indiefoot Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 General's telling of the events points to a remarkable display of cognition on the part of the youngsters. When the elder was injured they forgot about their own safety and went about trying to solve the problems of finding and helping the elder. If accurate that episode is very telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I also found a juicy nugget in Justin's account in the clip that does not jive with what we have read here. Someone listen and see if you can find the answer. What reasons were given to go up the mountain and search for the bodies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I believe that she was drawing attention to herself to protect her children. Sadly, It seems that her efforts did not work. I was being sarcastic. But I do not believe that the adult BF would do such a thing. From what I have read, they are very secretive and would merely disappear into the forest with the young. And how does a BF know that a hunter has a gun aimed at them? That theory doesn't wash. Edited January 3, 2012 by KentuckyApeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I was being sarcastic. But I do not believe that the adult BF would do such a thing. From what I have read, they are very secretive and would merely disappear into the forest with the young. And how does a BF know that a hunter has a gun aimed at them? That theory doesn't wash. I was being sarcastic. BF's are very secretive, and would have merely slipped back into the forest with the young. And how does a BF know a hunter is aiming his gun at it? Depends on how dumb you think they are. The coyotes around my house will sit and watch me for hours at a distance, but when I walk out with my rifle they will bolt and not show back up for days. Canines that have been exposed to firearms are well aware of what they do, ask any hunter that uses dogs and they will tell you the same. Rover may not know "how" a rifle works, but canines can understand the results clearly enough. My own hunting dog knows that when I have the rifle we are going in the woods and that if we kill something he will be feasting on the innards soon enough. My other dog will hide because she hates the noise. Are you putting forth the notion that an upright, bipedal hominid that has eluded discovery in a modern era and has an anecdotal history of patient and prolonged observation of human beings and that perhaps had witnessed "cause and effect" of a weapon at some point is less intelligent that a dog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I was being sarcastic. But I do not believe that the adult BF would do such a thing. From what I have read, they are very secretive and would merely disappear into the forest with the young. And how does a BF know that a hunter has a gun aimed at them? That theory doesn't wash. Okay, I guess that I was thinking as a human mother vs a non-human mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I never totally accepted the arm waving story. That seems completely uncharacteristic of them from everything I've observed. When they're upset, they roar or howl. I think she would have made a noise to attract attention to her direction, probably partially hiding while she did it. Suziq, I don't think you need to apologize for anything you said. I'd give you a plus if the post was still here. The part that I find most profoundly disturbing is that after watching the tiny, three-foot-tall youngsters innocently search for their murdered parent for many minutes, talking to each other and trying their best to handle this infinitely traumatizing situation, Justin keeps itching to shoot one of them, long before the doomed one appears on the hillside above him. I agree, Chris. It's very profoundly disturbing! It's also disturbing that the driver is emphatically telling him not to shoot because it's a person in a suit, & the shooter thinks there might be a film crew there, but shoots anyway. And that's not enough to satisfy him!! "So I decide I’m going to going to shoot one of the kids and my buddy’s like No, do not shoot, do not shoot." Profoundly disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I'm with you on this one. It's a pretty tall tale up to now. So I guess the jury is out until we get some DNA results. But someone shooting at an animal that they don't know what it is? Who knows, maybe they shot a mother bear and her cub(which is a no-no), buried them, and cooked up a fantastic story to cover their butts. why would they have to cover there butts ? they had bear tags. were did they get the sample from to give to kutchum ? they are willing to take a polygraph, and if you listen to the interview, I doubt they are type of person that would be able to beat a polygraph. In some states you cannot shoot a female with cubs. Don't know about Cali. But these stories of, "We shot a bigfoot, then we panicked and took off!" Come on. You have a million dollar prize at your fingertips, and you bury it and run off? Whoever brings in a BF body will have the greatest zoological find of modern times and have their name written in history books. Plus all the guest appearences on the TV show circut, followed with a multi-million dollar book/movie deal. Even have their name in the Smithsonian. But instead...."we panicked!" Edited January 3, 2012 by KentuckyApeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I never totally accepted the arm waving story. That seems completely uncharacteristic of them from everything I've observed. When they're upset, they roar or howl. I think she would have made a noise to attract attention to her direction, probably partially hiding while she did it. Suziq, I don't think you need to apologize for anything you said. I'd give you a plus if the post was still here. I agree, Chris. It's very profoundly disturbing! It's also disturbing that the driver is emphatically telling him not to shoot because it's a person in a suit, & the shooter thinks there might be a film crew there, but shoots anyway. And that's not enough to satisfy him!! "So I decide I’m going to going to shoot one of the kids and my buddy’s like No, do not shoot, do not shoot." Profoundly disturbing. Thank you.. I felt the same way, but my impassioned post was not the right way to handle the situation. I'm very thankful that GrayJay was kind enough to help me remove a too emotional posting that distressed some of our members, which I had not even considered until I re-read my posting, and by then I had upset people that I truly care about, and I felt so awful for posting the response that I had posted. Grayjay saved the day, and I'll always appreciate her assistance with this issue. I still feel really upset about everything, but I'm handling my emotions better after a night of sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'm not saying it's beyond the cognitive capability of the animal. I'm saying it's totally uncharacteristic by history. Frequently reported making a noise to distract attention from one so another may escape detection. Just my two cents.. TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 True/Untrue...Right/Wrong anyway you slice it the whole story is a debacle and "Cluster"....regardless of how it pans out in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'm not saying it's beyond the cognitive capability of the animal. I'm saying it's totally uncharacteristic by history. Frequently reported making a noise to distract attention from one so another may escape detection. Just my two cents.. TT Not only that, but I don't understand what the problem was in putting the young one in a bear bag to fullfill the objective of killing it in the first place. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted January 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2012 That day in that field some thing went wrong and i am sure that general relized it.It was a mistake and some times you can not stop what you do until it is too late.I put no blame on him and he seems to understand it was a mistake.Now whether it will haunt him we will never know but thats ok because that is on him. We will never know what really happen that day but I am backing him up.Some times we do things at a moment and we cannot stop.No one knows what it is like to see these creatures except for those who have.It just happens that she and her children or cubs were in the wrong place at the wrong time.Crap happens and some times you cannot stop your actions.He made the discision now whether he is living with that is on him.DNA was retrieved and even though he did not retreive a specimen it is ok.I believe it scared him to see what he shot.I also believe it brought him to an understanding of what we are dealing with.We cannot change what has been done.Call me cold or what ever but these creatures are wild and are as animal as any other animal is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigMo Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 It may be possible that the hand waving was to warn the young ones to stay back or hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 As for the DNA sample, we'll have to see. But let's say it comes back as an 'undetermined primate'. So what is that? Do we have DNA extracted from the gigantopithicus teeth/jaw bones to make a comparison? Or will the DNA be of the orangutan family, or an unkown hominoid? As we all know, there is no definitive 'missing link' that connects the great apes to modern man. Just a collection of various off shoot bipedal species. But...if we had a complete BF body, then it can be scientifically cataloged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Call me cold or what ever but these creatures are wild and are as animal as any other animal is. So...are you saying that if a being is "wild", according to your definition of wild, it's OK to kill it, "just because"? Does that apply to aboriginal people? Where would you draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts