Jump to content

Thoughts About Munns' Book - " When Roger Met Patty "


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think you forgot that you are supposed to be ignoring me

 

Ah more semantics and just after he posted about others being fixated on minor details.

 

The word ignore was never mentioned. How about that for semantics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
Bigfoothunter speaks of his Bigfoot enthusiast partner Thomas Steenberg holding to a higher standard than David Daegling, when the fact is that Daegling was accurately relating the Ape Canyon encounter story and it was Steenberg asserting things that were in total contradiction to the actual account (he asserts no clear indication of actually shooting any creatures, which is clearly indicated).

 

From Fred Beck's book, written by his son...

 

Question: "Do you think the 'blasting' had anything to do with them attacking you?"

 

Answer: "No, but it made them curious. Our mistake was shooting them.

 

Question: "Do you think you and your companions hit the Apemen you shot at?"

 

Answer: "We certainly did. Our eyes were keen in those days, and we were expert shots. When Hank shot the one peeking around the tree, he exclaimed, 'Don't worry about that devil, Fred, I got him right in the head!' Later on I examined the tree and there were three nicks where the bark had been grooved by his bullets. The one I shot by Ape Canyon, I had plainly in my sights. He just tumbled over into the deep gorge. Some people think the melting snow water, which flows heavily summer afternoons, washed him away. Some others think the creatures came and packed their own away, and retired with them back to hidden lava caves. My views are plain on the subject."

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm

 

 

Grow up, Kitakaze.

 

Deagling made a comment about Sasquatch being impervious to bullets because a reference was made to the men at Ape Canyon thinking they had shot the creature in the head at one point. Steenburg mentions that Beck never said he shot the creature in the head in his own book. I seem to recall that Patterson paraphrased things Beck had said and Steenburg's point was to use caution when separating the two because Daegling at one point wishes to have us believe the Sasquatch is impervious to bullets in one breath while telling of one falling to its demise from being shot at. Sounds contradictory does it not. I think Roger's version of what Beck said had both shootings happening prior to the attack while Beck had only one prior to the attack

 

Your approach appears whacked to me and to defend it even more so in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah more semantics and just after he posted about others being fixated on minor details.

The word ignore was never mentioned. How about that for semantics?

I'm sorry

I may have been confused. I just fainted due to the stink from a passing BF. It was terrible.

I'm glad we're back together. That was a scary few hours when I thought you were done with me.

Edited by mbh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Gentlemen! Please maintain decorum per forum rules.

 

A lot of what I have seen here looks like trolling and personal attacks. We have no problem when a viewpoint is attacked, it is another matter entirely when a person is attacked. Do not make posts that are simply meant to raise ire and the like- if we see things like the post prior to this one (left as an example) we will be handing out warnings and points to go with them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grow up, Kitakaze.

 

Deagling made a comment about Sasquatch being impervious to bullets because a reference was made to the men at Ape Canyon thinking they had shot the creature in the head at one point. Steenburg mentions that Beck never said he shot the creature in the head in his own book. I seem to recall that Patterson paraphrased things Beck had said and Steenburg's point was to use caution when separating the two because Daegling at one point wishes to have us believe the Sasquatch is impervious to bullets in one breath while telling of one falling to its demise from being shot at. Sounds contradictory does it not. I think Roger's version of what Beck said had both shootings happening prior to the attack while Beck had only one prior to the attack

 

Your approach appears whacked to me and to defend it even more so in my view.

 

 

This is from Patterson's interview with Beck...

 

Beck: So we seen him running down this ridge then, and then he took a couple more shots at him. Marion, when he first shot, I rushed over there, it was hard going, he said: "Don't run, don't run, Fred, don't run," he said, "he won't go far," he said, "I put three shots through that fool's head, he won't go far."

So we got up the ridge and looked down there he was goin', just jumpin', looked like it'd be twelve, fourteen feet a jump, runnin'. The old man took a couple more shots at him and the old man said, "My God, I don't understand it, I don't understand it, how that fella can get away with them slugs in his head," he says, "I hit him with the other two shots, too."

 

Well, he got away all right.

 

Beck: We all carried rifles after that happened. I, down the ridge there a couple hundred yards, no it wasn't that far, why there was one of them fellas run out of a clump of brush and run down the gorge, and I shot him in the back, three shots, and I could hear the buyllets (sic) hit him and I see the fur fly on his back. I shot for his heart. And he stopped and he just fell right over a precipice, and I heard him go doonk, zoop, down the canyon.

 

 

This is from Beck's own book...

 

Question:"Do you think the 'blasting' had anything to do with them attacking you?"

 

Answer: "No, but it made them curious. Our mistake was shooting them."

 

Question: “Do you think you and your companions hit the Apemen you shot at?â€

Answer: “We certainly did. Our eyes were keen in those days, and we were expert shots. When Hank shot the one peeking around the tree, he exclaimed, ‘Don’t worry about that devil, Fred, I got him right in the head!’ Later on I examined the tree and there were three nicks where the bark had been grooved by his bullets. The one I shot by Ape Canyon, I had plainly in my sights. He just tumbled over into the deep gorge. Some people think the melting snow water, which flows heavily summer afternoons, washed him away. Some others think the creatures came and packed their own away, and retired with them back to hidden lava caves. My views are plain on the subject.â€

Again, this is what Daegling wrote that Steenberg objected to...

 

"(Before Beck had his violent encounter; one of his partners had shot another ape-like form in the head when he saw it peering out from behind a tree. Apparently unfazed by the insult, the creature fled without difficulty)"

 

Steenberg's objection thinking that the Ape Canyon story never features any clear indication of any creature being hit by any bullets...

 

Page #32: The author talks about the ape canyon incident and again displays sloppy research and lack of knowledge of facts. He writes: "(Before Beck had his violent encounter; one of his partners had shot another ape-like form in the head when he saw it peering out from behind a tree. Apparently unfazed by the insult, the creature fled without difficulty)" At no time did Fred Beck or Hank, the man who pulled the trigger, say that they know for sure that the target had been hit? Fred Beck did say that he saw bark fly from the tree it was behind, so it’s a fare guess that the tree was hit. Three more shots at the things back when they caught sight of it again, but still no indication that it was hit.

 

 

Very simple questions for you, Bigfoothunter.

 

1 - Was David Daegling's passage incorrect in stating that a creature was allegedly hit?

 

2 - Was Thomas Steenberg familiar with Fred Beck's detailing of the Ape Canyon encounter story in regards to indications of creatures being hit by bullets?

 

3 - Did Fred Beck explicitly indicate that creatures had been shot in his account?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

What a waste of space and time when the very discussion of it explains why it is a waste of time, I swear that there must be some people who haven't a clue so to what is and is not relevant to a discussion.

 

1)  Yes a creature was alleged to be hit. Then Daegling used that allegation to allege how Bigfooters must believe that Bigfoot must be impervious to bullets. That's right - you read it right.

 

In Fred Beck's original account of the event and in his own writing - it was Becks buddy who was said to have shot at the creature. After that - Beck said they all started taking their guns with them.

 

Where the creatures actually shot in the head? In several instances there were references that these men were expert shots - that they would not need to go far to catch up to the creature. And yet where was the blood - were was the bloody tissue. All there was left behind was a story of these creatures being shot at and little more than a colorful story.

 

2) This was the point that Steenburg made. After all, Thomas was very aware of the version Daegling relied on as Tom had all the different versions of the story. And it was because of these differing accounts of these claims and the fact they were absent in the Becks original account - Thomas advised using caution that perhaps these creatures had not been shot in the head after all and is why they ran away talking leaps and bounds of 12- foot jumps and so on. Thomas has picked up on Daeglings criticism that he himself had nor real evidence to support. Again ones personal bias caused him to grab onto a tale that otherwise would not be used.

 

3)  In the end Daegling was justifiably called out on it - Kitakaze missed the big picture - and the mission to waste more time was a success.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1)  Yes a creature was alleged to be hit. Then Daegling used that allegation to allege how Bigfooters must believe that Bigfoot must be impervious to bullets.

 

 

 

Some things like this are so simple yet so powerful in revealing the bias.  For example, Gimlin at no point ever felt Patty would be impervious to bullets.  I can't imagine there are hardly people out there that do.  There might be some small fringe group who thinks a Bigfoot comes from a flying saucer.  In that case all bets are off.

 

Now back to Daegling.  How serious of a man is he when in fact he puts fourth an unfounded idea like this?

 

That seems to say it all.  "Hi, I have an agenda, so I will take something out of context and belittle people with it. Oh and I am not done yet. I will suggest this view, that no one even put fourth, is a wide-spread belief among those crazies who believe in Bigfoot"

 

Backdoc

 

ADDED:   I know hunters who told me they shot a bear and had to keep shooting it (and it was out in the open).  They must be lying since they are saying a bear is impervious to bullets.

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a waste of space and time when the very discussion of it explains why it is a waste of time, I swear that there must be some people who haven't a clue so to what is and is not relevant to a discussion.

 

1)  Yes a creature was alleged to be hit. Then Daegling used that allegation to allege how Bigfooters must believe that Bigfoot must be impervious to bullets. That's right - you read it right.

 

In Fred Beck's original account of the event and in his own writing - it was Becks buddy who was said to have shot at the creature. After that - Beck said they all started taking their guns with them.

 

Where the creatures actually shot in the head? In several instances there were references that these men were expert shots - that they would not need to go far to catch up to the creature. And yet where was the blood - were was the bloody tissue. All there was left behind was a story of these creatures being shot at and little more than a colorful story.

 

2) This was the point that Steenburg made. After all, Thomas was very aware of the version Daegling relied on as Tom had all the different versions of the story. And it was because of these differing accounts of these claims and the fact they were absent in the Becks original account - Thomas advised using caution that perhaps these creatures had not been shot in the head after all and is why they ran away talking leaps and bounds of 12- foot jumps and so on. Thomas has picked up on Daeglings criticism that he himself had nor real evidence to support. Again ones personal bias caused him to grab onto a tale that otherwise would not be used.

 

3)  In the end Daegling was justifiably called out on it - Kitakaze missed the big picture - and the mission to waste more time was a success.

 

1 - You've just stated in a single post that Fred Beck's original account has reference to a creature being shot by Beck's friend and conversely that any mention of a creature being shot is absent. Which is it, Bigfoothunter?

 

2 - "Yes a creature was alleged to be hit. Then Daegling used that allegation to allege how Bigfooters must believe that Bigfoot must be impervious to bullets."

 

Daegling makes no allegations as to what Bigfooters must believe. He simply relates that Beck's story features a Bigfoot being shot in the head and being apparently unfazed by it...

 

"(Before Beck had his violent encounter; one of his partners had shot another ape-like form in the head when he saw it peering out from behind a tree. Apparently unfazed by the insult, the creature fled without difficulty)"

 

Beck's account itself features confusion as to why the creature seemed unharmed... 

 

So we got up the ridge and looked down there he was goin', just jumpin', looked like it'd be twelve, fourteen feet a jump, runnin'. The old man took a couple more shots at him and the old man said, "My God, I don't understand it, I don't understand it, how that fella can get away with them slugs in his head," he says, "I hit him with the other two shots, too."

 

 

"2) This was the point that Steenburg made. After all, Thomas was very aware of the version Daegling relied on as Tom had all the different versions of the story. And it was because of these differing accounts of these claims and the fact they were absent in the Becks original account - Thomas advised using caution that perhaps these creatures had not been shot in the head after all and is why they ran away talking leaps and bounds of 12- foot jumps and so on. Thomas has picked up on Daeglings criticism that he himself had nor real evidence to support. Again ones personal bias caused him to grab onto a tale that otherwise would not be used."

 

What Steenberg's complaint was about is explicitly stated...

 

Page #32: The author talks about the ape canyon incident and again displays sloppy research and lack of knowledge of facts. He writes: "(Before Beck had his violent encounter; one of his partners had shot another ape-like form in the head when he saw it peering out from behind a tree. Apparently unfazed by the insult, the creature fled without difficulty)" At no time did Fred Beck or Hank, the man who pulled the trigger, say that they know for sure that the target had been hit? Fred Beck did say that he saw bark fly from the tree it was behind, so it’s a fare guess that the tree was hit. Three more shots at the things back when they caught sight of it again, but still no indication that it was hit.

 

Steenberg alleges that at neither Beck nor Hank never made any clear indication of the target being hit. Beck is in fact very explicit in this and Daegling accurately reported on what was claimed by Beck.

 

 

 

Simple question: Yes or no. Was Steenberg's complaint about Daegling's discussing the violence at Ape Canyon legitimate and Daegling inaccurately reported a creature being allegedly shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things like this are so simple yet so powerful in revealing the bias.  For example, Gimlin at no point ever felt Patty would be impervious to bullets.  I can't imagine there are hardly people out there that do.  There might be some small fringe group who thinks a Bigfoot comes from a flying saucer.  In that case all bets are off.

 

Now back to Daegling.  How serious of a man is he when in fact he puts fourth an unfounded idea like this?

 

That seems to say it all.  "Hi, I have an agenda, so I will take something out of context and belittle people with it. Oh and I am not done yet. I will suggest this view, that no one even put fourth, is a wide-spread belief among those crazies who believe in Bigfoot"

 

Backdoc

 

ADDED:   I know hunters who told me they shot a bear and had to keep shooting it (and it was out in the open).  They must be lying since they are saying a bear is impervious to bullets.

 

This is what Daegling wrote...

 

 

"(Before Beck had his violent encounter; one of his partners had shot another ape-like form in the head when he saw it peering out from behind a tree. Apparently unfazed by the insult, the creature fled without difficulty)"

 

This is what Beck stated himself... 

 

So we got up the ridge and looked down there he was goin', just jumpin', looked like it'd be twelve, fourteen feet a jump, runnin'. The old man took a couple more shots at him and the old man said, "My God, I don't understand it, I don't understand it, how that fella can get away with them slugs in his head," he says, "I hit him with the other two shots, too."

 

 

This is what came from Beck's own book...

 

Question: “Do you think you and your companions hit the Apemen you shot at?â€

Answer: “We certainly did. Our eyes were keen in those days, and we were expert shots. When Hank shot the one peeking around the tree, he exclaimed, ‘Don’t worry about that devil, Fred, I got him right in the head!’ 

 

1 - Did David Daegling in any way inaccurately relate Beck's claims?

 

2 - Did David Daegling display any bias in relating that Beck's encounter features a Bigfoot allegedly shot in the head yet escapes unhindrered by any injuries?

 

3 - Did David Daegling in any way take Fred Beck's comments out of context?

 

4 - Did David Daegling in any way suggest that belief Bigfoot is impervious to bullets is a wide=spread belief amongst Bigfoot enthusiasts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

Same story, but different versions, so which version should be accepted for Deagling to rest his hat on ;)

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

This is what Daegling wrote...

 

So we got up the ridge and looked down there he was goin', just jumpin', looked like it'd be twelve, fourteen feet a jump, runnin'. The old man took a couple more shots at him and the old man said, "My God, I don't understand it, I don't understand it, how that fella can get away with them slugs in his head," he says, "I hit him with the other two shots, too."

 

Daegling was someone who didn't show much common sense when to came to whether a story sounded believable or not before trying to use it to make a point he was fishing for. This latter version had an old man saying that he was certain he had sunk three slugs into the creature's head and yet it ran away taking 12 to 14 feet jumps leaving the creature un-effected by the bullets. I guess that the notion that the old man flat out missed the darn thing didn't seem a reality anyone was willing to accept.

 

The point Daegling went after was also zonk as well! The idea was to say that Bigfooters find bullets impervious to Bigfoot and yet Daegling chose a story that shooing at the creature had caused it to fall off a cliff. Go figure!!!

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

 

This is the thing I have noticed with the dismissers. They latch on to the most exaggerated and run with it as if it's the norm. I.e, bigfoot is impervious to bullets, people get stone cold knocked out when they smell it, they are 12ft tall giant apes. Etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^

 

I didn't follow the discussion about anyone passing out from the smell, but did someone actually say they saw the creature as they were smelling it? There are so many variables to even give that one report a second thought. Some folks can claim to about pass out from being around a baby who is needing changed ... others it may not bother much at all. You probably gave it more consideration than it deserved,  :)

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no reports from North America regarding people passing out from the smell of bigfoot. Kitakaze sneakily linked to a report from Russia. I have the definitive book on Russian reports and it's not even mentioned in it, despite referencing the same report that Kitakaze did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...