JDL Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Silverfox, at what point did you actually start caring about the facts?? Thank you, I needed a good laugh today. Really want to quit posting here on this but there is one thing I would like to clear up. The piece of flesh was not a thick steak. It was a piece of flesh. It did not look like it was cut of a body. It had a cut line because it was cut in half, and then cut again to remove a small piece for the study. Believe what you want, but it's just one more thing to clear up. I have the original photos, and the way it keeps being described here is completely wrong. Just saying. Photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) Silverfox, at what point did you actually start caring about the facts?? Thank you, I needed a good laugh today. Really want to quit posting here on this but there is one thing I would like to clear up. The piece of flesh was not a thick steak. It was a piece of flesh. It did not look like it was cut of a body. It had a cut line because it was cut in half, and then cut again to remove a small piece for the study. Believe what you want, but it's just one more thing to clear up. I have the original photos, and the way it keeps being described here is completely wrong. Just saying. Thanks. FACT: The BF slice was 7 inches long by 4 inches wide by 3 inches deep. That's a steak in my book. FACT: Melba Ketchum stated that it appeared to have been sliced off of a body with a knife or some sort of a tool. Those are the facts, you can play with them any way you like. And if you stop posting here about this incident, I would be a very happy man. Speaking of facts, why is that the shooter's story that you are peddling all about as some sort of gospel differs considerably from the original version as related by the shooter online on Taxidermy.net and on the phone to my source back in November? Seems like someone has changed his story, eh Mr. Investigator? Edited July 18, 2011 by Silver Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 As for any hunting regulations that might have been violated perhaps this can provide anyone interested in a little light reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Not 100% sure on that. The Sierra Story at least paints it as a double self-defense shooting. NOW, yes it would be a hard sale to the prosecutors but it is conceivable that the story is plausible, and said prosecutor if the case went to a jury would have a VERY hard time painting this as a non-self defense killing, but I do not know what CA Law would says towards killing unknown mammals in self-defense or if it says nothing to that point. I'd say it would be hard to hold the shooter liable, I mean, one the pet explanations for BF sightings is misidentified bears right? Well, proponents have argued that misidentification goes both ways, and this would be case in point. With no other animal being proven to exist which would be of the size and hairiness of a large bear, the shooter would have every reason to assume it was a bear, since he had no frame of reference of what a BF actually looked like, with exception to legend and folklore, which he had no mandate to believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) As for any hunting regulations that might have been violated perhaps this can provide anyone interested in a little light reading. Can you help us out by directing us to the section you feel was violated? But still: If he says he shot at what he thought was a bear and he says it ran off into the brush, and then he shoots a second one in self defense, and it didn't quite look like a bear, so he freaked and set it in the brush before high-tailing it, there's no "proof" that it wasn't actually a bear. Heck, even if they did find a chunk of bigfoot thigh two weeks later under two feet of snow, and even if it's mitochondrial DNA is 100% human, and even if someone determines from this that a human was murdered (or manslaughtered) there's no proof that it came from one of the two creatures he shot. I'm just going with Dereck's account here. Now, since this is the only forum I haunt, I don't know what statements the hunter has made in other forums. If they contradict the story above, then there may be something to go after. Edited July 18, 2011 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 18, 2011 Silverfox, at what point did you actually start caring about the facts?? Thank you, I needed a good laugh today. Really want to quit posting here on this but there is one thing I would like to clear up. The piece of flesh was not a thick steak. It was a piece of flesh. It did not look like it was cut of a body. It had a cut line because it was cut in half, and then cut again to remove a small piece for the study. Believe what you want, but it's just one more thing to clear up. I have the original photos, and the way it keeps being described here is completely wrong. Just saying. Thanks Derekfoot, that is more consistent with what I thought all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Thanks. And if you stop posting here about this incident, I would be a very happy man. Why? Doesn't Derek have a right to present his facts, same as you? Who is really holding the goods that can prove their facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 18, 2011 Besides I thought Derekfoot was still working the area, why the sudden turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted July 18, 2011 Thanks. FACT: The BF slice was 7 inches long by 4 inches wide by 3 inches deep. That's a steak in my book. That's a big slice, if true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Silverfox, at what point did you actually start caring about the facts?? Thank you, I needed a good laugh today. Really want to quit posting here on this but there is one thing I would like to clear up. The piece of flesh was not a thick steak. It was a piece of flesh. It did not look like it was cut of a body. It had a cut line because it was cut in half, and then cut again to remove a small piece for the study. Believe what you want, but it's just one more thing to clear up. I have the original photos, and the way it keeps being described here is completely wrong. Just saying. Photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Photos? I would just as much like photos of SF's claims of said "steak" size and what his SOURCE is... Man, let the "reporter" off the hook about his news report, but not the researcher. What a strange world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 That's a big slice, if true.. I'm pretty sure Derek agreed with Lindsay's reporting on the size of the slice during one of the radio programs. I don't believe any mention was made of the "cut" of the thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted July 18, 2011 I'm pretty sure Derek agreed with Lindsay's reporting on the size of the slice during one of the radio programs. I don't believe any mention was made of the "cut" of the thing. Sizewise you mean ?? SF, how do you know the Dims ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Why? Doesn't Derek have a right to present his facts, same as you? Who is really holding the goods that can prove their facts? Sure he has a right to post his "facts" all he wants. Just getting tired of all of his hostile remarks. It's particularly annoying because as part of a journalistic duty to keep on listening to him no matter what, I can't put him on ignore like the countless others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I would just as much like photos of SF's claims of said "steak" size and what his SOURCE is... Man, let the "reporter" off the hook about his news report, but not the researcher. What a strange world. Melba Ketchum said it was 7 inches long by 4 inches wide by 3 inches deep. She also said that it appeared to have been sawed off a body with a knife or some tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts