Guest 127 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I believe the stories are true. The fact is it's a lie that no one has ever shot and killed a BF. Apparently it's been going on all along. Another lie by the skeptic side. That was the point of the piece. Also, in the future, humans will continue to shoot BF's to death. With the increased hullabaloo about BF, perhaps the next BF shot to death will not be buried or abandoned in the woods. I agree with the government coverup stories. For one thing, they are temporal. They have only started in the modern era. Before 1968, there was no coverup. Afterwards, and especially after 1980, it's report after report. The increased reports in the modern era imply that there is a coverup. That's my opinion; and I'm normally cynical about conspiracy stories - I reject 98% of them. The best we can say here is that there are a lot of stories. And it looks like the skeptic line that no one ever shot a BF to death is another one of their lies. All of the stories of bigfoot being shot have turned out to nothing but hot air. If you have any proof otherwise, please share it. These stories always turn out the same way. Please show me any viable evidence that even one bigfoot has been shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 I believe the stories are true. The fact is it's a lie that no one has ever shot and killed a BF. Apparently it's been going on all along. Another lie by the skeptic side. That was the point of the piece. Also, in the future, humans will continue to shoot BF's to death. With the increased hullabaloo about BF, perhaps the next BF shot to death will not be buried or abandoned in the woods. You have no proof that those stories are true. You can't say anything is a lie; as Redwolf pointed out, anyone can make up a story about shooting a bigfoot. It doesn't mean that it actually happened, no matter how much you believe. Until someone comes up with proof, they're just stories. If someone walked into a police station and confessed to a murder, they wouldn't be charged with anything until a body and evidence was found. Saying that another bigfoot came along and took the body or someone freaked out and buried the corpse doesn't make it a credible story; if anything it makes it less credible, because the absence of evidence is too conspicuous. Just because you can't say that something didn't happen doesn't mean that it did. If I changed the ending of the story I told earlier to "I saw that it was a bigfoot, shot it, and felt so guilty about killing such a rare creature I gave it a respectful burial and never told anyone until now," you couldn't prove that it didn't happen (even though I'd be lying). What really matters is if you can prove that something did happen; until then, you can't say anyone is lying about anything. I agree with the government coverup stories. For one thing, they are temporal. They have only started in the modern era. Before 1968, there was no coverup. Afterwards, and especially after 1980, it's report after report. The increased reports in the modern era imply that there is a coverup. That's my opinion; and I'm normally cynical about conspiracy stories - I reject 98% of them. Bigfoot reports are temporal as well. Before Ray Wallace's hoaxes in the late 1950s, there weren't very many reports at all; after the Wallace hoaxes, reports skyrocketed, and they have been increasing since bigfoot has become a bigger part of pop culture. As for the conspiracy, if the government was covering bigfoot up, would sightings really be increasing? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The best we can say here is that there are a lot of stories. And it looks like the skeptic line that no one ever shot a BF to death is another one of their lies. Again, stories don't equate to facts without evidence to back them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 So the problem would be how do we get one of these folks who shot one and hid it to go back and retrieve it? IMO I find most shooting reports of biggie most unlikely. First this is a huge animal which means if all I had was a shotgun I would only shoot in self defense and still only wound it. For most hunters wounding an animal is a sin! If I was hunting with a rifle with a scope that gave me the ability to ID the target I am certain I could not pull the trigger and I believe that would be true for most hunters. If you accidentally shoot one that to is/ would be very embarrassing for most true outdoorsmen/women how could you have mistaken an upright homonide for a bear and it still could be some idiot in a suit. If you don't hunt I don't expect anyone to understand this but that's my opinion for what it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 As a die-hard hunter of over two decades, and having had an up close encounter while hunting, I give it about zero chance of a hunter shooting one purposely. The few nuts who would are too rare to realistically be matched up with a situation where a shot would be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 IMO I find most shooting reports of biggie most unlikely. First this is a huge animal which means if all I had was a shotgun I would only shoot in self defense and still only wound it. For most hunters wounding an animal is a sin! If I was hunting with a rifle with a scope that gave me the ability to ID the target I am certain I could not pull the trigger and I believe that would be true for most hunters. If you accidentally shoot one that to is/ would be very embarrassing for most true outdoorsmen/women how could you have mistaken an upright homonide for a bear and it still could be some idiot in a suit. If you don't hunt I don't expect anyone to understand this but that's my opinion for what it's worth. So you believe that BF exists, but no human has ever shot and killed one in the last 125 years? I can't believe that. If BF exists, people must have shot and killed them. There's no way around it. Granted, the stories cannot be proven, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 If it's a fact you should have no trouble proving it. Care to give it a shot? Calling forum members liars is against the Forum guidelines, and since there are skeptic that are members here I'll leave it up to the staff here to determine if you've violated them but in order for something to be a lie there has to be a truth on the other side of it. You need to show proof of your truth or retract your statement calling skeptics liars. The skeptics lie about a million things. I'm not addressing anyone on the forum. The skeptics don't even mention the stories of BF being shot. They simply say it's never happened period. If they said there are many stories of BF being shot, but no evidence yet, that would be another matter, but that's not the line. We do have a glass plate photo of a BF shot and killed by trappers on the Canadian border in 1898. I think it's a BF, but I suppose it's not proven yet. The photo looks very good to me. It's dead, lying in the snow, and there is a rope around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 SFox, I never said I believe biggie exist. I believe he could exist and I do find the body issue (lack of) a huge problem as you do. But you will find hunters tend to be self culling out of a sense of self preservation in modern times. In the past when we hunted for food I suspect we also we're pretty confident of what we were shooting at, back then wasting ammo was a sin. You seem pretty confident on this issue so all I can say is it's your opinion and I can respect it but don't agree with it completely:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The skeptics lie about a million things. I'm not addressing anyone on the forum. The skeptics lied about what? Please be specific. There are skeptics here (I'm skeptical) and if you aren't referring to any skeptics here who are you referring to? The skeptics don't even mention the stories of BF being shot. They simply say it's never happened period. How can you say they don't mention it but then say they talk about it? If they said there are many stories of BF being shot, but no evidence yet, that would be another matter, but that's not the line. That's exactly what skeptics say. We do have a glass plate photo of a BF shot and killed by trappers on the Canadian border in 1898. I think it's a BF, but I suppose it's not proven yet. The photo looks very good to me. It's dead, lying in the snow, and there is a rope around it. This one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The skeptics lie about a million things. Prove it please. I would like some examples of these millions of lies. Silver Fox wrote: We do have a glass plate photo of a BF shot and killed by trappers on the Canadian border in 1898. I think it's a BF, but I suppose it's not proven yet. The photo looks very good to me. It's dead, lying in the snow, and there is a rope around it. Your statement is contradictory. You state that the photo is indeed a bigfoot, then state that it hasn't been proven, then state that it's a convincing photo. So it is possible that it could be a hoax. That makes the photo inconclusive....not fact. You can certainly be of the opinion that it is a fact, but that doesn't make it so. Unfortunately, just because you believe something with all of your heart does not make it true. Silver Fox wrote: The best we can say here is that there are a lot of stories That about sums it up, they are a lot of stories...but no proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) SFox, I never said I believe biggie exist. I believe he could exist and I do find the body issue (lack of) a huge problem as you do. But you will find hunters tend to be self culling out of a sense of self preservation in modern times. In the past when we hunted for food I suspect we also we're pretty confident of what we were shooting at, back then wasting ammo was a sin. You seem pretty confident on this issue so all I can say is it's your opinion and I can respect it but don't agree with it completely:) I don't know how this post got distorted into an anti-hunter post. Keep in mind I'm a radical environmentalist. Hunters are my allies. Hunters are even great for endangered species - a fetish of mine, because hunters love to preserve open spaces, and that's where critters of all kinds live. I am reviewing the shooting reports now. Many were not even shot by hunters. Many were just shot by gun-owners from their homes or vehicles. Some were shot by hunters in the field. But you will find in what looks like the majority cases, hunters as well as homeowners were simply terrorized by the BF's. They were firing out of fear for their lives and in some cases, they were defending their animals from marauding BF's. They say, "Why has no one ever shot one?" Most folks look at that and think, "Duh. If BF existed, obviously someone would have shot one by now." It seems a deadly win for their side. If they were honest, they would say, "We have a ton of shooting reports, but none can be verified." That sounds more reassuring to the "they might exist" faction. We have cases of law enforcement officers shooting BF's. They did not drop the BF, but still. Edited May 15, 2011 by Ilikebluepez Edit for content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest watch1 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 http://lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com/bigfootshootings.aspx Several reports of Bigfoot shootings listed here. Mike (watch1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The skeptic line is very dishonest, as is everything they say. Good grief... They say, "Why has no one ever shot one?" What is dishonest about saying that? Most folks look at that and think, "Duh. If BF existed, obviously someone would have shot one by now." It seems a deadly win for their side. If they were honest, they would say, "We have a ton of shooting reports, but none can be verified." That sounds more reassuring to the "they might exist" faction. Who is denying that there are stories of bigfoot being shot. Stories are not proof. We have cases of law enforcement officers shooting BF's. They did not drop the BF, but still. But "still" what? They are only stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 You have no proof that those stories are true. You can't say anything is a lie; as Redwolf pointed out, anyone can make up a story about shooting a bigfoot. It doesn't mean that it actually happened, no matter how much you believe. Until someone comes up with proof, they're just stories. Again, stories don't equate to facts without evidence to back them up. But the stories make all the difference in the world in terms of argumentation, and this is where the skeptics are very dishonest. ******************** Person A (fence-sitter). BF skeptic: They say BF's exist, but no one has ever shot one! Not even once! How could they possibly exist? Person A: You're right. If BF exists, obviously someone would have shot one by now. Of course there is no BF or Santa Claus. I'm now a skeptic. ************** Person A (fence-sitter). BF skeptic: They say BF's exist, but we have no proof one one being shot. Person A: No one ever shot one? Impossible! BF skeptic: Well, there have been a ton of reports, but we have no hard evidence. Person A: Hey wait. Lots of reports, but no hard stuff. Hmmm. Maybe BF's have been shot after all... *************** It's all about argumentation. In in terms of argumentation, the stories do indeed make a difference in terms of influencing debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 The skeptics lied about what? Please be specific. There are skeptics here (I'm skeptical) and if you aren't referring to any skeptics here who are you referring to? How can you say they don't mention it but then say they talk about it? Skeptics never say, well, there have been a ton of stories, but no hard evidence. They just say it never happened. I've been reading about this online. No one ever mentions the stories. Yes, that photo is very interesting. I'm not sure what it is though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 They just say it never happened. I do hope you see the hypocrisy of accusing someone of saying something never happened, when you are yourself saying that something never happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts