Doc Holliday Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 ............. Until then, everything is speculation and pretty much pointless. exactly,well said hairyman .all the hub-bub about this makes for conversation & thats about it . until its all said & done & the results/final papers are given maybe folks should chill a bit & see what , if anything, comes from all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) My point is pretty simple. I'm not going to be morally outraged by a story that I don't know to be true. Nor am I going to be a hypocrite when I celebrate the DNA findings (if/when) that included any such tissue. Instead I am going to wait for the peer reviewed paper to come out. Then I will read the methods, the origins of any samples, and the findings. I'll make my judgement then. Until then, everything is speculation and pretty much pointless. Your point is well taken and waiting for the peer paper to understand the DNA findings is all fine and dandy and something we all must do. The thing is, the details of the shooting from a third party who submitted the samples may not be any more disclosed there then they have been here. I don't want to sour the pot, but I am interested in seeing a truthful disclosure of those events. Its the opposite that causes issues. Consider my questions as being from an advocate of sorts for the victims, being they can't speak for themselves. When a shooting has elements that raise doubt and contradiction, these aspects should be questioned. I'm not talking about Silver Fox' version either, but misidentification has been asserted. Having seen Sasquatch, I for one know that you don't mistake a bear for a walking bigfoot, that's the same excuse skeptics usually give to try and explain away bigfoot witnesses visual encounters. It doesn't hold water either. Such claims are usually laughed at by those who have seen them too. A bigfoot looks nothing like a bear, and so some have issues with the existing story of mistaken identity. All hunters are supposed to know exactly what they are shooting at before pulling the trigger. That is, if the incident actually happened because it still seem illogical that such a discussion of 60 pages could occur without word getting out to this field long ago. Edited July 24, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 That is, if the incident actually happened because it still seem illogical that such a discussion of 60 pages could occur without word getting out to this field long ago. It did get out to this field long ago...just ask Derek Randles. Although hardly definitive proof of the thread's existence, there is a comment on Lindsay's blog regarding this very topic. It appears a long-time taxidermy.net poster confirmed via email that he asked the taxidermy.net admins to delete the thread on Smeja's behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I believe Derek's account of the situation is more accurate. He said it happened in October 2010. Is it possible that the taxidermy.net thread was unrelated to this unfortunate incident or was that thread supposedly in existence after October 2010? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I don't think that the story rings true. I'm still well aware of old Buggs down in Texas. That one sounded a lot more believable but it was a hoax. So IMO another one bites the dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 (edited) I don't think that the story rings true. I'm still well aware of old Buggs down in Texas. That one sounded a lot more believable but it was a hoax. So IMO another one bites the dust. Where is your proof that Bugs story was a hoax? I've kept up with that pretty closely, & have never heard that it was proven to be a hoax. That's like people randomly saying that the PGF was proven to be a hoax. As far as I can tell, it's just somebody's uneducated opinion. Edited July 26, 2011 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plowjocky Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 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. Susie dont believe everything you read about bullet size,I carry a 25.06 while hunting and it IS repeat IS big enough to take anything on the North American continent.People kill elk with .243s all the time.That bullet is 1/64 inch smaller diameter and lighter than the 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Where is your proof that Bugs story was a hoax? I've kept up with that pretty closely, & have never heard that it was proven to be a hoax. That's like people randomly saying that the PGF was proven to be a hoax. As far as I can tell, it's just somebody's uneducated opinion. If this turns out to not be a hoax we're all gonna be suprised, almost 30,000 of us according to the view count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 26, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 26, 2011 Where is your proof that Bugs story was a hoax? I've kept up with that pretty closely, & have never heard that it was proven to be a hoax. That's like people randomly saying that the PGF was proven to be a hoax. As far as I can tell, it's just somebody's uneducated opinion. Ed Hale of Wellington, TX...... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread430615/pg1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 It did get out to this field long ago...just ask Derek Randles. Although hardly definitive proof of the thread's existence, there is a comment on Lindsay's blog regarding this very topic. It appears a long-time taxidermy.net poster confirmed via email that he asked the taxidermy.net admins to delete the thread on Smeja's behalf. Yeah how did that initial contact happen again? What I mean is that with 60 pages of discussion, word would have gotten out to this field at the time, not one person and not 6 months later. And yet, as of just a few weeks ago, according to Derekfoot, he and the Shooter had never even met one another. Did Derek ever even see the original thread at Tax? As I recall no he hadn't. How is is possible that not one person over there has even asked 'what is the latest?' at Tax.net. As for the bear bigfoot misidentification, that's just not going to fly and Derek should know better then to rely on such a claim. Either that or he is simply running interference for a more intentional shooting? I'd prefer to believe Derek is misled on this element. To further the bigfoot/bear misidentification, actually makes a mockery of everyone who has seen a sasquatch and having had people try to claim it was just a bear. It is also ironic that they were able to count the 8 steps she took toward them and even identify the hair colors of the Sasquatch. Plus her arms were over her head? If you can count the steps then the victim's legs were not obscured. So did this happen in the bush or on the road? Arms over her head, legs visible, hair color initially seen, thought it was a bear? I don't think so! Again, that's if it even happened. Derek, here is a link to John Bindernagel's page in case you need a refresher course on the issue of misidentification of bigfoots for bears. I'm sure you've probably argued the case before on behalf of a witness. Thinking a bigfoot is a bear doesn't happen at 80 yds through a rifle scope, you know that right? Not to mention, the driver yelling at him to not shoot because he knew it wasn't a bear. Hmmm... You see, some things just don't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Well, I wouldn't call that proof, but I was willing to consider that there might be something to it until this: Oh, and by the way, Ed Hale is allegedly raceist and one of the founders of the "Obama isn't born in the US" stuff. Totally discredited anything else he might have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Totally discredited anything else he might have said. Can't trust anybody when it comes to Bigfoot you have to trust your own feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Plowjocky Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Ok just my uneducated take.#1 Yes, a 25.06 will humainly take out large animals.#2 Yes, you could misidentify an animal looking through a scope.You dont just shoot at a patch of hair.(Thats why you crank the power down til identification)#3 If its not a government maintained road,you can shoot legally from it.#4 ETHICAL hunters always Identify what they are shooting at before pulling the triger.#5 Ethical hunters always TRY to find the game shot at.Hunting dont start till the triggers pulled.#6 How n hell does a hunk of meat without the body prove the existence of BIGFOOT,it dont it proves theres something we cannot identify.Thats already been done with hair and blood.#6 Running others from the forums is Cutting your nose off to spite your face,till lies are proven or known,dont acuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 26, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 26, 2011 Well, I wouldn't call that proof, but I was willing to consider that there might be something to it until this: Totally discredited anything else he might have said. Sometimes the truth hurts, even when it's documented across many individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I didn't see anything in the post on ATF that I would call proof. Even if the guy did admit to being "Bugs" it doesn't mean his story wasn't basically true (as he said). Just because several guys (one of whom obviously doesn't like his politics) say it isn't true, isn't enough to constitute proof. There is certainly no reason to think he was lying about federal agents taking the bones. I've listened to "Bugs" on Coast to Coast several times, & he doesn't sound like he is lying. If that was all an act, he should be making movies in Hollywood. I think I'll keep believing "Bugs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts