Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Just glad he doesn't hunt where I hike!!! Doubt you would have any problem unless you hiked around in full BF regalia. The vast majority of hunters are some of the more ethical individuals you will ever find. They've done much more for wildlife preservation than PETA or any other organization ever has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 MJ151, Grayjay are right. I think you are articulating what many have felt but not have been able to put into words. This is something pretty obvious that I wish had been said much earlier. We asked General to share, and then launch into him? That is pretty rude. I apologize, personally, to General and to the driver and to Derek for any offense I may have given. I thank all three of you for helping us understand the events and details. It was courageous to come forward as you did and I appreciate your participation here and online elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Should we have just left the bald eagles alone when we were inadvertently killing them off by using DDT? Or should we have tried to learn what was going on by examining them? It's a good thing we tried to learn what was going on because we saved them. hould we have just left the bald eagles alone when we were inadvertently killing them off by using DDT? I didn't miss the point, you predicated your response by issuing the above as a blanket statement of fact, not supported by actual facts; and that many scientist and actual ornithologist consider a myth. As for birds and fireworks....it doesn't take a nobel laureate to realize that fireworks effect birds. Walk down any military flight line in the morning and listen the ground crews popping flares to scare away birds on the tarmac, or goto the city dump in Houston and watch the workers pop flares to frighten hoards of gulls away in a panic. I hope he has his specimen, I hope it all pans out, they do require habitat protection, but NOT management. lol Myth or no myth it doesn't matter. The point is that they didn't walk away. They examined. I thought marine biologist's prefer this. I don't understand the anger at all to be truthful. Are you trying to say that science does not help anything? or at least should not try to help solve problems when it comes to bigfoot? That's what I get from your answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Doubt you would have any problem unless you hiked around in full BF regalia. The vast majority of hunters are some of the more ethical individuals you will ever find. They've done much more for wildlife preservation than PETA or any other organization ever has. Well Puff if you think you got a PETA guy your right it stands for People eating tasty animals. So go jump on another bandwagon! there's nothing to defend here two yokes riding around truck hunting what a challenge. In Va we call them rednecks and It's also illegal. Dont even get me started again on target identification. When your friggin spotter says don't shoot you don't shoot. That's all there is too it. Irresponsibly and indefensible on so many levels! Please don't waste yours, mine or any forum members time with defending his actions. I could careless if he shot Bigfoot. He's a danger to anyone within range! If you want to hunt with him be my guest! Edited January 5, 2012 by Cervelo profanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 The last few pages of this thread have not been BFF's finest moment, JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I have been following this thread since the beginning. I don't know the General, Derek or any of the others involved in this incident. I do think the story is for the most part legit. I wasn't there, I didn't see it go down. I don't think the General is a maniacal blood thirsty killer. Some obviously disagree, and that fine. But to put something in perspective, the same has been said about hunters for years by anti-hunting groups and people. They have been called the same thing for killing poor old Bambi and Thumper. I get the impression he regrets having done what he did. I do know that if I was put in the position of having to shoot one I would. The same as I would with a bear or any other animal that I felt threatened by. I also know there is no way in hell I would come on this board and ever say one word about it. I think some of the things he has been called have been over the top, in my opinion. You can fall in to what ever camp you like, kill/no kill, but I think we all deserve the common courtesy of not being called names or implied names. I see. So, this entire episode boils down to a hopeful positive DNA result(meaning an unknown primate). I say 'unknown' since we have no body for extensive study/classification. In other words, if this is a rare undiscovered species, they are two less in numbers, with little advancement regarding modern anthropolgy. Another point. Stop with all these ideas that hunters have shot numerous BF's over the past century. Ok, so where are the bodies? Bringing in a newly discovered species(and the first bipedal one at that!), would be a bonanza. Yet these backwoods hunters all decide to simply walk away with nothing, not even a photo? Hmmm...? Edited January 5, 2012 by KentuckyApeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) The last few pages of this thread have not been BFF's finest moment, JMO. Not to mention just a big repeat of the first 10 pages! Edited January 5, 2012 by Cervelo Profanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 One of the things in the Blogtalk interview I find most interesting is when Justin says that the baby was alive at his feet, bleeding on his boots. Then he picked it up. He then says that "a lot of stuff that happened in there...but to summarize it - to make a long story short - it died" Well - he summarized and made short exactly what might be the most interesting part. Does anyone else feel this way? The time when it was dying, apparently in his arms, or at least right in front of him, are the details that I would like to know more about. Why would he "summarize" this part? Saving it for the book? Something disturbing that we didn't want to get in to? (not replying to you specifically Harry) This thread cycles every few pages back to crucifying General. I think enough is enough. I've seen men who butchered children get more sympathy than this. You've all had your righteous rants. Give it a break. The guy has been here for OUR benefit and it has cost him dearly. I have been fascinated by his detail by detail explanation of bigfoot and the events of that day. The rest of you have been too or you are not really interested in the discovery of Bigfoot. Thanks again Justin for subjecting yourself to this. I'm confused. Why would you quote my post, then say that you are not replying to me? Nothing in your post applies to me. My curiosity about what he left out of the story when the little one was dying still stands. And that in no way is "crucifying" him. If you think that it is, I would love an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 68 pages now? The dead horse has been officially beaten. Throw a pic up here General, so we can debate new evidence. And why did 'thedriver' never weigh back in on BFF. but appeared on the radio? What are we here? Chopped liver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Perhaps thedriver read this thread. That'd be enough to warn me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I'm writing this from my phone so bear with me in the format ill be using can't seem to quote or reply. Jodie. I'm hoping the sketches me and the driver are currently working on with sybilla Irwin will give an accurate description. In short your correct in your memory they were as different looking in facial appearance as a ape and a monkey. That's just an example. Chris. Me and the driver were quiet some distance from eachother and the terrian is very steep. Walking 100 yards can take a few minutes. Also when we hear a gun shot we don't make a practice of running towards it right away. Also ill assume I said "butcher". Dash. Skin was dark they were very hairy but not around the eyes. Once the sketch is finished you'll know what I mean. Bobby Jodie sas. I assume the foot prints were from the same little one. Chances are much better they are. I think there are a few pics on that thread of the several tracks we found in one area back in July. It was with another adult and probably a much younger kid. Slim yea at the moment I shot it was quartering towards me. If you go to your left nipple go about 3 inches down and about 1.5 inches back that's where the bullet entered. It was quartering slightly it likely excited in the same general area. Holdmybeer. It was sunny. A few clouds here and there. Average october day. One was a district sargent. Can't be many of them. I don't know their names. Feel free to make some phone calls. Jodie. I believe it was Nov 16th. I'm not sure how it was sent. My wife sent it while I was out on a hunting trip. I know it was over nighted. Ill ask her when she gets home. There's really no question a sample got to Dr. K and she tested it and we know the results. Why would you be curious the means of transportation? Ptang. I'm all for it. No question about it. Given the chance ill do what I can to make restoration. Tautri. No argument from anything you've posted. You seem very level headed. Minus that post about the whole wanting to shoot something different and wanting to shoot another one. Btw I hate CA condor's the world would be better off without them. But I go way out of my way to make sure there is more wildlife after I leave everywhere I go. " you have to save the habitat. You have to save the population. Not individual animals. What you want to save is the basic foundation. The basic infrastucture from which resources are produeced. You can't save fixing booboo and thumped. Nug Mart Julio. Thanks for your posts and understanding. Arizona bf. Thank you. Have been thinking that for so long. Darwin award post. Again sorry for writing it out this way. I get it won't make sense to some of you. I'm really just writing a really long text message from my phone and idk how to paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 5, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 5, 2012 Obviously, good or bad PR is good PR when you provide some detail, change detail, provide additional clarifications and then wind up on BTR with the book half-written and possbily a dna article with your results in it on the way over the upright with the goal posts finally being triangulated. I see it all as pretty good business sense if you hope to recoup some modicum of remuneration for your efforts (or heartache or insert the adjective of your assessment or choice). It is really a fascinating fire-storm of a strategy. Edited after general's above which didn't popup until mine drafted Ptang. I'm all for it. No question about it. Given the chance ill do what I can to make restoration. General Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MJ151 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Kentucky, I never mentioned DNA, nor did I theorize how many may been shot in the past. Not sure how you get that out of my post. But here goes. The advent of cameras portable and cheap enough to go in the field is rather recent. Maybe WWII though it might be a bit to either side. Up until a few years ago I never carried a camera when I was hunting, even though they were cheap and rather compact. I don't take pictures of the animals I shoot. Sorry, I couldn't care less, I don't mount them as trophies either. So just because i don't have a picture to prove i shot a deer, doesn't mean one wasn't killed. Now, how many BF's have been shot in the past, who really knows. Some people might not talk about it until years after the fact. We also can't really know why they didn't bring the body back, you'll have to ask them. I don't really care one way or the other, sure if one is killed it would be nice to have the body. But if you aren't the one pulling the trigger you don't really have any control of the recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I think I got to all the questions. But one post I thought needed its own response as I have never heard any of this before and it blows my mind..... OK so somewhere in here or on another forum someone was saying on aprox Nov 10th let's say......... there was not approximately 2-3 ft of snow on the ground at just over 7000 ft near gold lake...... really really? Lets launch a full on investigation of this one. If we can prove there's not a couple of ft of snow on the ground by Nov 16th the day i claim to have sent the sample to Dr k then obviously the whole story's a lie. I can agree with that. Go searching. I would do it myself if I knew how. Spin your wheels run in a circle have at it As for the general consensus. If somebody wants to say I made a bad choice and my morals were running on empty that day that is fine. No argument here. I didn't come here to defende myself. Just to set some things straight. I appeciate some of your kind words but I'm not even saying I made the right desision that day by any stretch of the imagination. Good day all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) Kentucky, I never mentioned DNA, nor did I theorize how many may been shot in the past. Not sure how you get that out of my post. But here goes. The advent of cameras portable and cheap enough to go in the field is rather recent. Maybe WWII though it might be a bit to either side. Up until a few years ago I never carried a camera when I was hunting, even though they were cheap and rather compact. I don't take pictures of the animals I shoot. Sorry, I couldn't care less, I don't mount them as trophies either. So just because i don't have a picture to prove i shot a deer, doesn't mean one wasn't killed. Now, how many BF's have been shot in the past, who really knows. Some people might not talk about it until years after the fact. We also can't really know why they didn't bring the body back, you'll have to ask them. I don't really care one way or the other, sure if one is killed it would be nice to have the body. But if you aren't the one pulling the trigger you don't really have any control of the recovery. So where are the bodies? I have relatives who are lifetime hunters. Believe me, if they came across a million dollar BF body, they won't just walk away and claim ignorance. Such as the Texas guys, Bugs and BillyBobButterball. "We thought they might be deformed humans or Martians. So we ran like all hell!" Edited January 5, 2012 by KentuckyApeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts