Leaderboard

Hello All, I have to be honest with everyone. If hunting Forums took this subject seriously that's where I would be- right now. All I've really ever wanted to discuss is Sasquatch the Animal; as in being just like any OTHER animal, Human or not. I don't need to know anymore if it's part Human, part Ape, neither, or both. Most if not all of my history has revolved around the physical aspects of Bigfoot. I've discussed methods of finding it- dead or alive should such a creature exist. And brought up situations in which to search, where and why such situations could result in success. But it all has hinged on Sasquatch being no more of an animal than we Humans, or a Moose, or a bear, or an ape. There have been numerous qualities and abilities given this creature that are beyond animal. But one has to begin somewhere and so the basics are that it is a physical creature that has the advantages of having hominid characteristics like hands, thumbs, etc. and the only thing IMO that gives it a physical advantage is it's size. This seems pretty basic but IMO it IS basic. Give me just the animal only as an animal to discuss. I'll take any science that comes out as long as it's good science. But other than the animal and any science involving the possibility of such a creature I really have no interest in much of anything else and never really had much interest beyond the Sasquatch as the Animal. And as I said, and I'm sorry to say it, if hunting Forums took this subject seriously I'd be long gone on them, and maybe not even here at all.

Thanks FanArcher, and from reading your post, many thanks for defending our Country!! This may sound silly, but it works for me, and has saved my rear several times......and of course, talking about counter-moves on animals, not humans:) As a child, I wasn't the biggest, but all the kids feared my rock throwing ability......left or right handed, doesn't matter........I could put several smaller rocks in hand, and machine-gun them out rapid fire, still can. When hiking, I always keep a fist sized rock in my hand, and shaped so that I can get a good 2-fingered grip on it for power. At the snap of a twig, sound, or peripheral sight flash ......you can send that rock on it's way faster than any weapon I know of, and can cause your agitator to pause long enough to deploy something more substantial. If you hit the critter, they will often run, but just getting the rock to hit near them works pretty good too.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/great_cartridge_families.htm

The .338 Win mag is based on a necked down .375 H&H mag case. The .458 is also based on the .375 H&H mag case, just renecked for the bigger pill. I also am curious about the identity of the rifle you are describing to fire the .338 Win mag. This interests me greatly, so I look forward to your response.

I'll apologize upfront, I do not know how to properly quote bits and pieces of a post so I did the best I could to make it clear. Likelihood and education. What if that same neighbor took a trip to Yuma, AZ, and told you that a moose crossed on the highway in front of him as he drove south toward San Luis Rio Colorado? Or if he had seen an alligator cross the road in front of him in Maine? I suspect you would either disbelieve him, or you'd think that they were animals brought there and released/escaped. Somewhat different situation, BF are reported to be in all parts of the contiguous United State and Canada. Moose are not. With sasquatch, we know that bipedal apes or primitive hominids existed in Earth's past, and as recently as 24,000 years ago (and, in the case of Homo floresiensis, even much more recently). Why not now (for the last of the dying population) or in the most recent past? Bipedal apes, and hominids in the past are in no way proof or evidence that something as such may exist today. For myself, if nothing else, the fact that most evidence for a bipedal primate that could have been in NA, AKA, Giganto @ 100,000 years ago works against this idea. Why such a gap in the "records" Homo floresiensis is believed to be smaller than modern man, proof that a hominid can be smaller than modern man is not evidence or proof that one currently exist that is 50% larger, only that variance is possible, not guaranteed. How long for each search? (wildlife managers call those hunter-days) How many animals are available to discover? (Nobody knows). Were searches conducted when they hibernated? (Nobody knows). A scientific search does not have to be looking for BF to find proof, so overall, there have been NUMEROUS searches that could have turned up evidence of a BF. Settlers came to this land and settled it and never came up with proof of a massive bipedal ape, but we found, beaver, fox, coyote, woodchucks etc. We do not have to "search" for something to find it. If it is out there it usually "pops" up eventually. If we are to accept "anecdotal" evidence for this creature we cannot cherry pick it, therefore, if reports show it exists in the contiguous US, given the animal observations and research done we should have....something..... Indeed, nobody even knows the answers to the above questions I posed because the entire effort has been relegated to amateurs, no comprehensive database has been compiled on either testimony and reports, but even of search effort/search locations/ etc. The appropriate people aren't in the game. Period. My take is the search has not been left up to amateurs. A researcher in the woods, who is set up to photograph and record observations of a Ivory billed Woodpecker (thought extinct), a wolverine (around 300 known in the lower 48), or a Grizzly Bear (around 1500 known in the lower 48) would or could observe a BF in similar habitat. Just because you look for one animal does not make you blind to others around you. I would think if a scientist had irrefutable evidence of a bipedal primate they would come forward. Ridicule or not, HD proof would stand on its own.

What a joke! Cebidae and Atelidae are each families of New World monkeys. She just combined the two to come up with a 'new' name for a species and added the fictitious texicanus and nerteros pacificus, etc. to sound scientific. The whole story echoes what is written elsewhere about New World monkeys and uses a real historical person for the author.

We might have proof of intelligent life here not long after that. I know, don't hold your breath, but it COULD happen, at least it's mathematically possible. MIB