BobbyO Posted January 3, 2012 SSR Team 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. I agree with Julio, no matter how much you think you can do this or do that when it comes to it AFTER the event, a situation like General was in where he had no idea that these things existed too, is not one that can really be calculated where actions are concerned. I would have personally preferred if he hadn't of shot two of these Animals even if they lead to the creatures existence officially, but that doesn't mean i don't understand WHY he did what he did. As Julio said, crap happens unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Its very easy to say shoulda,coulda, woulda, when you are not there facing the situation. I am sure the hunter in Justin was arguing with the father in Justine,and arguing with the morality of what he had done,verses the rules as a hunter he broke, as well as the over all confrontation of a "monster" He intentionally skips over the final minutes of the little one's death,other than to say he held it. I don't blame him, I am sure the whole thing had a profound impact on him. He claims to have known little of Bigfoot before all this occurred, so I am sure his confusion level was very very high at the moment. He thought he killed a monster,but when he took down the little one,in its last moments of life,he may have not been so sure,that kind of confusion could easily lead to the "flight" response, especially if he did not have any real knowledge of Bigfoot before this. Maybe the adult was trying to distract him off the young,and was just as confused by it all, it might not even have been a parent, but a guardian of some kind.It might have been the adults first observation of humans. We just don't know. But to say"why did he not bring the body back?", I think the answer, assuming his account is accurate, is obvious.Something in the young ones demise, made him wonder even more what he had killed,and caused him to be concerned he was in trouble. This is a fine example of something going wrong,and getting out of control fast. He may have considered the taking of a young one a chance at redemption or justification,until he held it and watched it die,then it turned into more fear and panic.I can't imagine,that if its true,it does not play over and over in his head,just like any situation we have been in where we lost control. He mentioned that in the interview,his frustration at his own actions,including leaving the body behind. Edited January 3, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted January 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2012 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? You want to know where I draw the line: Here! They eat raw meat, they do not use fire the shelters they build are nothing but pine and wood.As far as I know they are not Aboriginal people.Tribal yes,language yes, they never found the body and all they said was that they heard it crash.As of yet i still do not see them as a people and yes i will still see them wild and untamed.To me that is a good thing,and to tell you the truth they were very lucky that males were not around but then again what do I know since i am just a human who cooks my food over a open flame.I do not tear the limbs off of a deer like they were tissue paper.nor do i snap big 4"-6" sapplings like they were tooth picks either.If they were so people they would be living among us within our communities.We would not be chasing after them .So animal yes only because they growl when they dislike something and shake trees when they are upset.Should i go on and on and on What i know or we just leave it at that.Yes, i am upset but we cannot change what happen and yes i was in the woods in another state and i some how knew that something was not right when this took place.Do you really think that these creatures will ever trust us?I mean do you believe deep inside that that they will?I answer that with a big No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Even if they did learn to trust us, they shouldn't.....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 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!" I think you should read or listen to the whole thing,your making some false claims, they didn't bury it,they left it there,they were using a 25-06.Not that every little detail makes a difference, but when start misinterpreting multiple details the story changes. Most stories of this, people say they are so human like, so if that were the case I had a chance of going to jail for murder, or maybe gaining fortune , I would pick my freedom.Most people don't believe in bigfoot(niether of them did), so they wouldn't be thinking there is a bigfoot, I am going to be a millionare if I shoot it. You have to take into consideration the extreme situation that someone would be in, Your mind would be going in a million different directions and everyone does not handles stress in the same manor. Until you are confronted with a similar situation you are surmising on what you would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I think you should read or listen to the whole thing,your making some false claims, they didn't bury it,they left it there,they were using a 25-06.Not that every little detail makes a difference, but when start misinterpreting multiple details the story changes. Most stories of this, people say they are so human like, so if that were the case I had a chance of going to jail for murder, or maybe gaining fortune , I would pick my freedom.Most people don't believe in bigfoot(niether of them did), so they wouldn't be thinking there is a bigfoot, I am going to be a millionare if I shoot it. You have to take into consideration the extreme situation that someone would be in, Your mind would be going in a million different directions and everyone does not handles stress in the same manor. Until you are confronted with a similar situation you are surmising on what you would do. I heard the entire broadcast on Sunday, and enjoyed it. My reference to burying pertained to the Texas hillbilly story(Bugs and Bird dog). I doubt that claim since there has not been anything presented yet. But again, the verdict is still out on this Sierra incident. My opinion is that in these modern high tech cable TV times, the idea that a couple hunters had no idea that they had bagged a BF is questionable. "We didn't know what it was. Coulda been a **** Martian from outer space...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 You want to know where I draw the line: Here! They eat raw meat, they do not use fire the shelters they build are nothing but pine and wood.As far as I know they are not Aboriginal people.Tribal yes,language yes, As of yet i still do not see them as a people and yes i will still see them wild and untamed. I do not tear the limbs off of a deer like they were tissue paper.nor do i snap big 4"-6" sapplings like they were tooth picks either. If they were so people they would be living among us within our communities. They eat raw meat, they may not use fire, (we don't know this for certain), they build wood shelters, they are tribal, they have a language, they have great strength & they don't want to live among us. Which of those characteristics makes you think it's OK to kill them? Is it because they aren't like us? I guess we're pretty lucky they don't feel the same way. Do you really think that these creatures will ever trust us?I mean do you believe deep inside that that they will?I answer that with a big No. I don't think so, either. Even those of us that don't wish to kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 A lot of things don't make sense about the whole thing, it's true, but to expect it to make sense may be too much. Blame cannot be apportioned, although of course it's always nice to know whom to blame, I always say. Justin saw or never saw a picture of a bf doesn't matter. If you don't know what that critter is, it looks like a scary monster. No doubt in my mind. A lot of people don't believe BF is real. Seeing one freaks them out. If you do know what one is, it will still terrify you. If you saw one before, no difference, still terrifiying as heck. Primally, gut-level, heart-stoppingly terrifying. In fact, any sighting may be so scary that a person does not have much grasp of logic or self-control, let alone moral monitors. So, IMO, rules drop to the ground, nothing makes sense, it's all instinct. Blame cannot be apportioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) In fact, any sighting may be so scary that a person does not have much grasp of logic or self-control, let alone moral monitors. So, IMO, rules drop to the ground, nothing makes sense, it's all instinct. Blame cannot be apportioned. I think you're being too understanding. These are hunters, not droopy eared Wall Street Occupiers who so easily relate to a ryhthmic Jamacian drum circle. I am familer with firearms, and others who are as well. They are not prone to panic attacks. If someone is trying to break down your front door, you respond with 12 gauge slug. You do not flee in panic. All these 'experienced hunters' who suddenly are bamboozled seems strange to me. It just doesn't fit the character of the person. 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 If you were as open and honest as he has been about your life, I would imagine that fault could be found with some of your decisions. JMO Since I'm not a hunter, I have nothing to compare to hunting and shooting stuff,and I doubt that I ever will hunt. Having no time and no hunting skills pretty much keeps me out of the woods trying to bag dinner. Rest of your post...I make bad decisions daily. Trust me on that issue. 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. Are you thinking that this did not happen, or it happened differently than what we have been told? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I think you should read or listen to the whole thing,your making some false claims, they didn't bury it,they left it there,they were using a 25-06.Not that every little detail makes a difference, but when start misinterpreting multiple details the story changes. Covering the juvenile body with dirt and branches is a little more than just leaving it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted January 3, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2012 Which of those characteristics makes you think it's OK to kill them? Is it because they aren't like us? I guess we're pretty lucky they don't feel the same way. None, and it's not ok to kill them either.But your last statement within this sentence,well they have killed.One of our ex Presidents has even stated this and his name was Teddy Roosevelt.Yes, there are more stories where this creature has killed as well.In fact I fear this everytime i am out there in there domain.But there are also stories of them helping and understanding is something that we do not have unless we speak out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I am searching for the adequate vocabulary and candor in which to say this, so forgive me if I appear calloused, I direct these comments at myself as much as Justin or Driver.Justin stated that he thought it was a person in a suit, and that he wondered if a camera crew might be in the vicinity. 16X at 100 yards on a scope gives enough detail in even decent ambient light to distinguish clear facial features and even eye color. That is not to say that he was not confused about what he was seeing in the sight picture and even apprehensive. As a professional soldier and one who has been trained extensively of the course of the last going on 24 years now to shoot at upright, bipedal hominids. That has had the austere and the morally daunting duty of having to put rounds down-range at such said hominids over the course of a decade long war, that Justin made a moral and ethical decision to fire on the larger creature, knowing full well that he was possibly firing on a human. If you say you "thought it might be a guy in a suit", you cannot follow that up with "or monster" and be in the clear with the rifle gods. A conscious choice was made to ignore the "A-gunner" for lack of a better word and his reservations as an observer, just as it was made when he chose to allegedly shoot the second, smaller subject. I say the following as a matter of fact, whether it be for protection, in warfare or otherwise, it is not an indictment of Justin or anyone's personal character. It is a universal constant. Make no mistake only killers shoot at upright, bipedal hominids, regardless of reason; of which for better or worse I include myself in this category, not hunters. Respectfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Yeah, that could be it. I'm sure mama Squatch was thinking, "Hey, you over there with the scoped .308 Remington. Don't shoot!" I doubt she would have recognized the specific model and its accessories. I do believe she would have been intelligent enough to recognize the threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) If you don't know what that critter is, it looks like a scary monster. A scary monster that is, according to the killer, between 240-300 feet away, waving it's arms, in a "sign of surrender". Ok, lets say he was traumatized enough by the "monster" to shoot it, even though it was that far away, "trying to surrender", & his driver was telling him not to. But what about the two little babies, running around, talking to each other, looking for the adult? He didn't even claim to be afraid of them. He had 15 minutes to think about what he had done, but still, "I keep deciding that I’m going to shoot one of the little ones". I don't see how he can claim that they were monsters, too. Edited January 3, 2012 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts