Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 He may have been nothing but honest which is always something i'd prefer even if i don't like the truth, but that doesn't mean you do have to like that same truth and in this instance, it most certainly isn't surprising after some of the stuff he said on that interview that he is getting crucified because certain parts of it was just downright shameful.. Even if he is full of remorse now and realised he made dreadful judgement calls on a few occasions and was completely truthful when speaking of it, that still doesn't mean people should or would be happy with the way things went down. Having no emotional connection with Animals that you shoot is one thing, having no emotional connection with something you described as a " Kid " and then just tossing it at your Hunting Partner after it dies in your hands/arms after you've shot it for no real apparent reason, is most something else entirely. BobbyO, I understand why General's attitude might be off-putting to some, but he has been 100% consistent through the entire thing. perhaps SMALL details have cleared up after having more time to reflect on them and learn about Bigfoot, but overall he has been totally consistent. Sticking by his side long enough to get samples tested, a book published, and the OPs name permanently attached to the Sierra Kills story then publicly berating him and firing him on a forum because he finally does something (an interview) without the expressed, written consent of the OP is a bit slimy to me, sorry. JS describes doing ugly things while we are in complete control of him and stand to profit = GOOD JS describes doing ugly things in a setting where we are not involved = YOUR ACTIONS DISGUST ME YOU'RE FIRED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 18, 2012 I think that's a bit harsh NGJ, i think we have to consider that this whole things DOES have certain morality issues connected to it and real people with real emotions are involved. & thanks to those couple of Bud Lights the other night, it seems good and decent morals were a long way away from what happened on that day and if the people involved and who have stuck by him until now want to change their minds on it all like they seemingly have because of what was said in that interview then i personally wouldn't blame them one little bit after viewing it, especially when DR says from the tips of his own fingers that key incidents were described differently in that interview and especially with the details of what key incidents actually were. You can't not question the morals of a person who said what he did in that Interview, whether it was truthful or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I think that's a bit harsh NGJ, i think we have to consider that this whole things DOES have certain morality issues connected to it and real people with real emotions are involved. & thanks to those couple of Bud Lights the other night, it seems good and decent morals were a long way away from what happened on that day and if the people involved and who have stuck by him until now want to change their minds on it all like they seemingly have because of what was said in that interview then i personally wouldn't blame them one little bit after viewing it, especially when DR says from the tips of his own fingers that key incidents were described differently in that interview and especially with the details of what key incidents actually were. You can't not question the morals of a person who said what he did in that Interview, whether it was truthful or not. Again, I understand questioning the morality of what happened, but it's not like any of this can come as a shock to anyone... he spoke with the same callousness and disregard for life as he did in this very thread so many months ago, and I'm sure the same he's spoken in person with all persons involved. That "morality" has always been there; it did not just show up in this interview. The only difference about this interview was that it was not controlled by the powers that be. Nobody watched that interview and said "Wow this changes everything about what I thought about JS!" The unfortunate ugliness has always been a part of this story, and a public firing on a public message board after some seemingly newfound outrage over what happened just seems to add to the sensationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) I tend to agree. There's nothing significant in that interview we didn't already know. Well, except for the bit about sending the sample to an outside lab. Edited July 18, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 18, 2012 Well there was stuff in the Interview that apparently DR didn't know so i highly doubt the rest of us did. & DR also stated a while back ( within the last 2 months definitely ) that he " didn't have all his egg's in one basket " ( i'm sure he used that term too ) with regards to samples, i just can't remember if it was said on here or on FB. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 18, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted July 18, 2012 Agreed and plussed, the consistencies done dried up and blew away generally (no pun intended). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Truth? You Cant Handle The Truth!!!! Your all bashing a man who is telling the truth, weather you like is methods or not. I am a hunter and I can understand why he did the things he did. Granted some are offended but some get it! I dont condone some of the actions but I can see why some of the actions happened. We are losing focus on what the most important thing in this story is, and that is the discovery that all of us have waited for...for decades! Edited July 18, 2012 by Chad Triplett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Well let's see...here's the relevant part from Randle's post. There are a few things I'd like to clarify about this interview that are not consistent with his statements to me. Most of it was dead on, but he never told me that he wanted to shoot a small one, and was trying to resist the temptation. He told me that it was when he started feeling threatened and it started moving it's shoulders up and down that he decided to shoot. That might have been a deal breaker for me. That makes me ill. He never told me that he thought the large one was a man in a suit, he only said that's what his partner said. He told me that he thought it was either a very strange large bear, or a monster. That too might have been a deal breaker. Also, I NEVER told him we'd fill his pockets full of money. I did tell him that there could be significant money involved if he were to recover a body. That goes without saying. I also told him that the authorities would be contacted if a