Jump to content
Guest Chefsquared

Sasquatch Kills Hunter?

Recommended Posts

Guest Coonbo

Just a couple of questions for you.

1. Was the "charging" incident that occurred upon you and your buddies. What time of the day was it?

2. Open Carry/Concealed Carry.....is it possible that the buggers can smell gun powder?

TIA

treadstone,

That particular incident happened at about 4:00 to 4:30 in the afternoon in around April or early May. There were two of us and three boogers, that we could see, but from other vocalizations we heard, there were more that we couldn't see. We had just found an old field road that went down into a particular bottom that we new harbored an unusually vocal group of boogers. On our way in, we were screamed at from very close range as we drove through a very dense thicket. When we got as far down the road as we could safely drive, a couple hundred yards further on, I turned the truck around, pointing back up the way we had come in. Sam and I got out of the truck and heard the Alpha male screaming and crashing through the brush headed towards us FAST. We grabbed our 12-gauge riot guns out of the truck and waited. It only took a few more seconds and the Alpha followed by two subordinate males were within 20 feet of us and slammed on the brakes when they saw the shotguns. (At least that's what I think caused them to stop.) He screamed at us some more, and growled and huffed, and then they just eased back into the thick brush. But we knew they were still close by, watching us. Sam named the place AP road. When asked what AP stood for, he said A$$hole Pucker. He named it right.

I don't know if they can smell gunpowder or not. Sorta doubt it, but some of them are very aware of what a weapon LOOKS like. Back when I always carried a weapon in the woods, I learned that if I got out of the truck, then put on my belt holster or shoulder holster and sidearm, I usually wouldn't have any luck getting the boogers to come close. But if I already had my sidearm well concealed on me BEFORE I got to the research area, and was careful not to touch it or do anything to "telegraph" the fact I had a concealed weapon, I had much better luck getting them to come close. And long guns were a for-sure turn off to them if they saw them, UNLESS they had me greatly outnumbered and there was only 1 to 3 of us and several of them.

Edited by Coonbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks for the reply. I've had a theory about boogers and weapons. You may have just confirmed it further. What size shot did you have loaded. Double OO -- I would hope!

AP.....good one. Made me smile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

The AP reference made me laugh as well.

Sounds like a very tense moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks for the reply. I've had a theory about boogers and weapons. You may have just confirmed it further. What size shot did you have loaded. Double OO -- I would hope!

AP.....good one. Made me smile.

Buckshot? I'd go slug myself. Or SF load (alternate 00buck and slugs), but I don't know if that's legal for civilians to do...

Edited by Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Transformer

Yes, I can see it. Imagine if the group were to announce to the public not only that bigfoot exist, but that they rip people's heads off. If I were in that position and felt that the circumstances were not likely to be repeated, I would attribute the situation to a bear mauling rather than create a situation that incites public reaction that may well result in a greater threat to public safety. If I thought that the bigfoot were on a rampage, I'd certainly inform the public for safety's sake.

I respectfully disagree with your arguments and your conclusions. That does not make me right. I think we would be just going around in circles if we continue. Let's just agree to disagree. Keep your powder dry! :drinks:

Edited by Transformer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

Sometimes actions taken in the name of Public Safety trump the Truth. It's also easier for public officials to say it must of been a bear if they don't have any conclusive proof that it was a bigfoot, despite any witness accounts. They can chalk up the witness's assertions to hysteria. The public official would only be lying if he actually believed the witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Mulder, Yesterday, 11:19 PM

Buckshot? I'd go slug myself. Or SF load (alternate 00buck and slugs), but I don't know if that's legal for civilians to do...

These days the SF load of choice tends to be Hatton Disintegrators, a breaching round which has "alternative" benefits when the target happens to not be a door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It would appear my information is a bit out of date, gents... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Seems like the story has been morphed, originally giant Indians turned into Bigfoot like creatures, via modern interpretation bias.

Also, besides the ape vs. human camp of Bigfoot enthusiasts, we should include the docile, nice Bigfoot vs. the raging, murderous Bigfoot. I guess such views could represent the same animal, yet all of the various Bigfoot stories, from the wandering peaceful ape stories to the pack of aggressive monsters stories, just don't seem to jibe with one another in describing a real species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Transformer

dble post

Sometimes actions taken in the name of Public Safety trump the Truth. It's also easier for public officials to say it must of been a bear if they don't have any conclusive proof that it was a bigfoot, despite any witness accounts. They can chalk up the witness's assertions to hysteria. The public official would only be lying if he actually believed the witness.

OK I wanted to leave it alone but you went the further step. You keep on trying to put it down to one person who makes the call when REALITY is that that many INDEPENDENT people would have to be part of a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to cover up an attack such as the one alleged in this thread. What part of that do you not understand? Plus the family would have to be satisfied along with the MORTICIAN. Hey there's another person that would have to be going along with the conspiracy. What sort of cockamamie reason would a bunch of intelligent people have for keeping such a thing a mystery? There is no rational explanation except wild-eyed consiracy theories. Who would first suggest a cover-up and why? How could they convince person #2,#3,#4,#5 when only one of those independent people paid by different sources and not reporting to or under any obligation to any of the other agencies would have to say NO to destroy the whole house of cards?? What would stop one of the many people invovled from changing his/her mind and turning all the others in at a later date whcih would result in CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY charges in the least along with job/pension loss etc.??? Why would any RATIONAL person take such a stupid chance for NO BENEFIT? I need to get the tin-foil hat cncession because such conspiracy theories are going to result in huge sales!!!! :rofl:

Edited by Transformer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Transformer I personally think you would have a harder time trying to get person #2,3,4,and 5 to actually write up a report saying they believed the cause of death was a bigfoot attack, even if it didn't look like a bear attack and a witness swore that it WAS a bigfoot that killed the hunter. It would be easier to chalk it up to, "well that is a strange bear attack." They would be risking their reputation as well as their jobs and possibly their familys future to come forward and say they believe a tax paying citizen was killed by something that doesn't exist to most people.

That being said there are way to many holes in the story for me to believe it's any thing more than a good compfire story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have to agree with Transformer on the whole conspiracy thing. My 30 years in law enforcement would lead me to believe that the incident would possibly be wrote up as a 'possible' bear attack, or another 'unknown' animal. None of the LEOs that I worked with would knowingly falsify a report, not because they were all so honest, just that they wouldn't want to risk losing their job.

As for families buying into the story without demanding further information or more details, I've seen plenty of families accept reports of a death with no hesitation. That includes one in particular where a man was beheaded in a logging accident. I had never thought of that one being suspicious myslef until now.

Good story never the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

dble post

OK I wanted to leave it alone but you went the further step. You keep on trying to put it down to one person who makes the call when REALITY is that that many INDEPENDENT people would have to be part of a CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to cover up an attack such as the one alleged in this thread. What part of that do you not understand? Plus the family would have to be satisfied along with the MORTICIAN. Hey there's another person that would have to be going along with the conspiracy. What sort of cockamamie reason would a bunch of intelligent people have for keeping such a thing a mystery? There is no rational explanation except wild-eyed consiracy theories. Who would first suggest a cover-up and why? How could they convince person #2,#3,#4,#5 when only one of those independent people paid by different sources and not reporting to or under any obligation to any of the other agencies would have to say NO to destroy the whole house of cards?? What would stop one of the many people invovled from changing his/her mind and turning all the others in at a later date whcih would result in CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY charges in the least along with job/pension loss etc.??? Why would any RATIONAL person take such a stupid chance for NO BENEFIT? I need to get the tin-foil hat cncession because such conspiracy theories are going to result in huge sales!!!! :rofl:

Hmmm....

You keep accusing me of accusing others of conspiracy. Not what I'm doing. I'm talking about officials simply stopping short of the proving the truth and chalking it up to bigfoot, therefore only attributable to a more prosaic cause, even though the evidence in the case may be a bit strange. That said, I maintain that there are times when it is best for a public official to simply keep their mouth shut in the interest of public safety.

And please do not accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I wonder if perhaps the issue might be not so much falsifying a report or lying as much as it might be a matter of not knowing how to state the truth.

Having to write down on some government form that a bigfoot killed someone might make ya think twice. You'd be stating that bigfoot existed and that one had killed a person. You are a going to raise an excrement storm. You could well lose your job. You are an agent of the government agency paying you. So then that is the government saying they are real and lethal.

It's like you wrote someone was killed when gored by unicorns. Now even though we've all heard of unicorns, no one thinks they're real. So writing down a similar tale--killed by a vengeful bigfoot--is to risk your job, you employment prospects, and your family's well being. Just think how full of righteous indignation many people become if you point out a bigfoot in a photo. To say one killed a hunter? You better just say it was a bear. For the government to say it? See you on "60 minutes," I guess.

Edited by Kings Canyon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...