Guest rockinkt Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 :thumbsup: (except for the 25-06 comments IMHO ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chrisypoo Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 "80 to 100 yards" is just too far to feel imminent danger from an animal. I have to disagree with you on this. If you're out hunting and see a creature you've never seen before, standing 7' tall on two feet that you know is definitely not a bear, any sign of aggression could make you fear for your life. Unlike a bear, you have no idea what it's capable of or how to deter it, and just the huge size alone could make you think that you'll be killed. And if that creature starts to growl/howl/scream/whatever at you? Whether or not it actually started to come at me, I personally think I'd either pass out or be a crying, snotty mess that loses control of my bodily functions. If you did know that you were looking at a Sas, you would probably have heard how fast they can move...100 yards would be nothing for them to cover in just a few seconds. That combined with sheer size...I could definitely see why someone would be that fearful. Christine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BDK Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 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 What you aren't taking into account though is that Stanford or UCLA may not be interested in the specimen. He may very well have called them and went "Hey I got 2 dead bigfoots do you want them?" And after the GA fiasco a few years ago the answer would be not just "No" but "Hell No". Also, you have all these anecdotal reports of guys that find evidence send it off to a University and then never get it back or ever get the results. From reading all the gathered stories my estimation is that the shooting occured in some way of whats said. He took both subjects for taxidermy. Later on he starts thinking on researching this, and stumbles onto Dr Ketchum and crew and that is where they got involved. Odds are this guy only cares about two things, neither of which being proving the existence of bigfoot. Those would be 1) Staying out of jail and 2) Making as much money off his kills as he can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) 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! How are you so sure that Derek has a second-hand story? How are you so sure the shooter was there to HUNT bear? Why do you think the press would cover a story that sounds like it is out of the National Inquirer after Tom Biscardi's "bigfoot hand" and "dead bigfoot that fits in a cooler" stories? How do you know that Ketchum, the OP, and/or the EP HAVEN'T sent out some sort of press release regarding their efforts and no one cares? How do you know that Dr. Ketchum did not send her research (along with samples) to Stanford's peer review process? How do you know that they didn't send it anywhere else? Oh, that's right. You don't. You, and everyone else on this board has gotten rapped up in some storyteller's version of the story and are making blanket assumptions based on a third party account. There are people out there in the know who are trying to do the right thing with the evidence so we don't all look like fools again. Edited July 21, 2011 by MarkMc name calling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) nvm Edited July 21, 2011 by Delta Zu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I have to disagree with you on this. If you're out hunting and see a creature you've never seen before, standing 7' tall on two feet that you know is definitely not a bear, any sign of aggression could make you fear for your life. Unlike a bear, you have no idea what it's capable of or how to deter it, and just the huge size alone could make you think that you'll be killed. And if that creature starts to growl/howl/scream/whatever at you? Whether or not it actually started to come at me, I personally think I'd either pass out or be a crying, snotty mess that loses control of my bodily functions. If you did know that you were looking at a Sas, you would probably have heard how fast they can move...100 yards would be nothing for them to cover in just a few seconds. That combined with sheer size...I could definitely see why someone would be that fearful. Christine It's a pretty good distance, even if the thing is 7 feet tall. Originally, we were told by Silver Fox that the female was in the road directly in front of the truck, waving its arms etc. In response to this scenario, my question was, if they felt so threatened, why did they leave the safety of the vehicle, exposing themselves physically to this perceived threat? Now the story has changed. According to Randles, the female was not in the road impeding their progress, but was in a meadow off to the right, approximately 80 to 100 yards away. If true, this makes the claim of being threatened even less believable to me. I think the shooter knew it was not a bear, and I think he didn't feel that his life was in danger, or he would not have exited the vehicle. He left the safety of the truck so he could get a shot at the creature, period, IMO. It's also hard to believe that a truck, traveling on an unpaved road would not be heard by at least one of these BFs well in advance of any of them getting caught out in the open like this. I'm of the opinion that the shooter's story will change after he is confident that he will not be prosecuted, and of course, if the DNA results are overwhelmingly conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 21, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 21, 2011 Not doubting anybodies word or intentions here but I kinda think the truck and the road are inconsequential parts of the "true" story as it will eventually come down. TPW seems to be of like mind. My biggest questions are what were the alliances "before" the shooting and who was working for whom (maybe which team or which big player--not a big conspiracy theorist here but just staring the obvious in the face); if it was random luck please excuse the supposition. Moreover, what if anything was captured besides the skin/hair/tissue & what money changed hands; when and for what? When rockinkt finds out more about reports to authorities or not; maybe he will shake something up. I'm not holding my breath for any of this because I'll be satisfied to see it come to a resolution in 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) This entire story is fabricated IMHO, how could it be true? We are all debating it, and I think that the topic starter is just laughing at us. The story keeps changing, things are added, then changed, no way is this true in my humble opinion. I suspect something happened, but nothing happened like what we are being lead to believe. HTG, How could all of this have happened? It's too bizarre to be true, some facts may be accurate , but I think that it has been embellished a lot! Edited July 21, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) We are actually discussing if this bullet would be used by a hunter, you guys are debating it and I feel really bad about all of this. Okay, I'm taking a deep breath, but for me, you guys have proven that this event could not have happened** as posted.** The bullet size, killing an 800-900 pound animal with a bear bullet might work, seriously, are we willingly being fooled? Then it gets even better when the kid shows up and it gets killed. That's either the hunting expedition from Hell, or a total lie, perhaps a portion of the truth may be that they did see a BF, but nothing else.. You guys have proven that this could not have happened as posted to my way of thinking. I'm just a woman, I don't know a lot about guns, but this is just beyond the pale guys, for even me who knows little about these issues. Edited July 21, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 If those on the inside weren't making claims of there being a substantial chunk of meat that was being tested, I might be completely dismissive of this entire shooting story. But that's not the case, which makes me think that somehow, somewhere, a BF body was exploited for evidence. D Randles says he has photos of the "steak", and if so, that's a claim I doubt he'd make if he couldn't back it up. Since we all will be forced to sit on our thumbs until the evidence is presented to the public, I think raising legitimate questions about the shooting incident is perfectly reasonable. It does not imply that I don't think something happened which enabled these researchers to come into possession of a large tissue sample. It just means that I question the veracity of some of the details surrounding the shooting story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) If those on the inside weren't making claims of there being a substantial chunk of meat that was being tested, I might be completely dismissive of this entire shooting story. But that's not the case, which makes me think that somehow, somewhere, a BF body was exploited for evidence. D Randles says he has photos of the "steak", and if so, that's a claim I doubt he'd make if he couldn't back it up. Since we all will be forced to sit on our thumbs until the evidence is presented to the public, I think raising legitimate questions about the shooting incident is perfectly reasonable. It does not imply that I don't think something happened which enabled these researchers to come into possession of a large tissue sample. It just means that I question the veracity of some of the details surrounding the shooting story. How do we know this for a fact? Where is that proof? Is this the steak sized piece cut off the body and given to Ketchem? Do we know that a piece was presented? Do we have pictures and verification of this submission? Edited July 21, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 How do we know this for a fact? Where is that proof? Is this the steak sized piece cut off the body and given to Ketchem? Do we know that a piece was presented? Ketchum confirmed it and it's size on a radio program. I have the link somewhere...not handy. Google? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I spent numerous hours a few days ago doing various searches using Google and Yahoo, knowing that they will often cache pages even if they no longer exist on a website. Got tons of Tax.net results, but none of the topic herein. Its doubtful that a whole thread would be saved in Google Cache, but there would be enough to verify the story, especially with an alleged 60 pages before said thread supposedly got closed. I also searched using various keywords at Taxidermy.net as well, and frankly, between the three sources, only one reference in April comes up that acts as any form of corroboration to this claim. The reference in April that came up was indeed mention of Sasquatch in a 60 page thread. But could that have been planted information? I've also learned that the individual who was referenced, has more then a passing interest in Bigfoot too. Now granted, maybe somehow more references are being omitted from my search results, but I'm not finding any other random mentions at the site using their Search engine. Nothing! Slimwitless, tell me, what thread did you run across that contained those references you mention at Taxidermy.net because so far I haven't found those either. So I have this question for BOTH Silver Fox and Derekfoot. And please Derek, answer this one okay. Have either of you actually read any of the prior alleged thread at Taxidermy.net? I'll also point out that bear meat is very greasy, which could fit the description of the piece being discussed. I would think that if the sample tests out as not being bear and instead as something more interesting, the parties that matter (Dr. Ketchum) would share such corroboration so as to demonstrate they are themselves relying on a good faith claim. Unfortunately the power of suggestion can be self replicating and here we have two sources claiming essentially the same base story, but really, is there even any corroboration of the original thread claim? I simply have to wonder if there's a possibility that all parties thereafter have been fooled? And now what is feeding the claim is the slightly diff claim from a second person. A sort-of competition if you will. From my understanding, Derek has never been to the scene nor has he met the hunter, and has only talked to him on the phone. Has this changed? He also says he has seen evidence in support of the hunter's claim, but if its just a piece of meat, well I'm afraid that in itself is insufficient. We know from the past that there are people out there who truly get their kicks from fooling bigfooters. I ran into one hunter last Fall who tried to pass me a trailcam photo, but I was able to find manipulation, as a result nobody online ever saw it passed around. More recently, a friend of mine informed me of someone he is acquainted with who is aware of a past hoax against some bigfooters. I don't know the details yet but I am trying to find out more. Not saying its anywhere related to this situation, just that it has become a game for some. So Derek, unless you've actually seen detailed photos or video of the bodies (which if coming from those with a taxidermy background isn't proof either), then I'd suggest you have someone who isn't emotionally involved have a look at the evidence you have been presented. I know you have reservations about me because I am questioning the Skookum evidence, but even you know that that evidence hasn't been properly evaluated. Anyway, while the absence of internet search results doesn't completely rule out that there was a dIscussion at Taxidermy.net, those close to this should still have some form of corroboration of that alleged thread. Something! So far all I have seen are the bigfoot and paranormal sites carrying and discussing the story, ultimately giving the story a life of its own I fear. Why is there nothing any more supportive at the original site? I find that very odd. I would expect more existing references there. Furthermore, there are a few people on that board who are into bigfoot, and one active poster even has his sig line containing bigfoot, so I can't believe that such a story would have gotten to the alleged 60 pages and removed, before getting out to this field. That makes no sense. Two bigfoot shot and 60 pages go by before this field picks it up? So frankly, I must wonder if there was ever such a thread in the first place, or has the story just leapfrogged along based on claims of claims that came after? Dr. Ketchum, if you are reading and don't mind answering, if this story is true and you have been submitted a piece of meat, has that sample been tested enough to rule out bear? There are a number of things that don't add up in the field situation too. In daylight, you just don't misidentify a bigfoot from a bear at 80-100 yds, especially with a scope. There was no risk to the people in the vehicle at that range either given the behavior described. Clearly the hunter would not have been certain of his target in stating he thought it was a bear, when/if clearly it was not. As for flies laying eggs, that probably wouldn't be much of a problem during that time of year if there was already snow on the ground as claimed. It is often bitterly cold in that region at that time of year at night and flies don't move around much in the day unless there is a warm sun. And if eggs were somehow laid, the maggots would propagate very slowly due to the subfreezing nights. However, there is no way the birds would miss any meat unless it was quickly buried in snow. But if other scavengers had found the body, as the reason for the alleged piece, well then the birds would have also found it, they find all predation, and no such piece could have survived. So I am having problem with the piece of meat evidence especially given the caliber of the round, the supposed shot placement, and field circumstances. The devil is always in the details and some contradictions surely have surfaced and will continue to do so until they are discounted. Derekfoot, maybe you feel you have good solid evidence that leads you to believe the story to be the truth, but if its only a photo of a piece of meat and a good story, think twice because that's how elaborate hoaxes are constructed. Make sure its not you that is being taken for a ride here okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 If those on the inside weren't making claims of there being a substantial chunk of meat that was being tested, I might be completely dismissive of this entire shooting story. But that's not the case, which makes me think that somehow, somewhere, a BF body was exploited for evidence. D Randles says he has photos of the "steak", and if so, that's a claim I doubt he'd make if he couldn't back it up. Since we all will be forced to sit on our thumbs until the evidence is presented to the public, I think raising legitimate questions about the shooting incident is perfectly reasonable. It does not imply that I don't think something happened which enabled these researchers to come into possession of a large tissue sample. It just means that I question the veracity of some of the details surrounding the shooting story. Thank you Patty Wagon. I'm just feeling that this situation has been added to,facts have been added, then changed, they were covering up the body,then going back getting a specimen, it sounds like something the 3 stooges would have had happened if they had had an encounter and lived to tell about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Now granted, maybe somehow more references are being omitted from my search results, but I'm not finding any other random mentions at the site using their Search engine. Nothing! Slimwitless, tell me, what thread did you run across that contained those references you mention at Taxidermy.net because so far I haven't found those either. The title of the thread is: "If you saw a Sasquach and didn't have a camera". The first post reads: Would you shoot it? Link FYI, there are names that seem to back up recent revelations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts