......

So when someone gets accidentally shot tracking a bear into the brush it's somehow worse in the eyes of the law than if it happened at a ***** range? Not only are you condescending, hypocritical and all the rest? But you don't even make a lick of sense. As I've said in another thread, I'm not a NAWAC spokes person, if you have concerns you can take it up with them. I'm not scared of the dark, being bucked off my horse or being by myself 50 miles from my pickup truck. Something you have no idea about. And I certainly believe in positively ID'ing my target before I pull the trigger. So hopefully now you can stop worrying about me and rest easy.

It's YOU that are doomed to repeat the same grade over and over again. Because you offer NOTHING towards the end goal of species recognition. You just squeak weakly from the sidelines about how unjust or unfair it all is........ And if someone calls you out on your lack of evidence or your sanctimonious rhetoric? You attack their character........ Your pathetic.

Yes, thought about it just the other day when we took my granddaughter to the zoo and saw the Siberian tiger. Almost like around here but with tigers! ;-)

I just want to make it clear that the point of my post was to question Gumshoeye's belief that we can forgive discrepancies in this particular account based on perceived or claimed stressors. I couldn't care less about this particular case or Sasquatch Chronicles in general (I've only listened to the infamous Coonbo beheading episode). My question is more about our general philosophies of belief and how we decide if our burden of proof has been met. If fear/stress/whatever so greatly distorts a witnesses' perception, how can any account be trusted, especially if the reporter claims to have been frightened? Do we pick and choose which details we want to keep, and if so, what criteria to we use to make that decision? Does this apply to all reports, or just the ones we would like to see not debunked?

I think excuses can be made for the discrepancies in their stories. Maybe they were shocked by the encounter and this caused them to forget important details. Not having been through an encounter, i can't describe what it would be like. That being said, there have been many encounters with precise details noted. Again, perhaps Wes & Woody were so shocked or scared, they lost track of location and other relevant details. However, what sticks in my craw is that before these discrepancies were brought to light, they were enjoying the credibility and the fruits of their sighting, through commercial gain. I had never followed their podcast until recently so I started listening to all of the past shows, as well as going back and reading their blog posts. They come across as very knowledgeable in all matters pertaining to Bigfoot. Until recently, they were exceedingly confident in their sighting, as well as the details. They never expressed doubts as to their location or the details of their sighting. Maybe they did or maybe they did not have an encounter. Regardless, they have created a business model around the idea of Bigfoot being a malevolent, if not dangerous creature, and have focused on sightings and reports of this nature. They know that sensationalistic reports are what their audience wants to hear about and this creates a huge conflict of interest for the subject matter as a whole. As we all know, most sightings are fairly mundane in that they involve actions such as crossing a road or picking berries. For every 100 of these benign sightings, there's one with an element of true danger. This constant need to report on exciting events make it very difficult to present an objective and balanced insight on the topic. I can easily see the temptation to add flavor to reports, as well as the financial incentive created by gathering more members and listeners. In my opinion it's not their sighting that is a cause for concern. It's the combination of all the things they do and the financial motivation that fuels it.

I'm a carnivorous omnivore no doubt, but am in no way obligated to kill members of homo to prove it. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=homicide&searchmode=none I think people who want to beat people over the head about taking a voucher specimen should first demonstrate that they can atleast go find one and lay eyes on it with some resemblence of reliability first, or just resign to the fact that a dead one in the hands of science will be as likely as pure chance.

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.

I'd put my money on the non reported sightings as being close to the real deal. t.