Why Has No Hunter Ever Shot A Bigfoot?

[Guest]

News Flash..........nobody knows exactly what a bigfoot/sasquatch is therefore one cannot state with certainty what someone else used to describe an unknown creature is the "correct" terminology. When the European settlers came to North America they called the Wapiti an Elk, but it wasn't the same creature referred to as elk in Europe, so they called that creature in N.A. a moose.

More goal moving/ derailing, come on! Why hasn't somebody shot one, tossed it in the back of his pickup, and drove it to the tavern to show off to the guys? Nobody would really care what he called it, but they would sure want to hear the story of how he bagged it!

I have this tidbit to offer...

A person will be surprised at how insignificant and ineffective their gun can seem when you're actually in the presence of large, dangerous game.

I've been in the presence of a BF, and if the M-16 we had was loaded, I still would not have used it. Mainly because I'm sure I was looking at a man, and secondly because the thing is steroids in the flesh!

Have you ever been in the presence of a large moose or grizzly bear. I've been near both, and I can tell you that it takes nerves of steel and huge faith in your weapon to fire upon either animal!

[norseman]

I have this tidbit to offer...

A person will be surprised at how insignificant and ineffective their gun can seem when you're actually in the presence of large, dangerous game.

I've been in the presence of a BF, and if the M-16 we had was loaded, I still would not have used it. Mainly because I'm sure I was looking at a man, and secondly because the thing is steroids in the flesh!

Have you ever been in the presence of a large moose or grizzly bear. I've been near both, and I can tell you that it takes nerves of steel and huge faith in your weapon to fire upon either animal!

And yet each fall, thousands of Moose and hundreds of Griz fall to the hunter's rifle.

While it's very prudent to not shoot at a Griz with a M16 rifle (5.56mm or .223 Rem caliber), there are rifle calibers that are very capable of doing the job all day long, every day. And the military does have some of these calibers in it's arsenal. A 7.62mm (.308 Win) is at the bottom end of marginal, and the .50 cal Browning machine gun would down right dismantle an elephant. It delivers a monsterous 750 grain bullet at 2800 feet per second and a WHOPPING 13,000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle.

http://www.statusguns.com/status_50BMG.htm

Let's face facts, in the world of large dangerous game, the rifle still wins 99.9% of the fights. And we are talking civilian hunting rifles here.

Edited May 25, 2011 by norseman

[Guest]

And yet each fall, thousands of Moose and hundreds of Griz fall to the hunter's rifle.

While it's very prudent to not shoot at a Griz with a M16 rifle (5.56mm or .223 Rem caliber), there are rifle calibers that are very capable of doing the job all day long, every day. And the military does have some of these calibers in it's arsenal. A 7.62mm (.308 Win) is at the bottom end of marginal, and the .50 cal Browning machine gun would down right dismantle an elephant. It delivers a monsterous 750 grain bullet at 2800 feet per second and a WHOPPING 13,000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle.

http://www.statusguns.com/status_50BMG.htm

Let's face facts, in the world of large dangerous game, the rifle still wins 99.9% of the fights. And we are talking civilian hunting rifles here.

As I said, nerves of steel...

Yes the rifle wins in a large percentage of encounters with dangerous game. The sasquatch must be more than game however, because there are reports of people firing upon BF and the shot having no effect.

I also have to address the angle that, if a hunter has fired upon a BF and the shot has no effect, how many of these hunters are missing? I've read accounts where BF were fired upon and killed, but the BF has buddies who then exact vengeance from the shooter. One story I believe is a group of hunters (three) killed a BF and its buddy proceeded to track the hunters, attack them and only kill the one that shot the other BF. Bending his rifle into a circle!

Upon reading this, I don't think I would shoot a BF either...

[Guest]

One story I believe is a group of hunters (three) killed a BF and its buddy proceeded to track the hunters, attack them and only kill the one that shot the other BF. Bending his rifle into a circle!

Upon reading this, I don't think I would shoot a BF either...

Can you source this story? Was it a "class a" sighting? Where can it be read?

[Guest]

i would take a chance at shooting a bigfoot, even if it wasnt alone. you only have one life to live right? lol

[norseman]

As I said, nerves of steel...

Yes the rifle wins in a large percentage of encounters with dangerous game. The sasquatch must be more than game however, because there are reports of people firing upon BF and the shot having no effect.

I flatly reject this notion. Our ancestors killed Wolly Mammoth with nothing more than sharpened sticks. I was at Royal Alberta Museum visiting family once, and there was a Mammoth skeleton there, at 6'3" tall I could easily walk under it's belly.

If Sasquatch is real, then he is of flesh and bone, same as you and same as I. And while his size and strength are impressive, he is no where near as impressive as other animals our kind has made a living hunting during the Pleistocene.

I also have to address the angle that, if a hunter has fired upon a BF and the shot has no effect, how many of these hunters are missing? I've read accounts where BF were fired upon and killed, but the BF has buddies who then exact vengeance from the shooter. One story I believe is a group of hunters (three) killed a BF and its buddy proceeded to track the hunters, attack them and only kill the one that shot the other BF. Bending his rifle into a circle!

Is there anything verified to this story? A police report? An obituary? Something tangible you could link to this forum?

Upon reading this, I don't think I would shoot a BF either...

Take solace in this........the only animal in the world that plots vengeance to a very fine art.........is the animal you look in the face of your bathroom mirror each morning. If there was a Bigfoot "Army" out there? I don't see any evidence for it. I mean why aren't they holding small towns hostage and demanding fatty foods? And don't small white furless apes all look the same to them? How can they pick one out of the crowd?

No, it's an ape. Which is to say it's smart...........but not as smart as we are.

[Guest]

Can you source this story? Was it a "class a" sighting? Where can it be read?

I'm attempting to find the story now...I read a number yesterday at bigfootencounters.com.

[Guest]

I flatly reject this notion. Our ancestors killed Wolly Mammoth with nothing more than sharpened sticks. I was at Royal Alberta Museum visiting family once, and there was a Mammoth skeleton there, at 6'3" tall I could easily walk under it's belly.

If Sasquatch is real, then he is of flesh and bone, same as you and same as I. And while his size and strength are impressive, he is no where near as impressive as other animals our kind has made a living hunting during the Pleistocene.

Is there anything verified to this story? A police report? An obituary? Something tangible you could link to this forum?

Take solace in this........the only animal in the world that plots vengeance to a very fine art.........is the animal you look in the face of your bathroom mirror each morning. If there was a Bigfoot "Army" out there? I don't see any evidence for it. I mean why aren't they holding small towns hostage and demanding fatty foods? And don't small white furless apes all look the same to them? How can they pick one out of the crowd?

No, it's an ape. Which is to say it's smart...........but not as smart as we are.

We see the world differently...

The story I is at bigfootencounters.com, i'm attempting to relate the exact article.

As far as i'm concerned, bigfoot is a "man" anyway. Not saying there's a "army" of them. Maybe the "threat" of holding small towns hostage is the reason their existence hasn't been verified? No...BF is not a ape, anymore than we are.

[Guest John]

[norseman]

We see the world differently...

How so?

The story I is at bigfootencounters.com, i'm attempting to relate the exact article.

Thanks, I'd like to read it.

As far as i'm concerned, bigfoot is a "man" anyway. Not saying there's a "army" of them. Maybe the "threat" of holding small towns hostage is the reason their existence hasn't been verified? No...BF is not a ape, anymore than we are.

So it's your claim that they are closely related to man? Actually that's not a unpopular mindset. Although I strongly disagree with it. Nothing we attribute to the ancient behavior of man, can be attributed to Sasquatch. They do not use fires, they do not fabricate tools, they do not wear clothing. I see nothing that put's them in close proximity to our own species except for a vague likeness in appearance, and I do mean vague.

[Guest]

I'm attempting to find the story now...I read a number yesterday at bigfootencounters.com.

Delta, I did searches on "bigfoot kills hunter" and other related words all to no avail. You said you read a story where BF kills one of three hunters. I would think that when the other hunters reported the death that there would at least be documentation that he died. Even if they never mentioned BF out fear of ridicule, there would still be a report of the death. But anyway, I cannot find this story, let alone a report. Do you remember what state? What country or county?

Do you agree that as the story goes, after the BF killed the hunter it bent his rifle in a circle sounds just like a cheezy scene out of The Six Million Dollar Man show, right?

[Guest]

How so?

Thanks, I'd like to read it.

So it's your claim that they are closely related to man? Actually that's not a unpopular mindset. Although I strongly disagree with it. Nothing we attribute to the ancient behavior of man, can be attributed to Sasquatch. They do not use fires, they do not fabricate tools, they do not wear clothing. I see nothing that put's them in close proximity to our own species except for a vague likeness in appearance, and I do mean vague.

I'll give a honest search again for the story and some others...

Via pm I've been given another idea to ponder over concerning BF. A individual of Native American descent, tells me that there are several stories amongst his people of BF's origins. If I interpret what he's saying correctly, I would deduct that BF are native americans...in a vague manner.

The story goes that around the last mini ice age, a group of nomadic indian tribes were separated from everyone else. They had to develop in a very closed box, plenty of inbreeding. The couple hundred years they were separated changed them and they forgot things, they became more primitive due to...I guess being stranded on this continent alone and in small numbers. I presume the others had maybe retreated over the land bridge or something like that...

When the ice receeded and the other Native Americans returned hundreds of years later the people were different. The returning Natives went about their lives and settling. The story goes that some of the returning Natives were nomads and pillaged the peaceful coastal natives.

Supposedly, the Natives who became BF watched the tactics of the nomadic Natives and adapted them to their own. The nomadic natives tactic of raiding the peaceful natives for food, supplies and women.

This is a story that someone could probably poke holes in, but it does raise a issue I probably never considered: BF may simply be Natives who were somehow changed. That would explain why some alleged BF bones are found and turned in to science only to be labeled as Native American bones.

I have read on that same site, stories and accounts that BF does use fire, though only in their caves and when they had a human captive. I'd ask would they ever need to use tools? Would superman find it necessary to use tools (said jokingly of course)? If they are so strong and fast that they can grab a bear and break its neck...what use would they have for tools?

[Guest]

Delta, I did searches on "bigfoot kills hunter" and other related words all to no avail. You said you read a story where BF kills one of three hunters. I would think that when the other hunters reported the death that there would at least be documentation that he died. Even if they never mentioned BF out fear of ridicule, there would still be a report of the death. But anyway, I cannot find this story, let alone a report. Do you remember what state? What country or county?

Do you agree that as the story goes, after the BF killed the hunter it bent his rifle in a circle sounds just like a cheezy scene out of The Six Million Dollar Man show, right?

I'll do another search in earnest. I've read so many things in the last week I may be confused.

The bent rifle in a circle thing actually sounds like something I would expect from a intelligent being, angry because its friend was shot.

[Guest]

I have no doubt a monkee has been killed here & there over the years, but for one or more of a variety of reasons, was not recovered.

I would opine that for most hunters, running across a booger is the last thing on their mind. So even if they were carrying a rifle of sufficient caliber to handle something the size of a monkee, even someone like myself who is pro-kill would almost certainly take the moments needed to positively ID the target and by the time was sure he was looking at a booger rather than some suicidally inclined hoaxer, the booger is likely long gone. This is born out time & again when hunters reporting sightings. Monkees don't spend a lot of time standing still out in the open, and ethical hunters won't shoot unless sure of their target. They ones who might are the very inexperienced hunter, or the unethical who would shoot at any animal w/o being sure first.

On the other hand I think a dedicated hunt to grass & recover a monkee could be successful. The GCBRO tried a couple times and by the account communicated to me personally by one of the participants, nearly succeeded. At times I've wondered why they didn't try again, after eliminating mistakes made & sloppiness in the first two hunts...

My personal opinion has long been that the type specimen will be killed in the south or south east by a young hunter on stand for deer or hogs (if unsupervised a young hunter might recognize he isn't looking at a human and may shoot the Big Stinky out of fear) or collected via a road kill.

Edited May 26, 2011 by NDT

[Guest]

Can you source this story? Was it a "class a" sighting? Where can it be read?

I remember reading this one in the past. It was talked about significantly on the old bff. Don't recall where else its posted but I'll enjoy reading it again too. Its also a good one to keep in the back of your mind for those who feel they are tougher then sasquatch.