body was recovered. I never dangled a bag of money in front of his face and said fetch! Justin said very early in this thread and/or on the radio that the thought had crossed his mind that no one would believe him if he didn't shoot one of the juveniles. As far as I can tell, he still maintains he was threatened (he talked considerably about how close it was). Justin never said he thought it was a man in a suit. He said it looked like a man in a suit. That's actually a big difference. He said it before on this forum and elsewhere. Nothing new there. BTW, that seems to be a pretty common way of describing these things in the BFRO sightings I've read. Did Justin explicitly say Randles would fill their pockets with money? I heard Justin tell a joke about filling his pockets but I heard no such attribution. Randles himself has admitted (even before this post) that he told Justin there could be money involved. I don't know what the line about calling the authorities was about but that's also not news. I'm not trying to hang a halo on the guy. I just think there's more going on than meets the eye. Edited July 18, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 18, 2012 Truth? You Cant Handle The Truth!!!! Your all bashing a man who is telling the truth, weather you like is methods or not. I am a hunter and I can understand why he did the things he did. So what if he is telling the truth, since when does just because you have heard the truth from someone mean that you have to like it or you can't bash it ?? I remember watching a program on TV once that had confessions of a Guy who killed lots of people ( this is not directed towards this incident for the record, i'm just using it as an example ) and just because he told the truth, does that mean that everything's ok ?? Bwah.. & just because you're Hunter means nothing, if you would have the same thoughts going through your mins as what the man " telling the truth " had in that interview, then it says more about you and who you are than anything else. As far as I can tell, he still maintains he was threatened (he talked considerably about how close it was). You might want to watch the Interview again Slim on that basis. If he thought he was legitimately threatened then i doubt the thought would have entered his head about shooting the little one in the neck " so as not to mess up the skull ", wouldn't you agree ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 BFF Members- this whole senario is WHY there needs to be protection for the Sasquatch. Mis-identification? not really absolutly sure what the hunter had in his sights. Disreguard or laxity? absolutly! Many citizens encounter the unknown every day and in this case their was a victim. The victim could of posibly gone the other way. Either way this whole sierra shooting was a total lose/lose situation for all and that is why laws and regulations are adopted- to protect not onlt the general public but the wildlife also. Just like a lot of topics on this and other BF sites this situation will unfold with or without the human effecting it. All we can do,IMO is to work for the betterment of the Sasquatch and keep in mind that we deal with all sorts of differant mindsets and all levels of maturity and differant levels of reasoning(goes without saying). As many of my fellow members know I am on a team that is seeking to propose to the state of California a hunting regulation prohibiting the shooting and/or live capture of Sasquatch for scientific study. This incident is a prime example of why our proposal is seeking to present it to the Ca. Fish and Game Commission in October.Why- because incidents like the sierra shooting could accur agian, if it hasn't happening without it being made public in the past. One way or another this topic should be addressed if not for saftey reasons then for the protection of a very valuable asset scientifically and on the basis of natural resourses within the state. As for why Derek or Justin do what they did or if it is/was justified I will reserve my opinions because it doesn't matter and what is done has been done sadly enough. For me, our teams main focus will remain centered on showing what can go wrong unfortunately, and also that there is a need to address this impotant matter on a state level. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) You might want to watch the Interview again Slim on that basis. If he thought he was legitimately threatened then i doubt the thought would have entered his head about shooting the little one in the neck " so as not to mess up the skull ", wouldn't you agree ? Aiming to preserve the skull is also not new information. It doesn't matter why I think he did it (in this context). I have my own opinion and that hasn't changed as a result of this interview. I'm simply saying there's nothing new in that interview that would change my mind about what went down. I guess that's why I'm a little perplexed about the outrage from people I thought were paying attention. Edited July 18, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Chad, I'm a hunter also, I for one cannot in any way comprehend someone shooting when their spotter says not too, I am pro kill, but his trigger discipline is shall we say lacking? I don't care what it is 80yrds or 80 feet, if I'm on target leaning against my truck I'm not in any danger be it Bambi, Bigfoot or Bozo the insane clown. You guys can peedle your "you werent there how would you know" marlkey to someone else. This guy is an embarrassment to all hunters and dangerous to anyone within range. Edited July 18, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 18, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 18, 2012 I never said it was new information nor implied it, i mentioned it because i can't see how he thought that he was being threatened can be a reason to shoot it if he was looking for a neck shot to " not mess up the skull ". But then again i may be wrong, i don't have the mindset of a unethical Hunter like he has/had, thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 18, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) But BobbieO he didn't know anything about BF, so how could he know that 1) he's gonna prove it once and for all, and 2) avoid messing up the skull with a head shot? As for truth, unless a version is capsulized in the journal article... will anybody really ever know the truth, I think not. I think it'd be hugely ironic if it was most of the other samples that prove the subject and not the Sierra's one(s). I'm sure stranger things have happened. Edited July 18, 2012 by MikeG ......implied profanity removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I thought there was a book coming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts