norseman Posted September 7, 2016 Admin Posted September 7, 2016 I have three daughters and a son and enjoy the outdoors. If I had been raised a little differently I may not even be aware of the myth. I think the general public has the right to know they are sharing the woods with a possible 800 lbs sometimes predatory primate. And I think its the governments responsibility to educate people for safety. What works for one predator does not always work for another. And most importantly ground needs to be set aside for them. So if something is out there? I think its imperative that we prove its existence sooner than later.
JKH Posted September 7, 2016 Posted September 7, 2016 1 hour ago, FarArcher said: I can confidently assure you I have no life mission to prove their existence. I already know of their existence, and am satisfied with that knowledge. I don't go looking for them, I don't go hunting for them, I don't even like these things. However, if I do return, I will only do so properly prepared, with one mission - and I'm a mighty careful man. I make every endeavor to leave nothing to chance - as too many times I've seen a small unaddressed detail turn a whole endeavor into crap. Thus the details. I can't quite figure out the contradictory statements. You're not going hunting, yet you're preparing to do so? Don't care for proof, yet could provide it for others? Your skill level may be very high, but what does that have to do with the essential question, why? Why spend all that brainpower on it? 1
FarArcher Posted September 7, 2016 Author Posted September 7, 2016 2 hours ago, JKH said: I can't quite figure out the contradictory statements. You're not going hunting, yet you're preparing to do so? Don't care for proof, yet could provide it for others? Your skill level may be very high, but what does that have to do with the essential question, why? Why spend all that brainpower on it? JKH, I don't think I'm making contradictory statements. True, I'm not going hunting. If you know where the bear den is, and you go there, that's not hunting. I said I already know of their existence, and am satisfied with that. Never said I don't care for proof - I just don't need any additional "proof" to know what I already know. If I stick my hand in a hole and get snake-bit, I don't need a field biologist to tell me that it was a snake. My skill level is what it is, but my last meeting - I was at a distinct disadvantage. Since the development of firearms, there is an ancient tactic that it's hard to find listed in today's literature - but was very effective from the time of the ancient Greeks to the Nineteenth Century Apache. Show and cover. I had one raising a ruckus in front of me, and as I ease past it, then discover another one is quickly and quietly running toward me from behind. I suddenly found myself at a distinct tactical disadvantage. It was set up - rather, I was set up quite nicely. And I didn't like it one single bit. Plain and simple. It infuriated me. During the rest of the weeks there, I studied them. Long hours. I studied what they did, and how they moved. When I got home, I studied every narrative I could, putting in over a thousand hours, correlating key nuggets found within those narratives. I kept missing something - but after months and months, it finally hit me - and the information was right there the entire time. Now knowing what I was up against, it was then a labor of love to develop the counter-tactics that at the next meeting - will tilt all tactical advantages to me. And believe me, it goes way beyond firearms. Every capability and every tactic can be beaten - in time. So. I don't hunt them. Only if I can return properly equipped, then I'll take my harvest - and there won't be anything they can do to stop me. Coming down the mountain might be tricky, as it's really hard to counter very large rocks being thrown down from above, and it's going to be uncomfortable as a sitting target clearing trees that may be dropped to block the road. They are so very fast. You ever hear one? That's not the one to be concerned with. 1
Twist Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, FarArcher said: JKH, I don't think I'm making contradictory statements. True, I'm not going hunting. If you know where the bear den is, and you go there, that's not hunting. Actually you are, per the definition of "hunting" "Simple Definition of hunting : the activity or sport of chasing and killing wild animals" Short of an argument of semantics, you are hunting BF if you show up in "their" area with weapons. Now all that being said, I am not against this activity and feel if done effectively and humanely, it is for the benefit of both science and indirectly the species. Why I say this is, if you lay one on the slab, science automatically benefits ( given it is not buried/hidden from actual science). For the species, it could be endangered, it could be rare, but if science determines it as such and is able to advance studies, then protection could be set up for it, and possibly sustain the population ( a big IF I know. ). There is always the argument that until now it has remained hidden thus protected on its own. That is a great idea but technology will eventually catch up with them. Protection sooner rather then later ( if given ) is a benefit. Just my thoughts as a simple country bumpkin Edited September 8, 2016 by Twist
FarArcher Posted September 8, 2016 Author Posted September 8, 2016 8 minutes ago, Twist said: Actually you are, per the definition of "hunting" "Simple Definition of hunting : the activity or sport of chasing and killing wild animals" Short of an argument of semantics, you are hunting BF if you show up in "their" area with weapons. Now all that being said, I am not against this activity and feel if done effectively and humanely, it is for the benefit of both science and indirectly the species. Why I say this is, if you lay one on the slab, science automatically benefits ( given it is not buried/hidden from actual science). For the species, it could be endangered, it could be rare, but if science determines it as such and is able to advance studies, then protection could be set up for it, and possibly sustain the population ( a big IF I know. ). There is always the argument that until now it has remained hidden thus protected on its own. That is a great idea but technology will eventually catch up with them. Protection sooner rather then later ( if given ) is a benefit. Just my thoughts as a simple country bumpkin I like that definition. It proves my own definition. "Chasing AND killing" The "and" suggest both activities are combined to qualify. I'm not chasing squat. (Being a country boy, you already know that it's no hunt if you already know where they are.) We'll see how science benefits. I'm not giving "science" nothing. They're not giving me anything. Twist, I know there are people who think there are few of these things, that they are somehow endangered, that we must do everything possible to perpetuate their existence. Whatever. I don't believe it for a moment. There's a lot more of these things than folks would ever believe possible. In more places than normal folks would suspect. Often, when I get a call for particular security requirements in very remote areas, I'm there for weeks or months. You spend some real time in some real remote areas - and you'll be mighty surprised sometimes. Hear something where a deer was dropped, turn on a flashlight, and seven pairs of eyes slowly retreat behind the trees? Unlike deer, which will just stand there. These things been reported - in remote areas - four thousands of years. Since written history. Mankind has a pretty big opinion of itself. Mankind could no more wipe these things out than they can eradicate the cockroach. They've both adapted beautifully to their own needs. 1
Twist Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 So then you admit you are hunting? Killing, I do not believe any of us need a definition for, that only leaves "chasing" : chase1 CHās/ verb gerund or present participle: chasing 1. pursue in order to catch or catch up with. "police chased the stolen car through the city" synonyms:pursue, run after, give chase to, follow; More 2. try to make contact with (someone) in order to get something owed or required. You are trying to make contact and kill a BF if you go back "out there" ? Sounds like you are hunting one, or are we once again going to argue the semantics of "someone" And, I would say, according to DWA here ( Self pronounced Super Scientist, with over 10 trillion reports read, I think that equals a "cargo ships hold" worth ) reports have offered you something in regards to science, and you will be offering it something if you just simply report back here with your finds !!! 42 minutes ago, FarArcher said: Mankind has a pretty big opinion of itself. Mankind could no more wipe these things out than they can eradicate the cockroach. They've both adapted beautifully to their own needs. Sorry to post twice in a row, but heck yeah we have a big opinion of ourselves, what other species has been better evolved or better suited on earth to dominate its environment? The proof is in the pudding as far as we know, NONE.
sheri Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 FarArcher, is there somewhere were I can read about your encounter. They can be silent runners when they want to be. I have encountered that.
FarArcher Posted September 8, 2016 Author Posted September 8, 2016 Twist, I'm just having fun with the hunting definition. It's more of a personal thing. I'll just say I'm not going to hunt for them and leave it at that. Some words with me are a bit too vague or inclusive for me to feel comfortable with. To have just a bit more fun, I'm not going to TRY to make CONTACT. If I pitched a (camping) tent, they'd come to me. No hunting. I don't have to MAKE CONTACT as they'll be right there. See the difference? Miniscule to be certain, but just enough difference for me to say I won't be hunting them. They'll find me. If you'll permit, and allow me to point something out - and I mean absolutely no slight - yes, I had a pretty big opinion of myself - right up until the moment I sized this thing up. I knew instantly, and nothing has changed my mind - that in the wild, I'm NOT the apex predator. And that's not a comforting feeling. I won't be giving science diddly squat. Whoever gets it can do as he wishes. The reports I studied were submitted by folks like me - not scientists. The people I've talked at length to and questioned are not scientists - just folks like me. I bring one down off the mountain, I'm perfectly satisfied. One can't bag a T. Rex, one can't bag a Velociraptor. After being stalked for three days and nights, I already killed a manhunting tiger. At night. Not many folks can say that. This is the next best thing.
Twist Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 Touche FA and good response. I agree with having fun with discussion on here. I for one am an advocate of what you are trying ( or not trying ) to do. I find your ambition to "obtain" one without hunting it to be beneficial to the science you are not contributing to. LOL. I must be a glutton for semantics
Rockape Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 I know where the fish are but I don't always come back with one. That's why they call it "fishing" and not "catching". 1
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 (edited) Harvest, as in getting harvested. Gee that's a pretty big human you have hanging up in the cave. Yea, don't you like the ways his eyes bug out like he was surprised or sumthin sumpthin? I hear they go good with acorn stew. Edited September 8, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
Twist Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 CM, Pretty sure if someone saw a BF, as described by multiple witnesses, hanging in a cave, the comment would not be, "Gee that's a pretty big human you have hanging up in the cave" I would imagine it would be closer to, "holly crap what is that "thing" you have having up in that cave" In which case, the response at that time is either, "I dont know yet" or "Some sort of bipedal ape" A creature on 2 feet does not equal a human. 1
FarArcher Posted September 8, 2016 Author Posted September 8, 2016 33 minutes ago, Twist said: Touche FA and good response. I agree with having fun with discussion on here. I for one am an advocate of what you are trying ( or not trying ) to do. I find your ambition to "obtain" one without hunting it to be beneficial to the science you are not contributing to. LOL. I must be a glutton for semantics You're in good company. Semantics are like - FUN. And you have a sense of the ironic - something else I like!
FarArcher Posted September 8, 2016 Author Posted September 8, 2016 32 minutes ago, Rockape said: I know where the fish are but I don't always come back with one. That's why they call it "fishing" and not "catching". Rock, depends on your purpose in fishing. If I want to kill some time, doze, get a nap, relax and enjoy doing nothing - I can go fishing or hunting. If I want to bring back fish - let's just say I bring back fish, and I may not even use a rod. Never mind what the game warden would say. It's all in what your end goal is. 1
Rockape Posted September 8, 2016 Posted September 8, 2016 18 minutes ago, Twist said: CM, Pretty sure if someone saw a BF, as described by multiple witnesses, hanging in a cave, the comment would not be, "Gee that's a pretty big human you have hanging up in the cave" I would imagine it would be closer to, "holly crap what is that "thing" you have having up in that cave" In which case, the response at that time is either, "I dont know yet" or "Some sort of bipedal ape" A creature on 2 feet does not equal a human. I think CM is saying Far Archer would be hanging in Bigfoot's cave.
Recommended Posts