Leaderboard

I have to take some small issue w/the title of the OP. Standing was exposed a long time ago due, in part, to the very fine efforts of several Forum members w/skills in computers, photography, and other specialized areas. Perhaps the question is whether Standing has finally given up all hope of continuing his hoaxes unchecked.

Archer, quit while you're behind. Doubt you can.

I'm telling you to stop hijacking this thread!!! If you want to talk about the merits of the Nemo Omen and stay on topic awesome! Here I'll help..... https://nemoarms.com Discuss!

DWA, Its been awhile since I addressed this but, what your saying is true in the natural course of science. A new form of shrew or chickadee is no big deal, and a couple of biologists making a sighting report would probably be enough to get the ball rolling. Sasquatch? Not so much. For one, people hoax things concerning Squatch, no one hoaxes Shrews. So scientists being scientists are scared to throw their hat in the ring. Scientists are not Astronauts, they dont like taken chances especially ones with long odds. So for two? Yah odds...... I think they are getting better every day, but not good enough for most scientists. We have no fossil evidence of a Ape of any ilk besides us residing in North America ever. If we found fossils especially recent ones along the lines of the hobbit? Then I think the shift starts to take place......

I highly suggest you take your plan and open a new thread so the public can critique it or cheer or jeer or whatever. This topic is about posting guns that tickle ones fancy. Got a picture of your Nemo Omen? Post it!

Archetypes exist for reasons. Some of them are external.

Honestly, hiflier, you have no appreciation for the situation. I know you have a world view regarding bigfoot, but it does not coincide with my experience. They are opportunistic and very definitely meat eating omnivores. Pets tend to disappear when they are around and kids disappeared annually in that area as well. In the encounter I referenced above, my friend Dave was within arm's reach of it. When it emerged from the wash my brother and I were ready to run, but Dave was rooted to the ground gaping at it. He wasn't going anywhere, and I wasn't going to take off and abandon him to whatever the thing intended. So I settled my stance in what was initially a stand-off. We were spread out enough that it couldn't go for two of us at the same time. I don't know what it's intentions were, but there was a palpable detent after about 30 seconds. Then it left.

In my misspent youth, I was paid to go to remote areas, located a point where I could observe comings and goings along an anticipated line of approach. You'll see some folks pretty relaxed, thinking about something else, more or less care free - and they maintain a relaxed, almost careless body posture and walk. Then, you'd see others who concentrated a whole lot more on their surroundings, their heads on swivels, a faster or even a much slower pace, a more purposeful method of walking, and their body language told you quickly - they were trouble. Which made you pay even MORE attention to what they were wearing, what side they were favoring, what they were carrying, and what lumps you couldn't readily identify. Same thing in the forest. You see someone peering, taking a few steps, looking around some more, stepping carefully around sticks and vines, you can tell in an instant that he's not just taking a casual walkabout. Mannerisms, body language, posture, details of his tracking across the terrain, head and eyes always moving - all indicate he's hunting something. It's no mean feat for these same critters to observe humans, take note of their behavior in the same manner I did, and decide whether this one is "trouble," or not. I'd suggest that they'd likely try to avoid detection from folks with an uneasy manner, while maintaining an eye on them. After all, if anyone comes to the conclusion that this person may be "trouble," you don't want to lose sight of him and possibly be surprised. On the other hand, someone that's casually walking or casually sitting around their camp, are relaxed and seemingly unaware of what's going on around them, especially if they have nothing in their hands that may be a weapon - they're not a bother. For both types, they'll generate curiosity. They're visitors, after all. And for those casual, non-threatening folks, it's really not a big deal if they hear or see you or not.

Going back to the OP, the original question was "Are Bigfoot animals, like any other animal, including humans?" But the discussion indicates that it also matters whether or not Bigfoot are intelligent, and beyond that, whether or not Bigfoot are "human", with respect to their ability to think, reason, develop a strategy, and then "choose" to do one thing or another. From personal experience, they behave more like people than animals. And having looked one in the eyes for 45 seconds as we each waited to see what the other was going to do, I can tell you that I did not perceive it to be any less intelligent than human, and that I believed it to be human, though freakish in aspect (I had never heard of bigfoot prior to the encounter). I can also tell you that they do very much appear to think, reason, strategize, and choose their actions. Our behavior, with respect to sheltering in caves, or surreptitiously scratching our posterior when no one is looking, is situational, because we think, reason, strategize, and choose what to do and when to do it. We do something because it is advantageous under a given set of circumstances, and may not do it under another set of circumstances. As someone earlier stated, they may do one thing one time and another under a different set of circumstances. Their behavior is situational, and this aspect of their behavior should not be taken lightly. What other creature in the world manages to consistently befuddle us and get the better of us? This is because they modify their behavior in accordance to ours and in response to the relative levels of risk and threat. Where they do correspond to animals more generally, is that they are predators, but so are we. And if you think about it, a human that exhibited the same lurking behaviors that they do would be considered a threat. They are, in a very real sense, boogey men - boogers, as some call them. If they weren't so human, not just in aspect, but in behavior, they wouldn't creep us out so much.

It has been noted many times on these pages, by me and others, that in order for BF to survive the rise of H. sapiens, it had to evolve better strategies to meet the threat. We excel at killing stuff not "us." If BF did not adapt to use weapons as we did (and obviously they did not...why? Good question) they only had two choices: Go extinct or go covert. They obviously adapted and survived. Only a genetic predisposition to be furtive around humans would have allowed them to survive as long as they have. Presuming their existence, this observation seems irrefutable.

Energy is not a reliable indicator of lethality when it comes to game As far as a dangerous game stopping rifle, I have never heard of a single guide or professional hunter use a semi-auto The reasons are simple, they are not 100% reliable and they are heavier and more unwieldy then other rifles If you have hunted grizzlies then you know that the guides tell you to shoot just under the hump (side angle shot) Why do they say this Because they want the shot to break both shoulder bones and disable the bear As far as the 45/70 goes, you can shoot traditional ammo that was loaded for trapdoor Springfields and the like or You can shoot factory loaded ammo designed for modern rifles like the guide gun, that puts the cartridge into a totally different category or If you have a Ruger #1 then you can really crank it up Many Alaskan guides carry 45/70 guide guns as there stopping rifle, many others use bolt actions from 30/06 and up Never heard of one packing a semi-auto Never hear a guide or professional hunter advocate the spray and pray as a method for stopping dangerous game either

With dangerous game? They talk miliseconds and mere feet and not seconds nor yards. Your missing the whole point of a dangerous game rifle. One shot is all thats required to stop a determined charge by a dangerous animal. Because one shot is probably all your gonna get. And while the 45 70 is old and many loads are trapdoor safe loads? The modern ammo loaded + P? Rivals energy levels put out by the 338 except twice the size of the projectile. The crux of my touchiness is that your argument that a 338 is a better dangerous game cartridge is false. And I dont want anyone reading this to get the wrong idea. There are plenty of things a 338 does better, its faster, flatter shooting, better bullet coefficiency, it kills better at range. Im still not trailing a wounded grizzly bear into the brush with it if I have a guide gun handy, and that would be most anyones opinion in the sport. Lastly I really do want to know what semi auto 338 rifle you are talking about thats gonna put 14 shots on target in four seconds.

While I understand why you feel that way, I hold out hope that the creature will indeed eventually be discovered. However, I doubt that grandiose claims by OS and those like him will facilitate that event. There are just too many reasonable sounding accounts out there from people with no reason to exaggerate. They have too much to lose, like their social standings, credibility, and employment. Actually, it's the claims made by those that embellish that make it difficult for people such as those to come forward. There's been a stigma placed on the phenomenon by those making outlandish claims as fact. Nobody wants to be associated with a topic that's ladened with such claims.

Personally, I'm shocked that SO was able to pull the following he did for so long. The latest twist in this saga is just par for the course as far as I'm concerned. The "evidence," photos of fish eyes, the calling of his name on audio (which sounded like a teenage boy burping, IMO), and the claims of the Mighty Squatch shattering lake ice with its mighty roar all led me to believe that this guy was out there a bit... well, a lot, actually. Again, my humble opinion. The problem with hitching your wagon to a horse like this is that you have to put faith in their claims without ever seeing any substantiation whatsoever. Evidence should have been simple enough to obtain, especially if the guy was on a first name basis with the beast. A GoPro cam present at the next round of tic-tac toe would have sufficed, along with the hair samples that would inevitably fall from the creature. After all, the things were abundantly available, allegedly. It was a nice fantasy for the guy while it lasted, but, like with the other claims made regarding the creature, the storyline fails when evidence is required. Let's face it - If a girlfriend can shatter the fantastical claims made by this guy there was never anything really there to begin with. Scientific discovery of Bigfoot should have been a piece of cake if his claims were accurate.