Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 LOLOL- Ok Guru- is that what I think it is? Either way, can you change it? It's a PG forum. Some forum member's child is sure to see that and pick up on it a lot faster than I did. Thanks-Jodie OMG that is funny; I guess the compression distorted what is actually a STICK in the Gurumuka's hand as he is being attacked by Australian aborigines. I'll change it for you though give me a minute to search a new one! Good to see that we all still have a sense of humour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I really struggle to understand the view of some that the shooter need be eternally remorseful and incapacitated for this incident. Has any one here ever done something they weren't proud of and later regretted doing? Did it stop you from living your life? People respond to different things in different ways, personally I'm in the no kill camp, But I'm not about to judge someone I've never met based on a story I haven't completely heard and condemn them to a life of sitting in a dark room depressed over the fact he shot a Bigfoot, it's 8 months later and life goes on. The points some people are making of there being no proof are certainly valid. Most of us have not met either Derek or General and other than one footprint posted by Derek that was found recently we have seen little proof of this incident. So theres two possibilities, it's either true or not true. If it's not true, well I'll invest a minimal amount of time asking questions on line, But if it is true it could lead to the biggest discovery in the history of Bigfoot. There is the promise of proof coming so for now, I'd like to know whatever I can about the incident and those involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Well said Adam777. You hit it on the head I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Hi everyone new to the forums as a member but have followed the topics here for years. LEO 20 years with SWAT and an avid biggmae hunter. I have enjoyed following this story from the begining. Although the story rings with truth; We have all been duped many times in the search for truth. So i will hold all judgement when and if hard facts are obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Let's all keep in mind Bugs, and how detailed his story was and how he sounded so sincere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 5, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 5, 2011 But if it is true it could lead to the biggest discovery in the history of Bigfoot As Bindernagel promulgates; "Bigfoot dna is defacto discovery". So, perhaps just the biggest written account of a shooting encounter (next to Peter in Saskatchewan--of course if this shooter got dna that would make it a step above). But I'm sure the book would be more about the larger OP research project. Here is where I get off the "idol worship" of this shooting account. Sure the shooter made a mistake and may have killed a juvenile and adult Sasquatch. I feel bad for him but worse about his decision to leave an intact juvenile behind, according to the account. However, if this entire collaboration between Ketchum, Paulides, OP and Erickson have collected the number of samples I think they have, other than having a hairy skin tag of arguable proportions with or without photographs, we are still going to have something short of a body unless some cadaver dog strikes an ice cave area where said remains were dragged. I see the other samples as having as much or more importance. Even the OP says they have many more samples than those provided by this large skin/hair tag. Sure repeatability will be more successful with a large tissue sample so if anything for now that's about all the benefit we have ..... it's more than a single hair root with skin tag. Yes, this whole account/story is fascinating and we all hope it is a done deal and true as it's been recalled but as an experienced forum member and researcher I can not help but think that I have heard these situations recounted before. It's not a matter about believing (I had a live encounter personally); it's a matter of being respectful while the linens and bedspreads are shaken out. What does surprise me about this incident is the emotions that it brings out in those casually reading because up until recently little detail was available (except that found in this thread or that retained by those close to this event that we may never read or hear about). It is still a wait and see. Pictures of hair and tissue will go along way toward making this account more concrete. I appreciate the picture of the print as it looks authentic and that is a move in the direction to instill confidence. I still fail to see where the nda applies to this shooters scenario/description of the incident. Truth or consequences, probably sums it up best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Ditto here. I have been reading from the sidelines and now the General has made it way too juicy to stay out. I have a few questions, answer if you wish. When they spoke to each other what type of language was it? Native sounding, English, Asian, etc or just babble? In general if you had to pick one, did it look more like an ape or a large human? Did you carry the 2nd carcass off to the brush to hide it as was reported by the banned guy? I am also holding out hope there is a pic on your cell phone or a body that you just can't divulge yet. I understand if you can't fully answer. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 This could have been a man in a gillie suit(sp?), and then for a fact he would be in jail for murder. The shooter does not sound like he is suffering at all. He is too busy fishing..... Susi... im confused. In your previous/last post you stuck up for General, stating the following: "Two hunters come across something that they do not expect to see,and may not have believed existed, thus they were terrified seeing a huge scary creature and then shot in self defense *before* they (the hunters) could be attacked by the adult BF. A Preemptive strike if you will. Human instinct is fight or flight, and since I was not there I don't know if they would have been able to escape easily, but whatever they were still flooded with adrenalin causing acute senses and hype-awareness along with the tension and fear. Instead of shooting into the sky and running, the hunter shot and killed a possible 500- 800 pound creature that he must have been frightened of. I Think of Patty being angry" This passage communicates understanding and agreement with why General took the first shot. And in an even earlier post you said: "I had thought that this was a total lie for a while, then I thought that you were a cold blooded killer, but you aren't at all like that. My heart breaks for you and what happened and what you have had to go through.I'm so sorry for judging you before I heard it from you, but I was swayed by erroneous postings." So i guess i dont understand why your now saying that he was wrong- that if it might have been a guy in a ghillie suit, it would have been murder... Plus he "isnt suffering" and must not care because he's "too busy fishing"....?? He has communicated both regret and an admission of possible misjudgment-> in both taking the first shot, and unfortunately shooting a second juvenile creature.... Proper hunting procedure aside, he has given a fair accounting of his actions, and expressed at least some remorse. I'm sorry but the flip-flopping and waffling of your posts is just making me a bit Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 It is still a wait and see. Pictures of hair and tissue will go along way toward making this account more concrete. I appreciate the picture of the print as it looks authentic and that is a move in the direction to instill confidence. I still fail to see where the nda applies to this shooters scenario/description of the incident. Truth or consequences, probably sums it up best. They are writing a book about their experiences and the results there of during the duration of the OP, am I correct? Of which, the General's tale is somehow intertwined. The NDA is in all likelyhood from the publisher since why would you give what could be one of the most exciting parts of the story away in its enterity online for free? I am not saying this is all about money to the OP or the General; but as we all harshly learned by the Bigfoot Hunters show, it certianly IS important to marketeers on the others side who could care less about science or the identification of a cryptid species. Also, it would be nice for OP to get a little money out of this so they could continue more extensive study. Money makes the world go around. Again, not a knock against any of the OP. It is what it is and I would hope is not their choice. JMVHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 They are writing a book about their experiences and the results there of during the duration of the OP, am I correct? Of which, the General's tale is somehow intertwined. The NDA is in all likelyhood from the publisher since why would you give what could be one of the most exciting parts of the story away in its enterity online for free? I am not saying this is all about money to the OP or the General; but as we all harshly learned by the Bigfoot Hunters show, it certianly IS important to marketeers on the others side who could care less about science or the identification of a cryptid species. Also, it would be nice for OP to get a little money out of this so they could continue more extensive study. Money makes the world go around. Again, not a knock against any of the OP. It is what it is and I would hope is not their choice. JMVHO. Just an observation having some experience in publishing, the publisher most likely wouldn't have an NDA preventing the General from the talking. The publishing company would want the story and supporting evidence to come out to build interest and crediblity. Online creates buzz. Mainstream media takes it to the next level. Depending on what contract General signs (or signed) if this is a traditional publisher, they are going to make their money in pre-selling film and television rights and International rights. They can't do that if there's nothing to back up the story. The publishing company also has to get as much of a gauge in interest as they can to get the right numbers for the first print run. All this suggests to me, they wouldn't be keeping a muzzle on General. They'd be booking appearances for him and having him work with a ghostwriter to get this book out in the next 6 months or so. That's a fast turnaround for publishing, but on pop culture subjects (which this is), you ramp up the pace. JMVHO. My guestion to Derek and General is do you have a publishing deal or have you been contacted by a publisher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Susi... im confused. In your previous/last post you stuck up for General, stating the following: "Two hunters come across something that they do not expect to see,and may not have believed existed, thus they were terrified seeing a huge scary creature and then shot in self defense *before* they (the hunters) could be attacked by the adult BF. A Preemptive strike if you will. Human instinct is fight or flight, and since I was not there I don't know if they would have been able to escape easily, but whatever they were still flooded with adrenalin causing acute senses and hype-awareness along with the tension and fear. Instead of shooting into the sky and running, the hunter shot and killed a possible 500- 800 pound creature that he must have been frightened of. I Think of Patty being angry" This passage communicates understanding and agreement with why General took the first shot. And in an even earlier post you said: "I had thought that this was a total lie for a while, then I thought that you were a cold blooded killer, but you aren't at all like that. My heart breaks for you and what happened and what you have had to go through.I'm so sorry for judging you before I heard it from you, but I was swayed by erroneous postings." So i guess i dont understand why your now saying that he was wrong- that if it might have been a guy in a ghillie suit, it would have been murder... Plus he "isnt suffering" and must not care because he's "too busy fishing"....?? He has communicated both regret and an admission of possible misjudgment-> in both taking the first shot, and unfortunately shooting a second juvenile creature.... Proper hunting procedure aside, he has given a fair accounting of his actions, and expressed at least some remorse. I'm sorry but the flip-flopping and waffling of your posts is just making me a bit Art I understand your confusion. *I'm not even understanding my responses to this event.* I try to convince myself that the shooter had no other choice because he felt that his life was in danger, then I think about 2 dead creatures and a youth left who may not survive w/o his mama. It appears that the shooter had no other choice unless he had first fired into the air or the ground. My feelings are playing havoc with my understanding of this event. I go from feeling sorry for the shooter's terrible experience to thinking that surely there must have been something he could have done not to kill both creatures. Then common sense kicks in, and I totally understand why he shot them, but I still deeply regret that this happened. **Hopefully** this event will help other people who may have an encounter to fire into the sky or a tree **before** killing a BF who seemed to be only protecting her young. Also running away may have worked since it seems all the mom did was try to protect her young. This is a tragedy,and my heart breaks for everyone involved. The shooter does seem to have regained his composure fairly quickly after what had to be a dreadful event for him to go through. I understand the fear and terror the shooter experienced, I can understand shooting in fear of your life, But I still just wished it had not happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Ok Susi... i understand better now... Yea its definitely a real mind bender to try and put yourself in those shoes (if this event transpired the way its been told). I have always considered myself pretty strongly in the "no kill" camp so to speak. So I too have struggled with my emotions as far as how i would (honestly) have reacted that day. I would hope that if this scenario ever happened to me, that i'd have the judgement and calm nerves to be able to not pull the trigger. There's alot of variables though, and in the heat of the moment, i'm just not sure that i can say i would have done it differently. I guess in my own opinion, I most likely would have waited for it to get alot closer than 80-100 yards- to see what its intentions were. I have been bluff charged by a bear before, and it was a terrifying experience. No doubt that if i'd had a rifle with me that day I would have fired. As i said- its easy for anyone (even experienced hunters) to question the procedure, and ethic of what General is claiming to have done- but until you are there standing in his shoes at that moment- its kind of unfair to pass judgment. That's my take anyway... ART Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 My guestion to Derek and General is do you have a publishing deal or have you been contacted by a publisher? As I am sure you know from your experiences, a lawyer employed by or through the publisher and is usually involved in some level based on the topic and content of the book. My guess is this is where the NDA is coming from since Dr. K asked Mr. P if she could speak on the flesh in their interview and not the other way around. Again, just my guess. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I have another question that has been bugging me on this situation. This "Sierra shooting" topic began as a discussion board item on taxidermy.net, correct? Can someone here tell me what the practice known as "taxidermy" is please? ( I know what it means but follow me here.). If there is no body, why was this started as a thread on a board about mounting dead animals to display in a cabin or living room? A la- I have a dead Sasquatch, how should I mount it? Personally if it was me, I would mount it smiling next to a cardboard cutout of matt moneymaker. I would have the sas standing there smiling, and moneymaker in front of it posed on hands and knees looking under a rug or something. Hypothetically speaking of course since there is at this time no body. Am I alone on that line of thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Ok Susi... i understand better now... Yea its definitely a real mind bender to try and put yourself in those shoes (if this event transpired the way its been told). I have always considered myself pretty strongly in the "no kill" camp so to speak. So I too have struggled with my emotions as far as how i would (honestly) have reacted that day. I would hope that if this scenario ever happened to me, that i'd have the judgement and calm nerves to be able to not pull the trigger. There's alot of variables though, and in the heat of the moment, i'm just not sure that i can say i would have done it differently. I guess in my own opinion, I most likely would have waited for it to get alot closer than 80-100 yards- to see what its intentions were. I have been bluff charged by a bear before, and it was a terrifying experience. No doubt that if i'd had a rifle with me that day I would have fired. As i said- its easy for anyone (even experienced hunters) to question the procedure, and ethic of what General is claiming to have done- but until you are there standing in his shoes at that moment- its kind of unfair to pass judgment. That's my take anyway... ART Thank you for your kind statement. I've had a terrible time trying to come to peace with this event, I'm still in the: "I wish it had not happened" school of thought. Perhaps someone who has an encounter in the future will remember this issue and will fire into the ground or sky before killing anything.. I also don't know if we have heard the entire story. The shooter probably cut a piece of thigh/leg muscle off when this first happened because I don't think that there would be much left if he went back later. But, Why not take pictures if you are taking time to cut a piece of flesh off, or remove a finger or something easily removable, like a toe, to have as proof beside the hunk of flesh that went to Ketchum? I do not believe that he went back several days later and discovered such a large piece of flesh just sitting around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts