Guest tracker Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Okay so the Bf slowly approached this seasoned bear killer on an open road mid-day. Then Bf retreats after spotting the hunter getting out of the truck with a rifle. Then as the Bf's retreating the hunter starts shooting Mom in the back? Then hunter guns down distraught juvie that ran to Mom? Wow. Anyways the adult male would need to either catch the hunter scent or appearance for any future retribution. I am sure the mistrust, fear and aggressive level towards us would be higher afterwards within this group. Jeez the leaning curve to fully hate us must be really short in some areas? JMO Edited July 9, 2011 by tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 My guess is that these creatures don't waste time carrying a grudge, even if they are capable. Their efforts are probably concentrated on avoiding us altogether. It's possible that later that night during discussion of their suddenly depleted family, they (BF clan) chalked it up to the fact that Momma made a mistake and paid the ultimate price for it. She exposed herself to a human, who, inexplicably opened fire on her and her kid, because she was "threatening" him from a football field's distance away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Once again the creature was not standing on or by any road. she was also not shot in the back. There is still countless errors I don't plan on correcting. Sorry but for now Ill let you spin your wheels. It was not mid day and of course he had a scope. As far as the caliber a 25-06 with the correctly loaded bullet will often do more damage then your average 30-06 or 308 round. My buddy used to always complain he just ruined too much meat on a deer using that tiny 25-06 bullet, its perfect for ca black bears. Pencil hole size in and basketball size out. I guess part of the reason this story has gotten so twisted is cause its come from everybody but the shooter. There is still a lot that's not accurate so for now its left up to the imagination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikeref22 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I'm taking this story in stride at this time, if it is true it is sad. We all know that main stream science will only accept a body before they believe it admit it is a living and breathing being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Okay scratch the top part of my last post. two dead Bf's and no one knows the truth except the hunters. Do hunters flee from the woods after they kill or miss their chance at killing bears or other large preds? no. So why do shooters always flee unless there's some truth to it? Witnesses may only be able to respond to that question? JMO tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Once again the creature was not standing on or by any road. she was also not shot in the back. There is still countless errors I don't plan on correcting. Sorry but for now Ill let you spin your wheels. It was not mid day and of course he had a scope. As far as the caliber a 25-06 with the correctly loaded bullet will often do more damage then your average 30-06 or 308 round. My buddy used to always complain he just ruined too much meat on a deer using that tiny 25-06 bullet, its perfect for ca black bears. Pencil hole size in and basketball size out. I guess part of the reason this story has gotten so twisted is cause its come from everybody but the shooter. There is still a lot that's not accurate so for now its left up to the imagination Listen MR. General, you claim to have all of the answers, and indeed share small details in your posts, but then you critizize the rest of the posters for trying to fill in the blanks with the details we have read about.. You and your group have kept the facts top secret, but if wrong facts are leaked or posted, how would the rest of us know that they were incorrect? We couldn't know, we weren't there... So why don't you come clean already and stop dangleing the carrot in front of us. You know we are all interested in the truth, we all want to know the story. What benifit will you and your comrads gain by keeping the details secret for a little longer? Are you afraid someone will take your story and steal your thunder? ( Don't be, from what I have read, no one would want any part of your thunder). keepin these suposed details from us, just leads to the mistrust that prevails in the Bigfootery world. we can only come to our own conclusions as to why you would withhold information ( My best guess is that your trying to think of some story to keep the shooter from looking like the ****** that he appears to be.) So I ask you once again to stop jerking us all around and supply the details straight or risk no one believing you when you do talk. Sincerly yours....Wild eyed Willy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Yup. If the General was indeed at the scene, what's the problem with dotting I's and crossing T's when posting details. The suspense isn't killing me; it's annoying me. I know this is probably the wrong thread for this question, but I feel that, once again, we are being told just enough information to keep the subject on the first page. This story, at least up to now, STINKS. I'd love to read a cohesive explanation for the TWO shootings that makes sense. Go outside and step off 80 yards. Then up it to 100. It's a LONG way for something to be able to intimidate a seasoned hunter. Here's hoping at least a part of the story changes.... Oops, I didn't ask a question, did I? Edited July 10, 2011 by Thepattywagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Pruitt Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Derek Randles (speaking on behalf of the shooter) stated that the shooter took the initial shot thinking that the animal was a bear; not because it was intimidating him. The second, smaller animal was the one that the shooter thought was displaying threatening behavior. Edited July 10, 2011 by Matt Pruitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Why isn't the shooter speaking for himself in all of this if he wants to correct errors in the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Why isn't the shooter speaking for himself in all of this if he wants to correct errors in the story? "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." - 5th amendment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Not sure what the Bill of Rights has to do with the BFF....... Don't get me wrong, I consider the BoR among the finest achievements of mankind, but they simply don't apply on an internet forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Why isn't the shooter speaking for himself in all of this if he wants to correct errors in the story? Because there was no "shooter"? I suspect though that if the "shooter" posted here himself he would be taken at face value and believed with little or no question. Is my opinion in this regard in line with BFF posters credibility to date? If not, how so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 WTB1, we get it. You don't believe the creature exists, and I doubt you have much of an opinion of anyone that does. OK. Point made. Your spinning vinyl record seems stuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Because there was no "shooter"? I suspect though that if the "shooter" posted here himself he would be taken at face value and believed with little or no question. Is my opinion in this regard in line with BFF posters credibility to date? If not, how so? I trust Dr. Ketchum and Derek Randle's statements that the story is true in some form, otherwise, like you, I would think this was a total fabrication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I think General is the shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts