Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Could we stop referring to the flesh sample as a steak? Nor I or the general have ever referred to it as a steak. I doesn't look like a steak. That term came from the banned guy. The large Sasquatch was not shot in the leg. I have no idea where that came from. It was shot in the chest. I have to get to work. I'll check in later. DR Also, that track was about 16 to 17 inches long by generals estimation.
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Not big on the "steak" reference myself, but there is already an arguement in this thread about the use of the term. I, myself, avoid it. It is a peice of flesh shot off a living creature. Not a cooked peice of meat from a butchered animal. The leg story I don't know what you are talking about DF. Whoever said anything about it being a leg shot?
slabdog Posted August 3, 2011 Author Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Could we stop referring to the flesh sample as a steak? Nor I or the general have ever referred to it as a steak. I doesn't look like a steak. That term came from the banned guy. The large Sasquatch was not shot in the leg. I have no idea where that came from. It was shot in the chest. I have to get to work. I'll check in later. DR Derek: Could you post an image of the piece of flesh? If not, no biggy. I cannot imagine that would impeded the DNA study...but you would know best as you are on the ground floor. Edited August 3, 2011 by slabdog
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Out of respect, I'll refer to the rendered piece of tissue as the 'chunk' from here on, although I think getting caught up in finding the proper noun to describe a substantial piece of flesh/tissue/skin with hair or whatever, is a distraction. I'm not sure if the size of the chunk of tissue was 5 inches or 8, but it was described as being a several inches, if I'm not mistaken. I don't remember reading anything about the creature taking one to the leg either. Where did that originate?
Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Can you describe what the shot bigfoot looked like? Surely that isn't covered by the NDA. Did the General try drawing a picture to keep it fresh in his memory? If so, can the drawing or picture be posted?
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Which one, Jodie? He shot two of them.
Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) Okay General, this is a test. We'll all see how you do on this one. Did they each have a black nose? Now careful how ya answer, could be a trick question. And no clues Derekfoot, he's on his own. Edited August 3, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 Which ever one he got the best look at.
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) I was very uplifted by all the negative pooh-pooh responses. This tall tale reaks of hoax-a-mania. A bonifide bigfoot body would be worth it's weight in gold. So...... Lets leave it there in the snow, come back 6 months later, and have a look see. Edited August 4, 2011 by KentuckyApeman
bipedalist Posted August 4, 2011 BFF Patron Posted August 4, 2011 A description of mouth, ears, nose, eyes could certainly be tastefully done without violating an nda I would assume. Remember that if parts of the story recounted are accurate the shooter made contact with the juvenile as it was mortally wounded (or at least it rolled to his feet on being shot off the rock crag). There should then be descriptions of the coarseness of hair as well as distribution, etc. Placement of thumb on hand, description of nails on the fingers, maybe even assessment of gender or sexual characteristics. Color of the palms of the hand and maybe soles of the feet, these are things that would not be easily forgotten if this happened during daylight hours.
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) I was very uplifted by all the negative pooh-pooh responses. This tall tale reaks of hoax-a-mania. A bonifide bigfoot body would be worth it's weight in gold. So...... Lets leave it there in the snow, come back 6 months later, and have a look see. Wow...we haven't heard that in this or the other threads yet. Thanks for the original thought! Edited August 4, 2011 by HairyGreek
Guest Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 I'm not testing anyone, there is a big variety in how bigfoot is described so I was genuinely curious and was hoping we could get some details on appearance. I've seen a couple of unusual things and my reaction was to immediately draw it from memory before my memory faded on the details. Just making your best effort to put it on paper, if you don't get a photo, cements the memory for me, I can't speak for anyone else. I was hoping the General did the same.
Guest Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 A description of mouth, ears, nose, eyes could certainly be tastefully done without violating an nda I would assume. Remember that if parts of the story recounted are accurate the shooter made contact with the juvenile as it was mortally wounded (or at least it rolled to his feet on being shot off the rock crag). There should then be descriptions of the coarseness of hair as well as distribution, etc. Placement of thumb on hand, description of nails on the fingers, maybe even assessment of gender or sexual characteristics. Color of the palms of the hand and maybe soles of the feet, these are things that would not be easily forgotten if this happened during daylight hours. Don't forget about the juveniles head size. Derek, was the head size similar to what we see in the "Pancake Footage" stills? Remember on Bigfoot Busters Radio you stated you had seen the full Pancake clip and believe that that was indeed a bigfoot. If that is the case, then I would imagine the little fella from the Sierra's would be similar.
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 I'm not testing anyone, there is a big variety in how bigfoot is described so I was genuinely curious and was hoping we could get some details on appearance. I've seen a couple of unusual things and my reaction was to immediately draw it from memory before my memory faded on the details. Just making your best effort to put it on paper, if you don't get a photo, cements the memory for me, I can't speak for anyone else. I was hoping the General did the same. I have to say...this is what draws me to the story as much as hearing about the Erickson footage. That someone actually saw it without looking through a shaking camera or for a millisecond before it passed into the brush. I have seen "artist renditions" based on specific stories, but never the story the artist is rendering from. I would love some more detail as well. I tell you...one of the things I actually wonder the most about is their canine teeth. I always kind of pictured them looking like Efrum's profile picture. I am kind of wondering if this will all fall under the NDA though.
Recommended Posts