The Kill Club

[TedSallis]

 

Even though military snipers are highly trained to kill human targets??? Hmmmmmmm.........

 

In military combat situations not civilian homicide circumstances.

 

 

Are you implying that taking the life of a Sasquatch would be equivalent to the crime of homicide? 

[FarArcher]

This idea of a tranquilizer dart with some GPS capability assumes a lot of breaks that I don't believe will ever be sequentially realized.

 

First, tranquilizing animals/beasts/humans/unknowns is a very iffy proposition.  You gotta get really close, and as we're aware of, that's an infinitely small possibility.  Weight, body mass, size, etc., would be a guess, and a guess is one sorry way to do tranquilizing business.  Too much, you killed it.  Too little, it's ineffective.  Odds are, it's going to leave the immediate area, even if you got the mix just right.

 

So, now you have the GPS activated - IF - this thing is a dummy, and doesn't reach down to pull it out.  A bear, dog, or even a cat will bite at the hit location if they can reach it.  But these things have hands.  Like ours.

 

For this tranquilizer approach to even be a remote possibility, one has to assume this is a dumb animal.  A bear is a dumb animal.  It may have instincts, it may use little tricks that some humans find interesting, but those capabilities have nothing to do with the ability to reason.  They're just tried and true methods of getting at food.  Bigfoot is not a dumb animal.  Not even close.  After all, they've been hiding better than man can hunt - unless a couple stories can be believed - but then again, they still didn't manage to bring in that dead one, did they?

 

In my opinion - Bigfoot's not even close to being a Gigantopithicus.  Even scientists who are Gigantopithicus experts don't know diddly squat, as a few teeth and lower jawbone are not exactly definitive fossils on which to base a whole lot of assumptions.  Why Gigantopithicus?  Jawbone is large?  Why an extinct ape?  All other apes have much different feet and much different hands - which are counter-indicative.

 

I personally do not care what anyone's hunting preferences or ideas are.  All share the same assumptions, regardless of variations in approach or technique.

[norseman]

Even though military snipers are highly trained to kill human targets??? Hmmmmmmm.........

 

In military combat situations not civilian homicide circumstances.

Your hunting a Sasquatch by choice, and you volunteered to kill Humans in the military........ I fail to see the difference.

[Yuchi1]

 

 

Even though military snipers are highly trained to kill human targets??? Hmmmmmmm.........

 

In military combat situations not civilian homicide circumstances.

 

 

Are you implying that taking the life of a Sasquatch would be equivalent to the crime of homicide? 

 

 

First, in the legal sense a homicide is the act of killing a homo(____).

 

There are various forms/levels of homicide;

 

Self-defense and elective abortion are two common forms of justifiable (legal) homicide which is not a crime.

 

Murder is the intentional and malicious (criminal) taking of a life with various degrees of severity such as Murder in the First Degree, Manslaughter, et. al..

 

Now, if a BF/UHS is killed by a homo sapien with knowledge and forethought (malice/extreme prejudice) and subsequently autopsied to be a homo sapien derivative/race, etc. then (IMO) the shooter may have a peck of legal woes to deal with not to mention moral issues that may also come into play.  IMO, Justin Smeja may be able to shed some light for you about such....

 

 

Even though military snipers are highly trained to kill human targets??? Hmmmmmmm.........

 

In military combat situations not civilian homicide circumstances.

Your hunting a Sasquatch by choice, and you volunteered to kill Humans in the military........ I fail to see the difference.

 

 

See the above post and I hope it isn't too late for you to "see" the difference.

[FarArcher]

Well, if one actually kills one, and even though the DNA is close to that of a human, I don't think the legal problems will occur.

 

We have common DNA with a lot of animals, as we're all carbon based entities.  I DO think this thing is a hybrid, but that doesn't make him human.  Water is water, but if you mix pristine water with muddy water, and what do you have? 

 

All you gotta do is drag that big carcass into the court and ask the jurors if they think this BUF is human?

 

Case dismissed.

[norseman]

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/great_apes/gorillas/threats/

Poaching is not Homicide. Because Apes are not the same species as Homo Sapien Sapien. Just as Homo Erectus or Australopethicus is a different species from us.

And thats not even touching on the fact that Sasquatch is not even recognized to exist by science.

So what is the penalty for killing a Unicorn?

Edited September 23, 2015 by norseman

[joebeelart]

Dear Folks:  I have been forcing myself not to open this topic; but ..... this is a polite discussion compared to the same topic in the early forums circa 2000.  That makes it fun to read.  

 

Just for your information, way back in the day 40 years ago when I was filling the family deer tags and we had a couple of ag permits, my high one year was seven.  No road hunting, no spotlighting; I gave them a sportin' chance.  Anyway, the family finally said "STOP!  We have had enough deer! {for this year}"  Keep in mind the family was six growing kids, Mom and Dad, and Grandma, plus assorted hangers on, so a spike or forked horn didn't last long.  Of course, the roasts went in the freezer.  I only note this to let you know that between that and five years in the USMC I learned a bit about rifles.  "Onward" as Peter Byrne says:

 

There are three aspects to this issue that I think are important, and not mentioned much as far as I can see.   {1} Is this a correct statement?  Most successful hunters or wildlife photographers either scout extensively, hunt familiar types of terrain, or engage guides to bring them within range of a particular species of animal to use a projectile device of some kind, or a lens capable of taking high quality photographs in a given light situation. 

 

{2} If this is true, and there is a population of the creatures, however rare, then select people know their locations and can repeat visual contact from time-to-time to pursue whatever is their interest.  Examples:  Himalayan snow leopard and Bongo African jungle antelope.  However, no bodies or multiple acceptable photographs exist.

 

{3} If the animal existed...such as the Ice Age mammals, and there is no longer a living population then there are fossils.  So far, no Bigfoot fossils have been found.

 

{4} Reputable people report Bigfoot like creature sightings every year in many wide spread locations and climes.   So, is this a logical conclusion?  They must exist in some form.

 

{5} So, if the sightings are real, and not dreams, the logical conclusion is that people are seeing an apparition, not a physical being as known on Earth.    

 

{6} Ergo { burp, did I really use a big word like that?? } the hunting hypothesis is a null argument and the argument is a fun debate which will arrive at no conclusion, per the example of arduous trying since 1967.   

 

{7} If the sightings are not of an Earthly being, what is being done to (a) replicate them, ( record sightings at a scientifically acceptable level, and © possibly communicate with these beings? 

 

{8} In conclusion, I feel the "hunting" should go on.  I do it in the mountains many times a year, but it is not really hunting in the white man's sense; it is "hunting" in the Native American sense.  Now, the big BUT; but the "hunting" should be done on a higher level than popping prairie dogs; and, (d) we need another term for "hunting" and (e) we need a protocol for "hunting" that is acceptable to the "quarry" so it will cooperate in some manner. 

 

{9} A final thought:  After a certain level of opportunity is reached discussion of the effect of ballistics in a field situation is highly speculative .    

 

I remain, very truly yours,  Joe Beelart, West Linn, Oregon

 

I am co-author and scribe of The Oregon Bigfoot Highway   A read of my book may give some insight as to what it takes to carefully survey for "Bigfoot" in about 1200 square miles, or about 3,000 square miles including the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Bull of the Woods Wilderness, Opal Creek Wilderness and Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness, all of which are immediately adjacent.  GPS coordinates are provided throughout for use with Google Earth.  The 3D effect of Google Earth, or the flat views may give you some concept of the immensity of the "problem" in just one small place of North America. 

[norseman]

Joe,

It sounds like your idea of hunting Squatch is having a habituation experience with a spiritual entity or at least a entity not of this world?

Im firmly in the animal or archiac hominoid camp.

And Im also callous in the fact that to prove the existence of this creature. I think one and just one should be pursued and dispatched in the name of science with extreme prejudice.

Edited September 23, 2015 by norseman

[FarArcher]

joebeelart, interesting letter.

 

Sorry that I don't agree with most of it, but it certainly was worth a read.

 

I used to keep my family in venison as well, two families nearby, and another two widows whose hunter husbands died and the still loved venison.  And I'd often bust two a day when I went.  Maybe thirty to thirty five a season, before I went to Special Forces and two Rangers companies, and honed a few more skills.

 

To your first question, I'd venture to suggest that the bulk of sightings are NOT intended, but are what we in the military call "meeting engagements" where both parties are surprised.  Meaning usually no staged, wildlife photography shoot.

 

Which kind of negates your second assumption - specifically, consistent repeat-ability. 

 

I wouldn't think of asking you to take my word, but they do exist, and exist very well.  The third supposition is that no fossils have been found.  I'd suggest that many have been found, and if you can get the Smithsonian to release the dozens of skeletons and skulls for your examination - you'll have all the fossil evidence you could wish for.

 

Your fourth and fifth questions I think can be combined.  No UFO's, no spirits, no apparitions, and no haun'ts.  They're bone and meat.  Just like every other mammal.  Nothing mystical, nothing magical, nothing spiritual.  Just clever critters finely attuned to their environment.  The bulk of narratives over the generations indicate a primarily nocturnal critter, and I am starting to think that while they can see pretty well in the daylight, that may not be their optimal visual scenario.

 

I would further suggest that the hunting hypothesis is the correct mindset, but that there are a couple of things apparently unknown or undiscussed anywhere - that would help explain the lack of hunting success.  I plan on addressing those anomalies when I can do so properly in the right location, with the right equipment.  Unfortunately, specialized, high tech equipment designed for very limited purposes is extremely costly - precisely why expeditions fail consistently.  Why hunting them likewise seems to fail - consistently.  Except those rare reports of meeting engagements.  Which do not lend themselves well to even hunting success.

 

I will not address what's creating them - other than likely the normal way animals procreate.  I can't help but grin at the picture of a little green or gray, wrinkled, skinny guy in a glowing UFO creating these giants.  I won't say it's impossible, but I'd think they'd come up with something a bit different.  I mean, why put similar critters all over the world, if you can create anything?  You'd change up the pattern on occasion - out of boredom!  I mean, why no Mutant Ninja Turtles?  Now THAT would give folks something to talk about. 

 

Lastly, I'm part Native American, but I look Nordic, unlike almost all the rest of my family.  That white man's sense of hunting has been uncommonly successful over the centuries, so I find little to find fault with.  Popping prairie dogs takes a lot of skill, as it's done from a distance, and the only difference between prairie dogs and men, or prairie dogs and bigfoot would be the caliber weapon necessary to ensure a good kill. 

 

I've hunted probably everything that walks, squawks, balks, or talks, at one time or another.  I never had to use a different term for the sequence, and I certainly never made arrangements to find out what was "acceptable" to my quarry.  And whether I was hunting men or animals, I never bothered to communicate with them, nor did I rely on getting my prey to cooperate.

 

I've hunted, and been hunted.

 

Apparently, my approach is somewhat successful.

[BobbyO]

You ever hunted a Sasquatch FarArcher ?

Good post by the way, a lot of what you said made sense to me.

[Yuchi1]

Those that say BF/UHS is not a homo sapien variety, how do you know such?

 

I do not know precisely what classification they would ultimately become however, once most "shooters" had the opportunity to look into the face of one, pulling the trigger was not an option. I surmise it's dependent upon the level of basic human decency that each individual carries with themselves as the determining factor of behavior in that regard.

[TedSallis]

Those that say BF/UHS is not a homo sapien variety, how do you know such?

 

I do not know precisely what classification they would ultimately become however, once most "shooters" had the opportunity to look into the face of one, pulling the trigger was not an option. I surmise it's dependent upon the level of basic human decency that each individual carries with themselves as the determining factor of behavior in that regard.

 

 

Fair question.  I would ask you the reverse: how do you know that it IS a homo sapien variety?

[SWWASAS]

I have hunted sasquatch with a camera instead of gun. At this point, I have had enough interaction to know that BF enjoys that sort of hunt as much as I do. It is a great game for them and I have been played with several times. But it can get ugly when you get to close or get them cornered. My concern for the humans that hunt with guns is that BF are so good at playing the hunting game, that they might actually enjoy that too. When the stakes are your life, you have to know your prey and give them full credit for their abilities. Honestly I do not see that with a lot of pro-kill groups. When we have had large armed groups in the woods, hunting BF, some encounters, and so far no kills, that should indicate to the kill hunters that they are not dealing with some dumb animal. Make a mistake and you could pay for it with your life. Just as humans have enjoyed the hunt, matching skills with the prey, and relish in a clean kill, BF has played that same game for millennia and may enjoy the kill as much as humans. There must be some reason for them having some restraint with regard to humans as prey, or the National Parks and forest trails would be human kill zones. But a human hunter should know that when they hunt BF with a gun, what ever self imposed restraints BF have against killing humans will be off the table and it will be matching skills in a potentially lethal game.

With regards to Joe's post. Perhaps with some sort of interaction and common understanding with a group of BF, assuming that communication is possible, it could be that BF themselves could provide either the proof of existence or enough to get the scientific community interested. We hear stories of fights between BF with rogue BF, territorial fights, and that sort of thing. It some BF group had some sort of understanding and communication with humans, perhaps they would deliver an enemy BF body they have killed. Certainly they would have no need to care for an enemy body after death. A dead body delivered, a finger severed in an accident, or a significant amount of blood spilled would either answer the existence question or get science interested in the existence question. The key to this approach is, if BF are capable of communication with humans. Some do claim that but there is little real proof that exists.

Edited September 24, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Explorer]

The benefit of a BF body on the slab is that it would reject many of the alternative hypotheses. 

Thus, the objectives of NAWAC and Project Grendel are good scientific ones and should be pursued.

 

Continued lack of specimen yields to cognitive dissonance and to belief in other speculative paranormal hypotheses for those who have seen the creature.

 

For those who have never seen the creature, lack of specimen just provides evidence that there is not such thing and that the psychosocial hypothesis is the more likely.

[FarArcher]

You ever hunted a Sasquatch FarArcher ?

Good post by the way, a lot of what you said made sense to me.

No.  I have NEVER hunted Bigfoot.

 

I did however, find myself living among a number of them for a few months.  I was happily ignorant of these things - and would have preferred it that way - but when one bursts that ignorance, it's life-changing realizing you're NOT always the apex predator.  Even more disconcerting is that you don't just go out looking for a seven or eight foot critter - which should be easy to spot.  No.  These things can flatten out and become mighty small, mighty fast.  Then, they can do everything a soldier can do - but better - and low crawl to avoid detection.

 

I tried to join a deer hunting club once, and it wasn't that they turned me down - it was the really rude, ******* way they did it.  I mean, these guys were real class acts.  It irritated me such, that I decided to poach right on their lease - right under their noses.  While they'd be on the roads and running dogs, I'd take deer right out from under them.  While they'd be yelling wondering who shot among them, in ten minutes, I had that deer dressed, quartered, and packed on my dirt bike.

 

Once while watching a hunter - rather a so-called hunter, I watched a deer approach him and was stunned to see the deer go down on its knees and crawl past the man.  I watched all this through my scope and was stunned.  Deer low-crawling.  I almost laughed out loud in amazement.

 

These bigfoots are mighty clever.  Most think they're doing the hunting for these things.  Oh, they're looking, but they may not be the ones doing the hunting.  I've been around these things.  I've seen how well they can conceal themselves.  How quiet they can be.  How fast they are.  How their hair absorbs - and doesn't reflect light.  While everyone is looking for a large bipedal, one may be within fifty feet, blended in with the terrain, and especially down low.

 

I've seen reports of giving chase after spotting one.  Unless these hunters can run a sub-4-second 40, for hundreds of yards, good luck.  And one other thing.  While looking around, you might need to be looking down, and while looking down, you might need to be looking up.

 

When that Rick Dyer said he baited one with ribs and shot it, I knew immediately that was a lie.  When he finally released a photo of the face, I also immediately knew that was fake.  There was no guessing.  I knew.

 

No, I don't hunt them.  No percentages in it for me.  I would gain nothing.  And I know better.