Guest tpick Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Is anyone else weary of the lectures on hunting ethics? For the gazillointh time, General has stated his regrets and, in my opinion, is going way above and beyond to come to this forum and answer our questions about the Sierra kills. The guy (and DF for that matter) knows he's gonna get pounded but he comes in anyway. I don't know how much chastising would satisfy everyone but I am pretty sure that it's run its course in this thread. I want to know about the CREATURES in maybe the biggest event since P/G. General is the only one who can answer those questions for all of us. Enough with the Dr. Phil, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Is anyone else weary of the lectures on hunting ethics? Yes, me and the speculation about whether or not you'll go to jail for killing a Bigfoot. We need to take the debate to the next level now and stop flogging a dead horse. If I get any more bored I might have to go read the Munns Report or maybe contribute to a PGF thread...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) Prag, I was not there when the shooting happened, but I do believe the general and his description of the events. And I also know the test results from all the samples that we have turned in. What do you need me to clarify? Its just your second 'test results' reference was generalized to the many samples you have turned in. Is it safe to assume that not all your samples were positive while some/many were? (Nobody should expect 100% with a hundred samples.) So it became a little unclear as to whether you were speaking specific to the Sierra Sample results in the first reference and instead more to the fact that there were positive results within the variety of samples submitted. And yes its realized by all that you weren't there. And as you know 'believing someone' isn't evidence, so you should understand why there is doubt out there because the story really does hinge on one piece of physical evidence that we don't know the results on. To the thread, what happened is also important even tho some may not feel it is. What allegedly happened and asking questions, is how people learn about the human component. (Boy the BFF Server really is getting shaky) Edited August 11, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I had asked General some questions about the scat that was found (post 601). I'm not sure if the non response indicates that it is covered under the NDA, but it would be nice to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 As much as it is all us bigfooter's dreams come true, a wonderful piece of luck if it is all verified, something terribly wrong was done and must be paid for. In my opinion "the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small." Justice will have its way, eventually. JMHO and I'm sorry folks. This opinion is because I think BF are a type of human, and it looks like the DNA evidence will support this conclusion. Even General himself stated that the eyes were like a human's and that was why he was so terribly traumatized by it after the fact. Would you all be so merciful of some explorer who decided to go on a hunting jaunt in the Amazon jungle and was surprised by an undiscovered human female waving her hands at him, covered in startling bright paint and wierd feathers, that he shot and killed...and then killed one of her small children? The fact that he was frightened and that he had never encountered something like this before and couldn't identify it, and that he is a "good guy" and that he now feels terrible about it does not change the fact that he chose to pull the trigger on an innocent human of whatever kind, and then pulled the trigger again on an even less threatening and smaller human. It is still manslaughter on the first act and unpremeditated murder on the second act. The fact that it is bigfoot and is so wonderful and useful a discovery, that we will finally be able to say "I told you so," that the whole thing will come out of shadows and into the light, because of this, doesn't change the tragedy and doesn't change the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) ....was surprised by an undiscovered human female waving her hands at him, covered in startling bright paint and wierd feathers, that he shot and killed... I've been surprised by a few wild women covered in (nothing but) bright paint and wearin' feathers wanderin' around the streets of Key West at the end of October. Shoot them? Nah...not what I was really motivated to do by the sight.... ...surprised by a big, hairy "monster" less than 100 yards away that I know NOTHING about other than it looks like it's coming at me? Yeah...shoot it...in a heartbeat. Just my opinion.... Edited August 11, 2011 by BeachFoot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wtwest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 As much as it is all us bigfooter's dreams come true, a wonderful piece of luck if it is all verified, something terribly wrong was done and must be paid for. In my opinion "the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small." Justice will have its way, eventually. JMHO and I'm sorry folks. This opinion is because I think BF are a type of human, and it looks like the DNA evidence will support this conclusion. Even General himself stated that the eyes were like a human's and that was why he was so terribly traumatized by it after the fact. Would you all be so merciful of some explorer who decided to go on a hunting jaunt in the Amazon jungle and was surprised by an undiscovered human female waving her hands at him, covered in startling bright paint and wierd feathers, that he shot and killed...and then killed one of her small children? The fact that he was frightened and that he had never encountered something like this before and couldn't identify it, and that he is a "good guy" and that he now feels terrible about it does not change the fact that he chose to pull the trigger on an innocent human of whatever kind, and then pulled the trigger again on an even less threatening and smaller human. It is still manslaughter on the first act and unpremeditated murder on the second act. The fact that it is bigfoot and is so wonderful and useful a discovery, that we will finally be able to say "I told you so," that the whole thing will come out of shadows and into the light, because of this, doesn't change the tragedy and doesn't change the consequences. Congratulations. You win the award for stating the most obvious, non-verifiable fact ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Rwridley, I didn't say that it's not out for peer review. I assume it is but I don't know for sure. That is her place to disclose that not mine. We are just the sample turner in guys...lol. We do our thing and she does hers. You can trust me when I say that there isn't anybody who wants this to happen as soon as possible more than I do, but being in this for as many years as I have I've learned patience. She has told me that she will let me know of any developments so I can post them here when the time is right according to her. This is her study and she's in the drivers seat. I know her well and she definitely has my respect. This is to important to rush. She says by the end of the year, and hopefully she's right. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tpick Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 As much as it is all us bigfooter's dreams come true, a wonderful piece of luck if it is all verified, something terribly wrong was done and must be paid for. In my opinion "the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small." Justice will have its way, eventually. JMHO and I'm sorry folks. This opinion is because I think BF are a type of human, and it looks like the DNA evidence will support this conclusion. Even General himself stated that the eyes were like a human's and that was why he was so terribly traumatized by it after the fact. Would you all be so merciful of some explorer who decided to go on a hunting jaunt in the Amazon jungle and was surprised by an undiscovered human female waving her hands at him, covered in startling bright paint and wierd feathers, that he shot and killed...and then killed one of her small children? The fact that he was frightened and that he had never encountered something like this before and couldn't identify it, and that he is a "good guy" and that he now feels terrible about it does not change the fact that he chose to pull the trigger on an innocent human of whatever kind, and then pulled the trigger again on an even less threatening and smaller human. It is still manslaughter on the first act and unpremeditated murder on the second act. The fact that it is bigfoot and is so wonderful and useful a discovery, that we will finally be able to say "I told you so," that the whole thing will come out of shadows and into the light, because of this, doesn't change the tragedy and doesn't change the consequences. I don't think you can prosecute someone for murder of a human being if that being did not "exist" legally beforehand and happens to be all covered in "animal-like" hair and 100 yards away. But I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) Congratulations. You win the award for stating the most obvious, non-verifiable fact ever. You're likely wrong there wt, many of the samples in the past have come in 'human', with them thinking they must have been contaminated. There have also been a few statements from individuals involved in the DNA work about Sas being human. Paulides being one as I recall. Plus, if you've ever looked one eye to eye, well you see the human side there too. Edited August 11, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted August 11, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted August 11, 2011 Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, doing it twice makes you look even worse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I'd like to think that if it were me, I wouldn't have taken the first shot. It wasn't me though, it was General, and only he and the driver know exactly what the situation was like. The one thing that I'm having trouble understanding is, why a hunter/taxidermist, would leave behind the find of a lifetime, when he had it right there in his hands. Did it look too human to take back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wtwest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 You're likely wrong there wt, many of the samples in the past have come in 'human', with them thinking they must have been contaminated. There have also been a few statements from individuals involved in the DNA work about Sas being human. Paulides being one as I recall. Plus, if you've ever looked one eye to eye, well you see the human side there too. I don't buy it. What about the other DNA samples that have come back as primate? We don't know what bigfoot might be and any speculation is just that until we have an actual body or verified "slab" in this case. You've looked a bigfoot in the eye, huh? You should have taken a picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I don't think anyone can really blame General for doing what he allegedly did. The "kill/No Kill" argument has raged for decades in the BF community. One of the men I admire most and who did more than anyone until Meldrum on the scientific end, the late Grover Krantz, was a "kill" advocate. It was the only thing I wished he hadn't put his weight and reputation behind. There's never been a concensus one way or another. To hold General up to standard that's never been established is unfair at best and supercilious at worst. That being said, if this event did take place as General stated, then we move on from here as a community with a rapid and organized education campaign to make sure it never happens again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I don't buy it. What about the other DNA samples that have come back as primate? Source? Link? Anything? We don't know what bigfoot might be and any speculation is just that until we have an actual body or verified "slab" in this case. Aren't you speculating that he is primate? How does this make you different? You've looked a bigfoot in the eye, huh? You should have taken a picture. Second post that was just rude for no reason to some people who are pretty kind. Why would you say something so belligerent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts