Jump to content

Blockbuster News


Guest Silver Fox

Recommended Posts

What a bloodthirsty mob we have here.

Nahh...I see it differently...

Not a blood thirsty mob....but rather a frustrated and impatient "mob" who wishes (but probably not a much as Derek wishes) that this thing had never been leaked in the first place so that we could all instead enjoy such thought proving posts as "do BF's like fireworks?" and "Let's rehash the Jacob's picture for the 1 millionth time"...

Ahhh....if only for such blissful ignorance..

(changing gears)

Serious question:

Derek, Roughly how long until the public release?

Slab

Edited by slabdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bsruther

Nahh...I see it differently...

Not a blood thirsty mob....but rather a frustrated and impatient "mob" who wishes (but probably not a much as Derek wishes) that this thing had never been leaked in the first place so that we could all instead enjoy such thought proving posts as "do BF's like fireworks?" and "Let's rehash the Jacob's picture for the 1 millionth time"...

Ahhh....if only for such blissful ignorance..

(changing gears)

Serious question:

Derek, Roughly how long until the public release?

Slab

There's nothing wrong with speculating about a story, where all of the facts haven't been revealed. But when I read through these "sierra shooting" threads, I see many posters trying to find a way to prosecute/persecute this guy and make him out to look like the devil incarnate, for shooting their beloved Bigfoot mama and her baby. I have a strong distaste for liars, but I can't say that I'd blame this guy one bit, for crafting his story to avoid the wrath of these types.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photos settle the contradiction - if shared.

Yep, and the DNA will settle "what" was shot or killed to provide the fleshy sample, which is all the facts we are going to need, whether anyone believes the story behind it or not. It would be helpful to some peoples belief to have photos of the dead BF but , some I'm sure would still doubt this whole thing without the DNA workup on the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, I see many posters trying to find a way to prosecute/persecute this guy and make him out to look like the devil incarnate, for shooting their beloved Bigfoot mama and her baby.

Well...that's the world (legitimate hunters get that reaction that everyday)...and if he has a problem with that he (the shooter) better "buck up".

I trust Derek, but he is not in control of the evidence nor the situation.

I have a sneaking suspicion (as mentioned in past posts) that all this "controversy" will cause key participants and evidence to disappear all the while blaming it on the "controversy".

I can just hear it now

"You can't handle the truth!"

I hope that's not the case.

Edited by slabdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, this guy, this hunter will get a pass by just about everyone. No matter how atrocious the true event was. He will receive some verbal abuse but that's about it. He should be man enough to endure that and take the lumps.

Personally, if there's any truth to the story that no bodies were recovered and a chunk of flesh was blown off, the shooting happened at a much closer range. Perhaps he even came upon a mother and cub BF sleeping.

Would a 25.06 even have the punch to knock a piece of flesh off at 80-100 yards? Someone may be correct in that the hunter shot the young BF first and the female then charged him. She was just about on him to twist him in half when he got the shot off at close range that saved his life. Perhaps it wasn't the young BF that suddenly appeared from the treeline, but rather the momma. It would make sense because the young travel about easier on all four than adults, so he may have thought he was shooting a animal.

All, please realize that we members are just participating in speculation and conversation. WIth out such talk this forum would be rather boring and die. We're forced to speculate because the hunter hasn't given a factual story and presented the evidence in support.

As to finding a chunk of flesh in the wild....NO WAY! If it were a bone, ok, yeah. But flesh, no way. Firstly, if the BF was shot from the distance claimed....HTH did they know where to dig? Remember it was said they "heard" her go down, they didn't actually find the spot. So coming back two weeks later after a snow they were able to guess the location she went down? They then proceeded to start digging out the clear blue and at the bottom of their whole they found a slice of flesh like it was a gift from the gods? LOL...ok then!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well nuff said. Silver you get your wish. Roll with it baby!

Admin please remove me from this forum. I will not be back.

Thanks,

DR

Derek,

I hope you reconsider. Your departure from this forum would be a loss to all of us. Your contributions are significant and respected and we recognize and understand the position you are in.

Best regards,

JDL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nahh...I see it differently...

Not a blood thirsty mob....but rather a frustrated and impatient "mob"

What he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the story has any amount of truth in it, I doubt that he shot the female BF first. Its my opion that he shot the juvenille BF first and the screams from the 2nd juvenille alerted the mother who was about to comed own on the shooter and was shot second.

But then again it could be just a story as most of us suspect. Surely a picture of this so called steak could be leaked, SF should be able to comne up with something

I had not considered this, but it makes sense. The question that's been niggling at me is "Why the heck did the mother expose herself and wave her arms?" The only logical answer is that she was protecting her kids. If the kids were unexposed and not at risk there would be no reason for her to act in such a manner. If he had already taken a shot at one of her kids, her actions are completely understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

All, please realize that we members are just participating in speculation and conversation. WIth out such talk this forum would be rather boring and die. We're forced to speculate because the hunter hasn't given a factual story and presented the evidence in support.

Amen.. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are asking legitimate questions. It isn't that I, or most of us, don't believe Derek, it's that I hope Derek isn't getting bamboozled like Autumn Williams, that's all. It didn't go well when Autumn tried to defend herself or her witness. After all that, I probably would not have even bothered in this situation. Which leads me to my next questions:

If someone wanted to discredit you or Dr. Ketchum, why on earth would they pick Lindsay to leak the story if they wanted it to be taken seriously? That's why I don't understand the over reaction. It gives more credence to what Lindsay is saying when even your story has changed a few times.

Why is shooting a bigfoot while hunting something you would want hide? There have been different versions from both Derek and SF. What kind of truth would be hidden by a cover story like this? Can it get any worse? And what kind of scenarios would be worse than this? To be honest,if a kid bigfoot or mother bigfoot ran at me, I would shoot them. Here you are faced with something unknown with no back up in a rural mountain area. If it isn't a bear or human, I would be shooting it before it got to me first, or die trying. This is a defensive instinct and has nothing to do with whether you are pro or no-kill. There is no judge in this world that is going to touch this in my opinion.

If you were trying to keep a shooting under raps regardless of whether it was a bear out of season or a bigfoot why would you turn right around and go back to an area where multiple bigfoot were sighted and killed? Why spend a day in this kind of vulnerable location where the bodies have obviously been removed by someone or something and risk your life for a day digging for something that is two weeks old, that has cooked in the sun, and been refrozen several times over that time period to send to Dr. Ketchum's lab?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HairyGreek

I think we are asking legitimate questions. It isn't that I, or most of us, don't believe Derek, it's that I hope Derek isn't getting bamboozled like Autumn Williams, that's all. It didn't go well when Autumn tried to defend herself or her witness. After all that, I probably would not have even bothered in this situation. Which leads me to my next questions:

If someone wanted to discredit you or Dr. Ketchum, why on earth would they pick Lindsay to leak the story if they wanted it to be taken seriously? That's why I don't understand the over reaction. It gives more credence to what Lindsay is saying when even your story has changed a few times.

Why is shooting a bigfoot while hunting something you would want hide? There have been different versions from both Derek and SF. What kind of truth would be hidden by a cover story like this? Can it get any worse? And what kind of scenarios would be worse than this? To be honest,if a kid bigfoot or mother bigfoot ran at me, I would shoot them. Here you are faced with something unknown with no back up in a rural mountain area. If it isn't a bear or human, I would be shooting it before it got to me first, or die trying. This is a defensive instinct and has nothing to do with whether you are pro or no-kill. There is no judge in this world that is going to touch this in my opinion.

If you were trying to keep a shooting under raps regardless of whether it was a bear out of season or a bigfoot why would you turn right around and go back to an area where multiple bigfoot were sighted and killed? Why spend a day in this kind of vulnerable location where the bodies have obviously been removed by someone or something and risk your life for a day digging for something that is two weeks old, that has cooked in the sun, and been refrozen several times over that time period to send to Dr. Ketchum's lab?

I think Derekfoot asked to be removed from the forum. Doesn't seem like he will be answering anymore. Also, judges don't get to touch what they will and won't listen to at the prosecutorial level. That is up to law inforcement to take to a district attorney (or similar) and decide. If this guy went and got legal advice, he could have gotten any number of answers. We can all argue until we are blue in the face about if that legal advice has credence or not, but it won't change if he heard to keep his mouth shut regardless of what happened that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had not considered this, but it makes sense. The question that's been niggling at me is "Why the heck did the mother expose herself and wave her arms?" The only logical answer is that she was protecting her kids. If the kids were unexposed and not at risk there would be no reason for her to act in such a manner. If he had already taken a shot at one of her kids, her actions are completely understandable.

This brings many things into play. The only animals I can think of where the children will attempt to intervene after the mother has been shot are humans. Any other animal I can think of, the young get deep and hide.

It's the reason why early on I suggested that the hunter actually shot a young one first and then shot the female when she came to intervene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HairyGreek

This brings many things into play. The only animals I can think of where the children will attempt to intervene after the mother has been shot are humans. Any other animal I can think of, the young get deep and hide.

It's the reason why early on I suggested that the hunter actually shot a young one first and then shot the female when she came to intervene.

Why so quick to say these things are not closer to human? Avoiding people and videos and cameras unless it seems they want to be seen for over 3 decades is no small feat. Can anyone who has actually seen one say with no uncertainty that these creatures are NOT closer to us then apes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Strick

Jockey said: "To be honest,if a kid bigfoot or mother bigfoot ran at me, I would shoot them. Here you are faced with something unknown with no back up in a rural mountain area. If it isn't a bear or human, I would be shooting it before it got to me first, or die trying. This is a defensive instinct and has nothing to do with whether you are pro or no-kill. There is no judge in this world that is going to touch this in my opinion."

These are my thoughts exactly. I'm not sure why everyone goes so mushy as soon as the subject of killing a Sasquatch comes up. By the way, I speak as someone who has never been 'pro-kill' and consider myself a promoter of animal rights.

It would appear to me that almost any close, Sasquatch encounter in which the creature was shot could easily be explained in terms of self-defence. If the 'shooter' needed to elaborate his story then this would be the angle to work on. No need to persuade a patsy to distribute misinformation on your behalf, or whatever the current thinking is in this twisted affair.

Apologies for unorthodox quoting: BFF mobile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...