Guest Cervelo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Maybe the story didn't happen at all or as described. One of the key components in a justifiable homicide is the level of perceived threat. Lets say for instance all hypothetical of course, and just so you all know this is nothing but a story on the Internet to me and I could careless if he killed a Bigfoot, no moral, ethical issue here. They shoot the kid first and then angry mommy and sibling show up and they high tail it with the body. All the same components, fears and true just a little change in the order of events. I also find it redicules that as always if it gets repeated enough it somehow becomes fact and above discussion if you don't like it please feel free to not participate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 We have some of the best mods ever here,and we have Puffnstuff who will always be my hero for his understanding and caring attitude throughout the years that I have known him. Thanks for the kind words regarding our Mods. They dedicate their time freely here and for the most part their efforts go unappreciated. I guess we do go back a few years don't we? Time flies by for me now. It's a sensitive subject for sure. I'm pro-kill for the first one but the events surrounding this tale really trouble me. I think the wise words of bipedalist best sums up my stance... And personally (knowing it will never be proven and jmho), I don't buy the "aggressive hand/arm-waving" at 80 or 90 yards is gonna necessitate a shoot to kill decision even if it was aggressive, which I think it was not. As I said there will never be proof.....unless the spoken of cell phone pictures materialize. But since driver wasn't carrying the rifle and had binoculars instead I don't see that happening. FWIW, he and I are great friends but lunar opposites regarding the Kill/No-Kill argument. Still I have to agree with his assessment of this purported incident. The aftermath of the shooting was totally mishandled IMHO. I don't have an issue with shooting the adult if measures had been taken to preserve a scientific sample to establish the species so the life taken would have had merit in future protections of the species and habitat. Still don't *get* the need to shoot the juvenile. It's a touchy subject. It evokes intense emotion in all of us whether we are Pro-Kill or No-Kill. Not sure as to the merit of the story itself. I guess the Ketcham DNA findings will play the role of arbitor for me in that. But, as someone who has always advocated a Pro-Kill stance for the first one, I find myself really troubled by the events I've read and listened to regarding this incident. Doesn't seem a way in which justification can be made for the killings given the manner in which things were handled after the supposed event. And, that is my viewpoint as a person who believes that killing one will be a huge step towards saving them all. Not piling on General at all, and some of you guys need to take a step back from doing so. I'm getting awfully tired of the reports coming in regarding Cervelo and one or two others attacking supporters of the General. Sounds like the General himself even regrets his decision. I'll give the General credit for coming here and answering questions without obvious efforts at dodging the scrutiny. And, if you are scared to hike in areas the General or other hunters might be hunting, for goodness sake do not do so. I know myself and other hunters would appreciate the weekend warrior types not screwing up our hunt. Hike in an area that does not allow hunting if you are scared. Doing so is a win for you and a win for hunters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Mr.Puff..With all due respect to the Mods of this forum..How do you feel about all of us who believe there never was a shooting as claimed involving waving armed Sasquatches and juveniles wondering about?..Or am i to sit over in the corner and lay quiet and not speak on said subject?..I am a bit out of the loop on new forum rules and wish not to attack anyone..But i am astounded by how many folks believe this actually went down..IMHO nothing good will come from these claims just yet another setback for researchers in the field..Perhaps i am just venting..And maybe i should start a venting thread?..I and others will stay tuned..Regards..G Edited January 8, 2012 by Goob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Mr.Puff..With all due respect to the Mods of this forum..How do you feel about all of us who believe there never was a shooting as claimed involving waving armed Sasquatches and juveniles wondering about?..Or am i to sit over in the corner and lay quiet and not speak on said subject?..I am a bit out of the loop on new forum rules and wish not to attack anyone..But i am astounded by how many folks believe this actually went down..IMHO nothing good will come from these claims just yet another setback for researchers in the field..Perhaps i am just venting..And maybe i should start a venting thread?..I and others will stay tuned..Regards..G no sasquatches were harmed, there were no killings, just a story:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Mr.Puff..With all due respect to the Mods of this forum..How do you feel about all of us who believe there never was a shooting as claimed ....... I've not been here long, but long enough to know that moderators have their own individual views on the various topics. Just because a moderator gives a view it doesn't mean this is any sort of "Forum view", or that no dissent will be allowed. This can be quite a grown up place.........(can be !!)......and all sorts of views are given and accepted, so long as they stay within Forum rules. So, put your view. See if you attract any support. Be prepared to have people oppose your view, usually respectfully, and you may even get a moderator to support or oppose your view. They're members of the forum too, rather than gods on high sitting in judgement. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have to agree with a moderator's opinion, except when it is given as a judgement on infringement of the forum rules. Mike Edited January 8, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I question whether this event actually occurred. Nevertheless the kill or no-kill is a very important topic. It is my view that these creatures, if they do exist, should not be killed unless it is necessary to save human life. I am curious if any one or any groups have made attempts to tranquilize bfs. For instance, if you have a bf eating pancakes being set out as bait to take photographs and video, it would seem to me that tranquilizing would be the best idea. If I had a bf in my back yard eating pancakes that I was setting out, I would contact the person at the local zoo who takes car of the Gorilla's and see if they would tranquilize the animal so that it could be studied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) when your standing next to your truck with a rifle in your hand and a buddy who also has a rifle. There really isn't a whole lot your afraid of that's 80 to 100 yrds away. An experienced hunter terrified to the point of shooting when his partner says not to, but happy to go looking for the monster moments later ... not buying it. Exactly, The driver was even confident enough not to take his rifle with him when they went to look for the body. That says a lot, the BS meter is still on high. Justin's playing Derek like a fiddle. The current iteration of the story has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese. I'd be checking freezers Justin has access to for both juveniles on ice. Edited January 8, 2012 by Alpinist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 If it went down like Cervelo said, why would that story be any worse or better than the one told? Why lie about having the body if it was recovered on October 8th or the few weeks after when they retrieved the flesh? Justin wasn't under an NDA until he sent his sample in so if he had a body that was pretty much intact, wouldn't that negate having to rush a sample off overnight? Now if anymore trips up the mountain happened after that and a body was found, maybe there would be a reason to with hold it if the sample was already submitted. From what Justin says, there wasn't anything left but hide and hair and that stands to reason since no heavy snow was on the mountain until Thanksgiving. That's several weeks for something to get ravaged by predators and to decompose. If you were going to lie, I'm sure one could come up with something better than this version. What truth would be stranger than this fiction, if it is fiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Mr.Puff..With all due respect to the Mods of this forum..How do you feel about all of us who believe there never was a shooting as claimed involving waving armed Sasquatches and juveniles wondering about?..Or am i to sit over in the corner and lay quiet and not speak on said subject?..I am a bit out of the loop on new forum rules and wish not to attack anyone..But i am astounded by how many folks believe this actually went down..IMHO nothing good will come from these claims just yet another setback for researchers in the field..Perhaps i am just venting..And maybe i should start a venting thread?..I and others will stay tuned..Regards..G Well, Goob here's a reply from one of the moderators.... Your lack of belief in the shooting, and the entire story is as welcome as any other viewpoint. You just have to be careful and respectful of how you communicate that disbelief. The forum rules you mention arent "new", and they're pretty simple, fair, and straightforward. They mostly deal with people on here maintaining a level of civility and respect for each other, that corresponds with how each of us would like to be treated. I've remained mostly as quiet as a churchmouse on this whole subject, but to be fair I've had a hard time accepting the whole sequence of events. I'm kind of fence sitting a bit- mostly out of respect for some of the individuals involved and the years of research they've put in, but also because the DNA findings will hopefully go a long way in giving the alleged events legitimacy. I've also been disapointed a few times over the last couple years with "other" supposed Bigfoot findings, and the "this time its the real deal" type events (think Georgia "freezer-squatch") and how let down I was afterward. What's that old saying ? "Fool me once, shame on you- fool me twice, shame on me...". I kind of chuckle sometimes (almost like reading the never ending PGF debates), because so many of you get all riled up and wanna fight with each other- when nothing conclusive one way or the other has been released about this "story". My personal recommendation would be to chill out and wait and see what happens. Either way- at that point in time, they'll be plenty to discuss and possibly argue about... That's my two cents - as a member and a moderator... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 ... And, if you are scared to hike in areas the General or other hunters might be hunting, for goodness sake do not do so. I know myself and other hunters would appreciate the weekend warrior types not screwing up our hunt. Hike in an area that does not allow hunting if you are scared. Doing so is a win for you and a win for hunters. not quite sure what you're saying here, but as a California resident and hunter, I don't relish being in the woods with someone like General. I hope you don't emulate him. I think this whole thing about killing a bigfoot is bound to end in tragedy, and I hope that neither you nor I are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 A bf needs to be killed unfortunately for the species to be accepted. Some people say even this may not work (government intervening). Video/photo/prints even dna will never be enough. Whether these guys actually killed one is irrelevant. No body was recovered. Just another tall tale with no evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Maybe the story didn't happen at all or as described. One of the key components in a justifiable homicide is the level of perceived threat. Not to mention you need to have killed a person. I haven't seen that proven yet. Edited January 9, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 A bf needs to be killed unfortunately for the species to be accepted. Some people say even this may not work (government intervening). Video/photo/prints even dna will never be enough. Whether these guys actually killed one is irrelevant. No body was recovered. Just another tall tale with no evidence. Well, there is evidence. I find it harder to believe that Justin, Melba and all the other scientists involved are lying to me, but gee, maybe they are! Anythings possible I guess. Funny thing is, it wouldn't surprise me the way my lucks been running lately lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 9, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) Like it or not, as it stands now with zero proof being given publically, this is just a story ( even though i believe it because of the people that have put their neck on the line backing it ). No disrespect to General or DR at all but until proof of the story is backed up by more than just words, it's no wonder why the story gets the scrutiny it does & that should be understood completely. Hopefully some time in the near future this changes however. Edit : In fact no i'm wrong, what am i saying. I hope it doesn't get proven to have happened, i know they exist so don't need the clarification of this & would prefer personally to hear that this event never actually happened as i don't really like the idea of Sasquatches getting blasted, whatever the reason. Edited January 9, 2012 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Well, there is evidence. I find it harder to believe that Justin, Melba and all the other scientists involved are lying to me, but gee, maybe they are! Anythings possible I guess. Funny thing is, it wouldn't surprise me the way my lucks been running lately lol! D I hope that you have not been played for a fool, though I believe that you have. I have a question. I have seen posts in which various people have said that Dr. Ketchum "entered their specimen into her study." I wonder if this is a source of confusion. Such a statement by her would not necessarily mean that she had attributed the specimen to "bigfoot." It would simply mean that it was one of a number of specimens she would study and possibly include in a paper. I hope I am making myself clear. A paper by her could certainly include a listing of those specimens which turned out NOT to be "bigfoot." Therefore, if you/General received a letter which stated that your specimen had been "entered into the study," you should not take that as a result of lab testing, ie you should not believe that she had determined, at the time of the letter, that your specimen came from a bigfoot. I don't know whether that would be covered by your NDA, since it is not the result of testing...that is for you to determine. My question is, did you receive such a communication, rather than a statement that your sample had been identified by testing as coming from a bigfoot? p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts