Guest slimwitless Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 this^^^ You'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 99% of the US Population doesn't believe in BF or think it exists Yowie, probably more than that in fact.. We have the same problem here in Oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 8, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 8, 2011 What am I missing here? The shooter claimed to have never given much thought to Bigfoot so he didn't realize quickly what they were ect ect... Now multiple people claim (name removed) is the shooter. If true, then he's far from ignorant of Bigfoot because (name removed) actually works for the Olympic Project. What am I missing? Why has no one else noticed this? People have, why don't you just ask the General when he joined the project and get it over with? Easy enough...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 8, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 8, 2011 I accidentally hit the "delete" button instead of the edit button. By hitting the "reply" button it brought it back, who knew? But this is the response to Yoweii's question about General never having heard of bigfoot. You aren't the first to pull that musical stunt, question is why do I have a delete key on my control panel in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 8, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 8, 2011 yes you can drive around roads hunting in california as long as you dont have a round in the chamber Lovely , somehow I wish Pterodactyls were reintroduced into the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 You aren't the first to pull that musical stunt, question is why do I have a delete key on my control panel in the first place? I don't know but I saw where you said that the other night. I'll ask the web master about it. BobbyO, do you have a delete key also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 For the folks who believe this animal is "human," I can assure you that it is not. I am sure because if it was human and living in the USA, especially California, the IRS would know all about it and it would be paying taxes! Haha. Look, General isn't going to get charged with murder, or poaching. This thing at this moment doesn't exist. We here may think it does, but it is not a recognized species at this moment in time. He claims to have shot it, why keep pestering him with reasons why he did? I could see bombarding with questions if he was accused and was denying it, but that isn't the case here. Bottom line is, 2 are dead. Let's learn something from them. Why don't we ask about the animal, and if he would still like to answer some of our questions, he can. General, did you check out the sierra sounds or other claimed voice recordings yet? Or have you found an image that matches what you saw that is closer than the one from 2 days ago? Derekfoot, has the OP set up many camera traps in the area this occurred to try and catch an image of the other little one, or any other squatches in the area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I'm not sure It's fair to use the General's real name at this stage without him confirming his identity first. Some people just seem determined to run him off the forum when there are still many questions to be asked. As I said several posts back, the General has been fastracked to his current position in the OP, purely on the strength of his involvement in the sierra kill. He is in no way a long time member, so his claim to have little interest in BF at the time of the kill stacks up. It helps General's credibility that he is now so involved in the project. If he was just a casual hoaxer he would have dropped off the ste@k and sat back at home chuckling with his mates on the porch. I don't believe that the OP is a corrupt organisation that's involved in a hoax. It is, however, just possible that the OP, especially Derek, has been hoaxed by General. I would like to ask Derek how he knows absolutely that this is not the case. He seems so confident. He has dropped some heavy hints that the tissue sample the General found passed Dr Ketchum's Bigfoot test, but I don't have 100% confidence in Ketchum's analysis. How can he be so sure and what are the other reasons? In particular, I'd like to know if Derek has spoken to the elusive driver? I really wish this guy would step forward. It would help to corroborate so much. And to Susiq, just because something is in a book doesn't make it true, but it does make for a very tangled web if it's not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 In particular, I'd like to know if Derek has spoken to the elusive driver? I really wish this guy would step forward. It would help to corroborate so much. If you look here on the Olympic Project website, you'll see Derek claims to have interviewed the driver "extensively". The driver is probably wondering whether it's worth it to come forward until the corroborating science is released. Of course, if Ketchum's DNA study makes it through a credible peer review process, all of this will be so much idle chatter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I think the General said he is willing to come forward if necessary. I don't remember if he said he has talked to anyone as of yet. I think there was something, but that is a big@$$ thread to go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Jodie, I know it's not my place to correct you being a mod and all, but I would really appreciate it if you'd refrain from baiting the General into disclosing the sex of the adult Sasquatch. That info is under NDA. We'd love to tell you but we can't at this time. Umm Derek, as far as this question goes, and why so many people are referring to one sex or the other- maybe you should go back and listen to the MNBRT Blog-Talk radio call in interview you did a while back. You know, the one that R. Lindsay was on ? It was mentioned that night... by you by the way. Actually, it was asked and "yes" was given as the answer.... ( i just listened to it again the other night). So Im not really sure what all the "mystery" now is about..... Maybe at that point in time the NDA was not in place? But the info was put out there... (100% sure) ART Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Thanks Art- I knew I had remembered someone on the show saying it, just couldn't remember who and didn't bother to go back and listen. However, he did say several pages back that they couldn't discuss it because of the NDA, which I am assuming is related to the book deal since the show aired. I guess Derek forgot too.......Oh well, it was a random thought I had and not really relevant to the big picture. I know why Derek initially came on the BFF to post, but that person is no longer a member. I'm just as riveted by the story as anyone else, but for the life of me, I can't understand why either Derek or the General would come on here and talk about the situation now, that's the biggest mystery of all to me. Can I ask why either of you would bother to do that? It seems like you risk making a mistake and inadvertently violating the NDA by continuing to put yourself in this public position prematurely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I think it's been stated many times by Derek and General that the leaked info caused them to speak up because the info was not accurate. I would think they would love to tell all here since we are such good people and deserve the truth. The NDA prohibits discussing specifics about the results of the study, but submitters can discuss where their evidence comes from, and how it was collected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) but for the life of me, I can't understand why either Derek or the General would come on here and talk about the situation now, that's the biggest mystery of all to me. Can I ask why either of you would bother to do that? It seems like you risk making a mistake and inadvertently violating the NDA by continuing to put yourself in this public position prematurely. I don't know either Jodie. Are you suggesting that a hoax is nothing without the oxygen of publicity? Edited August 8, 2011 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I suggest no such thing. I fully understand the implications of this should the DNA results show that something unidentified exists out there. If I were in the same position, I would disappear until the book and DNA study was released, but that's just me. I imagine, although I don't know this for sure, that if a publisher is involved that some kind of agreement should exist to prevent talking about the subject and would require a non disclosure statement similar to a HIPAA statement that I sign when I review patient charts. They maybe self publishing, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts