Leaderboard

Alberta actually just brought it back a couple days ago... sort of... after an 18 year hiatus. https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-grizzly-bear-hunt-to-resume These siblings were on my road, a mile or two from home, a couple weeks ago. They're sometimes around, and I've seen some sign, but this is the first time I've actually ever seen them in this area.

Rifle + 10mm. https://www.outkick.com/culture/bear-hunting-story-update Hunter Tyce Erickson has the story of a lifetime after recently taking down a Kodiak bear. Erickson went viral over the weekend after several social media accounts shared a photo of the massive bear he took down in Alaska. Naturally, I had to dive into the details. Erickson revealed in a podcast that they were tracking the wounded bear that he had shot with a rifle when it charged him and his guide. Upon being charged, the guide fired two shots from his rifle - at least one hit - but the bear wasn't down.....

What helped Patterson's claim exponentially was what came back inside of that overdue rental camera, along with: * Gimlin's story * Footprint casts, both feet * Footprint photos, from said overdue rental camera as well as Laverty's camera snapped three days later in the presence of a forest cruiser crew * Yet more casts taken by Titmus several days later * A previous 12 years of reported sightings and footprint finds in the area from at least a dozen different people You are correct: Patterson (alone) was not *believable* because he could be easily discredited by the lawyer mentality. Doubt in his word could be easily instilled, a tactic so easily done to almost anybody that it is done everyday in courtrooms worldwide to everybody so unfortunate to find themselves there. Conversely, it would be impossible to tally up all the people executed worldwide solely based on the testimony of others. Testimony is critical evidence, as weak as it ultimately is. Its value lies not in proving anything, but in laying the foundation to obtain proof or support other evidence. Patterson and Gimlin were there at Bluff Creek precisely because of previous testimony. I review BFROs newly published reports every month or so. All are essentially testimony. Most I dismiss entirely. A few times per year I find real gems there. Frankly, they tend to be better because of the depth of the investigation and subsequent reporting. I tend to *believe* some, even not knowing the witnesses at all. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=76973

Your comparing a very compelling film that has real data points in the film that can be scientifically scrutinized. I.e. Logs and trees, etc? With a story. If Roger came out of Bluff Creek with just a story? No body would have believed him. But if Roger was a Forest Ranger with 30 years of impeccable service? Maybe some people would believe him. But it doesn’t matter. Again for me? Its not about belief. Its about proof. We need proof. And the only way we are gonna get proof is to go out there and try to get our pound of flesh.

10mm master race I guess if it takes down a 1000 pound grizzly it will take down a Bigfoot

I see I little streak of hypocrisy here. I would base nearly everything on the claim itself. Then, I would find what ancillary evidence support the claim. Even someone I might uphold as a hero can still get it wrong. All kinds of posters here on the BFF continue to say all the time: The fact Roger Patterson has cheated people, cheated Gimlin, had arrest warrants, and so on should have no bearing on if Bigfoot or the PGF is real. What they are really saying is Roger's character flaws should have no bearing on if the PGF claim is real. Just look at the film. Many of those same people are saying if the person is a hero (Wife, Brother, Sister and so on) then we should trust the claim. That would mean the opposite should be true. If the person of poor character than you should reject the claim. Again, those same people though will look the other way on roger's deficiencies. Base any bigfoot claims based on 1) The claim itself first 2) The ancillary facts supporting the claim then.... 3) The credibility of the person making the claim. It can't be the other way around.