1994 Ore. Report Of Elk Hunter Witnessing A Bigfoot Battle A Bull Elk

[BobbyO]

It will be/is head and shoulders above all and any others H, no danger of that whatsoever..

[hiflier]

It will be/is head and shoulders above all and any others H, no danger of that whatsoever..

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that BobbyO! I've watched the progress and the attention paid to the kinds of details deep researchers will be so fortunate to have at their fingertips. If anyone out there doubts this then become a Premium Member and you can stroll through this mountain of data and see for yourself. It is well on the road to being the ONLY most complete database available that is searchable on several levels of criteria at once.

Folks if your tired of being lost in the data pile then you really should check this baby out

Edited May 17, 2016 by hiflier

[hiflier]

It will be/is head and shoulders above all and any others H, no danger of that whatsoever..

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that BobbyO! I've watched the progress and the attention paid to the kinds of details deep researchers will be so fortunate to have at their fingertips. If anyone out there doubts this then become a Premium Member and you can stroll through this mountain of data and see for yourself. It is well on the road to being the ONLY most complete database available that is searchable on several levels of criteria at once.

Folks if your tired of being lost in the data pile then you really should take this baby out for a spin

Edited May 17, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

John Mionczynski talks about reported cases of sasquatch killing elk.  They wouldn't go like this.  Besides which, elk tend to use their hooves when tangling with other species; the antlers are for mating battles.  Any bull that could toss a sasquatch over its shoulder (1) would win the fight; (2) could do it to another bull, and do we see that?

 

Major Skepticals Moment here.

 

http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/possible-sasquatch-anomalies/

Edited May 19, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

So where are the pictures and hide?

I'm not usually going to discount a report on that alone; there are reports of people who remembered they had a camera with them after the encounter was over, and I could kinda, you know, see why.  I might be focused, more than anything else, on what-the-hell-is-that, and getting the hell out of there.

 

But as I've noted, it just seems very unlikely that a bigfoot/elk encounter would go that way, from evidence for which no one has come up with an alternate explanation.

[hiflier]

So where are the pictures and hide?

I'm not usually going to discount a report on that alone; there are reports of people who remembered they had a camera with them after the encounter was over, and I could kinda, you know, see why.  I might be focused, more than anything else, on what-the-hell-is-that, and getting the hell out of there.

 

But as I've noted, it just seems very unlikely that a bigfoot/elk encounter would go that way, from evidence for which no one has come up with an alternate explanation.

Alternate explanation: The BF jumped when gored to get off and away from the horns and the sudden pain. Since the Elk head was in motion the only place to go was over it.

Edited May 19, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

My problem with this account is that there isn't a predator I can come up with that would take the biggest elk when more manageable victims were available.  That alone.  I'd also say that the much higher percentage of cows in the population makes it kinda unnecessary to go after a big one with antlers.  And I'm just not seeing a bull tossing a sasquatch.

 

The standard I'd apply is:  were I a researcher, would I go to that location looking for more evidence?

 

Not this one.

Edited May 19, 2016 by DWA

[hiflier]

So much for the alternate explanation...

[Guest DWA]

You just go for the explanation that makes the most sense, I think.  And to me, it's...they made this one up.

 

Were there evidence to make me think otherwise?  Cool.  There just isn't.

[hiflier]

Agreed. But if the report is true then the conclusion of being tossed by an Elk may not be. It may only be what the witness thought it was from a certain mindset or perspective. Immediate reaction to severe pain can make animals as well as Humans react almost super Humanly. For a strong and muscular creature as Sasquatch is purported to be, coupled doing some of the feats witnesses have described it doing, jumping out of pain wouldn't be outlandish to consider.

I do think however that the 900 lb. weight estimate is way off and that being tossed was only the impression the witness had. Besides, you only asked for an alternative explanation. At the time you didn't mention that it had to make sense. Stop moving the goal posts. My explanation BTW makes more sense than the tossing of a 900 lb. Sasquatch any day of the week

Edited May 19, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

There's no need to move the goalposts if one takes each report and puts it up against all the other evidence to see if it fits.  This one just doesn't.  Of course it's only one story in any event; and if one didn't evaluate the bulk of the evidence, we'd be, well, where the skeptics are on this, which is pretty much nowhere.

[hiflier]

Sorry. Not up for listening to the broken record. You moved the goal posts. First you asked for an alternate explanation. THEN you said it had to make sense AFTER the fact. That to me is moving the goal posts. Besides, I fulfilled both of your requests more than adequately which is a heck of a lot more than you ever do for me other than dodge.

[Guest DWA]

Um, no.  All that is required is to understand how science handles things.  Which, when it comes to this topic, most people - including most people calling themselves scientists - most certainly do not.

 

The 'broken record' is people continually showing they do not understand how to apply science to stuff.  Way beyond it; why my Ignore list - which includes, and only includes, those people - is as long as it is.  If one continually shows an inability to treat this topic the way a scientific topic should be treated...they get on that list, and I only respond to them to make points to the other people besides me who have to deal with them, and who need pointers in dealing with them.

Edited May 19, 2016 by DWA

[Bonehead74]

So where are the pictures and hide?

I'm not usually going to discount a report on that alone; there are reports of people who remembered they had a camera with them after the encounter was over, and I could kinda, you know, see why. I might be focused, more than anything else, on what-the-hell-is-that, and getting the hell out of there.

Did you read the report, DWA? It clearly states that one of the men in the hunting party took a number of pictures of the wounded and bleeding bigfoot. It also says that "Ronnie" has the section of elk hide that was bitten by the bigfoot.

So again, I ask:

Where are the pictures and hide?

[Guest DWA]

One knows based on other stuff that one can discount the report.  There are any of a number of reasons you won't share your pics and hide with me.

 

Right...?

 

Right.

 

I can tell you I habituate, that they come to my house every night and I hand out canned mackerel, they know how to open the tins and they love pinot grigio with it.  I have photos, and video.  You want to see them?  Who are you, anyway?

 

Like that.  Like me, BTW, were I habituatin'.

 

Too many people think they deserve proof.  It's other things that let me know this one didn't happen, because they run counter to pretty compelling evidence that sasquatch don't do this.  Compiled as my link shows by a scientist, in fact.  Did *you* read that?

Edited May 19, 2016 by DWA