Blockbuster News

[Guest Strick]

Jodie,

Apologies for referring to you as 'Jockey'.

It's those **** auto-correct Android devices again.

Maybe I should just wait til I get home......

[Guest]

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?

That's exactly what I was implying.

[Guest]

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

I second this JDL..........

Derek,

if you can read this, please dont be chased away from here, you have brought a lot to this site!!

people should check out your site, I see how much legwork you guys have really done, you and your group are definitely not armchair researchers!!

[Guest HairyGreek]

That's exactly what I was implying.

Ah. I misunderstood. I thought you believed they came out first and where shot first because they are closer to apes. I have all sorts of outlandish thougts on the Big Guy that would completely derail this thread, but suffice it to say...I think they are close to us. Maybe even smarter. No pics/vids of consequence. No roadkill/discarded bones. Native American legend portraying them as creatures that are due higher respect then other forest animals. Further back legends seem they may have even lorded over N.A.s. Smell and hair may be more ways to avoid people/certain animals and detection. More then meets the eye I think. I hope to soon know from the results how crazy my thoughts have become. LOL.

[Guest vilnoori]

So noted, 'vilnoori'. However, here in Ontario, over 75% of the land south of the Near North/North Bay to Tri-Town corridor (in other words all of Southern Ontario) is privately owned, and that is a vast tract of land, not far off the size of Pennsylvania, where serious damage to BF populations can be done.

The number of morons hunting from boats, highways, planes, using spotting lights at night, etc., charged and convicted in Ontario every year is quite staggering. I read roughly 25 of the mid-North/Northern Ontario newspapers each week and the number of illegal hunting charges and convictions contained therein boggles my mind. I don't know, maybe I'm just too naive and don't realize that it probably goes on as almost a routine, every day, practice.

Stopping these folks from doing their dirty work on Crown Land is job enough, let alone having to deal with infractions on private land, which becomes more complicated for enforcement and much easier to hide. And, I should add, I know from personal experience that we have a significant population of Sasquatch throughout the entire Southern Ontario area living and thriving on private lands.

It tells me that there is an active component of the general long gun owning population who don't give a **** about what the rules and laws require, so, to be quite honest, I have always feared the day Sasquatch is officially recognized because of our inability to control their safety and future.

- Dudlow

Oh, I agree about that, but my original point is that any way you look at it, in Canada, it would be illegal to shoot a sasquatch and take home a body. And I am saying so in hopes that the gun crazy yahoos from the US will go elsewhere. As it appears they have.

Also, given the scenario you pictured if sasquatches are proven to exist, at least in Canada there are vast areas of northland in which tribes of sasquatches could retreat to until things cool down. In fact I suspect that if they exist they are already only dipping in on settled areas only when they have enough cover and the feeding opportunities are best. Around here, it is in late summer and early fall when the corn crops and blackberries are at their peak, the hazelnuts and walnuts are falling on the ground (and apples) and easily approached and harvested at night. In addition here in late summer and fall we have bumper crops of salmon in the rivers, too. All the good stuff free for the picking. If they have the sense to harvest and store, as humans do, (if they are a kind of human) then they can get enough stored to last all winter and most of spring in mountain fastnesses, caves and so forth, or simply in such remote forests that they never have to worry about us pesky pinkies.

[Guest vilnoori]

Bear hunting in snow? Do we know what time of the year this incident took place? Most bears, though not all, are hibernating when it is cold. I guess maybe it wasn't that cold or was later in the spring? But if so how was a piece of meat recovered 2 weeks later? I agree that this part of the story is very hard to believe. However I can see that a lot of folks are finding a lot of the story hard to believe, anyway. I guess it doesn't matter though what the story is, if the sample is proven by DNA analysis to be actually from a sasquatch or two. Provenance becomes less important if the DNA evidence is so tight as to be nearly irrefutable. And let's hope so, otherwise this will all just blow away in the wind like all other supposed proof in days gone by.

[Guest Thepattywagon]

"80 to 100 yards" is just too far to feel imminent danger from an animal. I do understand that the shooter may be lying about details to cover his backside, should any legal issues arise from this, and if that's the case, I hope we get the whole truth, if we're not getting it to this point.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Bear hunting in snow? Do we know what time of the year this incident took place? Most bears, though not all, are hibernating when it is cold. I guess maybe it wasn't that cold or was later in the spring?

Hunter was trying to get a bear just before they went into hibernation.

[Guest COGrizzly]

DerekFoot has left the Forum?

Too bad it wasn't someone else. Like.....nevermind (maybe me??)

This stuff is getting so incredibly boringand repetitive I can see why "serious" researchers rarely frequent the place.

BTW - I am an arm-chair researcher at very best. in fact I am a mediocre arm chair researcher. Hell, I'm not even that - I am a camper.

[Guest rockinkt]

<snip> 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.

Grizzly cubs will sometimes charge with their mother in their second year. Of course - if the mother is shot and the cubs otherwise dissuaded - they will soon start to chow down on mom.

[Guest vilnoori]

Hunter was trying to get a bear just before they went into hibernation.

OK, I see in one of your posts it was in November, in another, October? I don't know how cold it gets in the Sierras that time of year. I imagine not much snow on the ground yet, but fairly cold at night. In which case there is no way that a "chunk of meat" would be found 2 weeks later. Scavengers would have cleaned everything up by then.

[Guest Nalajr]

I listened to the interview on Blog talk radio the other night and it was a very interesting show.

My problem is with the "hunting" part. EVERY Hunter, even the most inexperienced ones, know that there is NO WAY, NO HOW are you allowed to take game on or crossing a road AND a hunter is NEVER permitted to discharge a firearm FROM a road. NO STATE allows this practice, I don't care how rural or back country the road is, you can't shoot from it and many states increase the distance from a road that you cannot shoot from. Since he has taken 3 bears he obviously KNOWS the law yet broke it to shoot at something he wasn't 100% sure was a valid target he had a license for?

The next part is the piece of flesh that was left that he went back and found. NO WAY. I'll go on record and say that you couldn't leave a Sirloin in your FRONT YARD and expect it to be there in 3 days let alone 2 weeks. Something stinks about that story. If nothing else the BLOWFLIES would be there within minutes and maggots would take care of the flesh withing a couple of days. NO FLESH would survive for 2 weeks, NONE.

Also the caliber of the gun kinda raises an eyebrow with me. Him supposedly doing all this with a .25-.06 is kinda strange too. That is a small bullet moving VERY FAST. Not that kind of round you would have if you were bear hunting. It wouldn't have the energy to "knock down" a bear or a Sassy. It WOULD be used for varmint hunting like coyotes, foxes and such. Sure it would kill any animal if you put the bullet in the right spot and I'm not saying a bear hunter would NEVER use it, it just seems odd to me. If a LARGE animal like a SASSY were hit at a bad angle and the bullet struck bone, I don't think it would take it down as was described in a few steps. The fast moving bullet would simply splatter against the bone. That's why people who hunt BIG CRITTERS all the time use BIG, HEAVY bullets in their rifles because they PENETRATE deep into the body no matter what they hit and deliver LOTS OF ENERGY into the vitals and produce a quick, humane harvest.

I want to believe there is a lab somewhere that has flesh samples that they are running DNA tests on and they are just waiting on another lab to back them up so they can blast it on nationwide news and make it real....finally.

I also have to admit that I am PRO KILL. Science is just not going to accept Sassy until a body is delivered to a reputable institution for study and examination. Once a single body is brought in laws will pop up all over the country to protect them and probably a Federal law to go with it. Killing one would be the absolute best way to protect what's still out there.

Lastly, I don't believe for a second that the Govt. knows about Sassy and is hiding it to protect business like oil, timber, natural gas or whatever. NO WAY. Remember you are talking about the same government that shut down water supply to a California town causing MASSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT and the destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of some of the best farm land in this country. All for a minnow sized fish that might or might not be in the area. Another example....anyone remember the famous SNAIL DARTER? If the Forest Service KNEW Sassy was out there, I can guarantee you that the area would be shut down so tight you probably wouldn't be able to light a campfire there.

That's all I have to say right now....

Nalajr

[Guest Nalajr]

One more problem I have that I just remembered. If you have biological material from a DEAD SASSY that YOU KILLED, why wouldn't you send samples of the material to the finest labs in the country and world? I'm talking about labs and scientists that are ABOVE REPROACH. Labs that when they make a finding it is ACCEPTED as TRUE almost IMMEDIATELY.

I don't know anything at all about the woman that is doing the tests and is supposedly involved. Ketchum may be her name, but if it isn't I apologize. Whomever she is, I'm sure she's a fine lady with a great education. But when you're dealing with evidence that could change the scientific world overnight, you have to have the BEST backing you up.

Right there in California, where it supposedly happened, there is Stanford University which is one of the finest institutions in the WORLD. How about UCLA, Pepperdine, and so on. I am also pretty sure that the State of California has a state of the art Animal DNA lab that other federal agencies utilize when they have crimes that have evidence relating to an animal.

Why wouldn't the shooter take his earth changing evidence up to one of these places. All he'd have to do is walk in the door of the Science Dept. at Stanford and ask for a meeting with the Chair of the Dept. and tell him what happened and show him the sample and more than likely we'd have the reports by now that would be absolutely un-impeachable. There you have it, case closed. Now the debate can begin about how best to protect them and how mainstream science has failed us all for 100 years or more when credible people were begging them to come and help.

Just seems rather obvious to me. Maybe I don't see things like others do though.

Nalajr

[Guest rockinkt]

<snip>

Just seems rather obvious to me. Maybe I don't see things like others do though.

Nalajr

Your points about the laws broken are right on. That is why I came down on the hunter so hard in my first post on the matter. His hunting ethics (not identifying target, cowardice, leaving wounded animal) are even worse.

People's choices on guns and bullets are personal and I would not judge a person who used a 25-06 on black bears too harshly as that is perfectly adequate for a one shot kill if fired accurately.

However - all the other points you bring up are spot on and just more reasons why I am certain that the story is bogus and the great DNA hoax will go down in history as the grand fail of squatching.

[Guest]

Thank you, Nalajr! Both of your posts seem more logical to me than anything else I've read about this whole escapade! The whole story sounds contrived to me. I'm not talking in any part about Derek Randles, but the shooter. DR only has a second hand story too. He may be privy to the evidence at hand, which could possibly be a great deal more than anyone knows, but the 'shooter' has definitely embellished the events that transpired, if there were, in fact, any events in the first place.

Being involved with wildlife, being a life-long hunter, and having a brother that is a Fish and Game officer, I've had plenty of discussions about this 'alleged' shooting with plenty of wildlife professionals, and 2+2 is equalling 5 every time! For one...I can assure you if somebody called Fish and Game stating that they shot two Sasquatches, I PROMISE they wouldn't laugh, and hang up the phone. They may not believe that you shot two Squatches, but it will be investigated... There could be two dead bears, two people, etc. up there, and would still need to be checked out. And to think that the 'shooter' would receive jail time for shooting a species that is scientifically unknown to exist is a fallacy. Not even in Skamania County. Now, shooting one, hoarding the evidence, and covering it up is a whole 'nother monster altogether. 'Shooter' kills animals in 2010, doesn't report it(is this where the 'we tried' story came from), has evidence of death, then decides almost a year later that maybe, just maybe, something should be done about it, and keep it in the 'private' sector, and still fail to report it until the lab work is done, and it is peer reviewed for a scientific journal? Good luck, brutha!

And who hunts bears with a .25-06? Elmer Fudd? I would assume that a savage bear hunter would be more well equipped for hunting his particular quarry. I also agree that everybody knows that shooting from a road is a no-no, but maybe if the most mythological beast of all time is standing there waving it's arms in the middle of it yelling 'shoot me', I could see how that law could be pushed aside. And as far as a Filet 'O Bigfoot still sitting there a couple of weeks later...Nah. Sorry! Maybe we're all getting too caught up in the original story, and there is more to it, but I've shot animals with 7mm's,.300-.338 win mags, Bows, etc, from various distances, and I've never blown out a huge chunk of flesh. There has got to be more to the story. Like he cut it out, or took the Squatches to the freezer. Still seems so far fetched that he shot them in the first place, that I struggle even contemplating it.

If this event actually took place, I'm completely mystified how unprofessionally it has been handled by everyone involved! Considering that proving existence would be one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind, how does this whole chain of events end up on a message board, and specialty web sites, and not on the cover of TIME magazine, or CNN, etc? And then to be bickering back, and forth like amateurs? Wow! I would hazard a guess that the content of the final product could withstand petty scrutiny, and rumors from keyboard cowboys, but I could be wrong.

Like Nalajr said....Why not take the steak, and walk right into Stanford, and be done with it? There would be no need for the 'You'll See' hype-machine campaign. You'll still get your fame, and fortune. Book deals, movie rights, etc. Is it because it cuts the proverbial pie into smaller pieces for everyone else? Just seems to me that a lot of 'researchers' sole motivation isn't to discover, but to profit. I know that everyone tries to come off like they possess the moral fiber of Jonas Salk, but NDA'$ speak louder than words! I wish, unless you are scientifically worthy of being called a 'researcher', that it would be replaced with 'enthusiast'. If an actual accredited team of scientists were involved with this, none of us would be having this discussion right now...It would already be public knowledge, like it should already be, if there was an actual killing that took place. Proving existence is bigger than one specific entity, or group, and it's a **** shame that people don't handle it that way. I hang my head every single time I see MM trapesing around the woods on TV. I don't dislike the guy, but it seems to me that the discovery becomes more about the people involved, than the actual species we are trying to discover.

If there were actually two Sasquatches shot....Do what's right, fellas!