Why Has No Hunter Ever Shot A Bigfoot?

[Guest Blackdog]

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 they do and if you've been reading online you would know this.

Yes, that photo is very interesting. I'm not sure what it is though.

It's the photo you were talking about, rope and all. How big do you think it is?

[Guest]

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.

Again, stories don't equate to facts without evidence to back them up.

WOW! There are quite a few reports of BF before 1900, much less up until Ray Wallace's time. That was quite a blanket statement. May I suggest you check into it?

[Guest spunout]

Tuff to point & shoot when you're soiling your shorts.

[Guest]

Tuff to point & shoot when you're soiling your shorts.

Excellent point!!

[Guest RayG]

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.

Where DO you get your information? If it's not from the skeptics on this forum, where are all these skeptics saying such things? And do you have any actual quotes, or are you merely presenting straw man fallacious arguments?

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.

Yes, that photo is very interesting. I'm not sure what it is though.

You don't seen very certain. How big/large do you think this possible bf is?

RayG

[Guest BlurryMonster]

WOW! There are quite a few reports of BF before 1900, much less up until Ray Wallace's time. That was quite a blanket statement. May I suggest you check into it?

I'm not aware of a lot of them. Even the quick research I did suggested that there weren't a whole lot of sightings before Wallace. There are old Native American boogeyman stories, occasional (mostly dubious) newspaper reports, and a few sightings, but nothing along the lines of what was reported from the late fifties onward. Plenty of people (like Albert Ostman) reported stuff later on that took place during that time, but I wasn't counting them. Wikipedia even has bigfoot history organized into "Before 1958" and "After 1958." I could be wrong, of course (I'm hardly a bigfoot historian), but that's my understanding of the history of sightings.

[Guest]

BlurryMonster, there's a ton of pre-Wallace reports, I think some are on BigfootEncounters, there used to be a gigantic list on Clara'snet, but the site seems to have gone belly-up. I googled quick an there are a couple of books on them. If you google pre-1900 Bigfoot sightings a mess of stuff pops up. No harm, no foul!!

[Guest]

As Gray Jay says : Google. Also check Green Books..as in John Green who has a load of information in his classics.. pre-Wallace. It seems maddening that there is not more information regarding verification.. but ... that seems to be the situation we are in. So best of luck dealing with it.

Edited May 15, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest Silver Fox]

I'm not aware of a lot of them. Even the quick research I did suggested that there weren't a whole lot of sightings before Wallace. There are old Native American boogeyman stories, occasional (mostly dubious) newspaper reports, and a few sightings, but nothing along the lines of what was reported from the late fifties onward. Plenty of people (like Albert Ostman) reported stuff later on that took place during that time, but I wasn't counting them. Wikipedia even has bigfoot history organized into "Before 1958" and "After 1958." I could be wrong, of course (I'm hardly a bigfoot historian), but that's my understanding of the history of sightings.

No, there are a tremendous number of sightings before 1959. In fact, it was quite common that they were written up in the papers. They were often seen by large groups of people. For instance, in a newspaper report in one part of Oregon, they wrote up two different stories involving men with guns going after BF's. One shot at the BF, the other just got out his gun. The article mentions casually that just about every prospector or logger in the region claims to have seen them. This is what you find over and over in early reports. There are early reports of whole Indian villages being evacuated around Harrison Lake when BF's invaded the village. The villagers got in canoes and rowed downstream to another town. They said they left because BF's came into the town.

There were quite a few newspaper reports from the 1800's too. People being killed by BF's, BF's being captured by explorers, BF's being taken as pets, BF's being captured by townspeople, on and on.

Jacko was seen by many persons in the area before he was captured. There were endless reports of "apes" around Mt. St. Helens even before the Ape Canyon incident. After Ape Canyon and before the skier disappeared, a newspaper said that there were 30 cases over 36 years of groups of people fleeing the mountain in terror claiming that the "apes" had driven them off.

If you go back over early reports, what you find is in some places out West, vast numbers of people were seeing these things, but it wasn't written up very much for whatever reason.

In 1959, when the footprints started happening, Grover Krantz mentioned it to his PhD advisor, an anthropologist. His advisor told him, "It's an old story. These footprints have been appearing all over the remote parts of the NW for decades now, but we don't know who is leaving them."

This line, "The reports started in 1958 with Ray Wallace" is yet another skeptic line that is false, like so many things they say.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Yes they do and if you've been reading online you would know this.

It's the photo you were talking about, rope and all. How big do you think it is?

I don't know. How big is it, anyway?

[Guest ajciani]

This line, "The reports started in 1958 with Ray Wallace" is yet another skeptic line that is false, like so many things they say.

I think you are confusing skeptics with scoftics and know-nothings.

There are very few skeptics who would ever claim that bigfoot started with Ray Wallace and his stompers. They know better than that.

A major line of the skeptic (I don't know how major, because it originated with some Swede back in the 1980's, who had never even been to the US) used to be that a large, human-type animal couldn't live in the lush environments in which bigfoots were alleged to exist. There are very few skeptics who would even mention such nonsense anymore, because humans and bears were known to live in those environments.

The skeptics are also well aware of the various claims concerning people shooting the things, people being killed by the things, bigfoots busting down doors, etc. When a skeptic says, "why has one never been shot", they are really asking, "why has one never been placed on a veterinarian's table, and stuffed in a museum?"

All of the reports you collected are nothing more than stories. Stories of real events or fantasies, it doesn't matter. The ones that are too old to investigate, are too old to investigate. The ones that were investigated, didn't pan out. The modern ones that were never investigated, well, you have to ask why.

Now, could we go back through vital records from 1820's Georgia, and find "killed by ape-man" as a cause of death, maybe, assuming the records still exist. In fact, that might be a neat little project, for someone down in southern GA. Of the 1700's and 1800's stories I've been able to follow up on, the trail either went dry, or there were inconsistencies. Many of them are simply witness reports, and have no trails.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

No, there are a tremendous number of sightings before 1959. In fact, it was quite common that they were written up in the papers. They were often seen by large groups of people. For instance, in a newspaper report in one part of Oregon, they wrote up two different stories involving men with guns going after BF's. One shot at the BF, the other just got out his gun. The article mentions casually that just about every prospector or logger in the region claims to have seen them. This is what you find over and over in early reports. There are early reports of whole Indian villages being evacuated around Harrison Lake when BF's invaded the village. The villagers got in canoes and rowed downstream to another town. They said they left because BF's came into the town.

There were quite a few newspaper reports from the 1800's too. People being killed by BF's, BF's being captured by explorers, BF's being taken as pets, BF's being captured by townspeople, on and on.

Jacko was seen by many persons in the area before he was captured. There were endless reports of "apes" around Mt. St. Helens even before the Ape Canyon incident. After Ape Canyon and before the skier disappeared, a newspaper said that there were 30 cases over 36 years of groups of people fleeing the mountain in terror claiming that the "apes" had driven them off.

If you go back over early reports, what you find is in some places out West, vast numbers of people were seeing these things, but it wasn't written up very much for whatever reason.

In 1959, when the footprints started happening, Grover Krantz mentioned it to his PhD advisor, an anthropologist. His advisor told him, "It's an old story. These footprints have been appearing all over the remote parts of the NW for decades now, but we don't know who is leaving them."

This line, "The reports started in 1958 with Ray Wallace" is yet another skeptic line that is false, like so many things they say.

A lie? I was mistaken about the frequency of reports, and I never said that they started with Wallace. It's a bit hard to deny that the number of sightings has been going up since then, though; I believe even you mentioned that earlier.

Edited May 15, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[Guest Silver Fox]

A lie? I was mistaken about the frequency of reports, and I never said that they started with Wallace. It's a bit hard to deny that the number of sightings has been going up since then, though; I believe even you mentioned that earlier.

I don't believe that the number of actual sightings has risen. Maybe it is getting easier to report them now with the technology. Back in the days when many Indians lived here in the US, I would like to see a survey of them. My understanding in the NW is that most if not all Indians reporting seeing a BF at some time in their lives.

I'd say maybe 1/10 or 1/100 of sightings got reported or get reported. As BF gets more and more famous and media talked about, people will report their sightings more.

In the South, many of the oldtimers in rural areas knew all about these animals. In particular, those who had some Indian blood. Choctaw Indians called the old people and they knew all about them. Cherokee Indians had many names for them, and BF's were nothing new to them. Other Indians and Indian descendants called them the shadow people.

In the rural areas of the South, there is a very long tradition of knowledge about the "boogers."

You had a curious situation where some oldtimers in the rural South knew these animals well, especially those with Indian blood. While those in the cities scoffed at them.

There was no BFRO website a half century ago to instantly report your sighting.

Yes, anyone who says the sightings started with Wallace and his stompers is a liar. I've had some folks come to my site and recite that very meme to me. The media has broadcast this particular lie very, very well. How many stories have you read in the media about "Ray Wallace started the Bigfoot legend with his stompers."

[Guest tracker]

Outside the box here but most don't care about biggies, sorry. If one was killing beefs then the ranchers hunt it down and kill it and leave it as it lay or cover it to help with the smell factor. Most guys like that don't care about proving them or being on tv. It's just something they have to do to protect their lively hood or each other? Same goes for NA first nation people. They wouldn't be proud of having to destroy one and their last concern would be letting outsiders know about it.

In case anyone hasn't noticed Bf's are rather hard to locate and kill. They are at least twice as heavy as what most people guess they are including researchers. So when they see a 2-3 inch deep print think in the 1500-1800 lb range not 500-800 lbs IMO. That's alot of thick muscle and bone for 30.06 rounds to penetrate for a vital wound.

as always JMO. tracker

[Guest Blackdog]

I don't know. How big is it, anyway?

Here's a hint. No lie.