Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) Sorry SY bud ~ i just didn't understand that post at all, it reminded me of this. Capt. Hefling: What about that Red Chinese radio chatter? Austin Millbarge: It's done. Here you go. Capt. Hefling: Done? That was a static filled, triple scrambled, microwave transmission between two soldiers talking in Mandarin Chinese. Austin Millbarge: Well, the Chinese were only using a simple polyphoneticly grouped twenty square digit key, transposed from booster verdonic form, with multiple nulls. I broke it with this. Capt. Hefling: A Drogen's Decoder Wheel? They put these into cereal boxes for kid! Austin Millbarge: Yeah, I found it in a box of, uh . . . Lucky Charms. Tim Edited October 23, 2011 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I'm still firmly rooted in the camp that says nothing will come out of the Sierra Shooting. From the start it's muddled up in the typical bigfoot cloak and dagger and internal conflicts. In all seriousness I say if there was a real shooting with real tissue samples being analyzed by real labs we'd have had the results months ago. Claiming that that a paper needs to be written or submitted and or published is nonsense. The scientific act of acquiring the samples and testing results are in and of themselves sufficient to put the scientists on the map. Any further in depth analysis by same scientists would be just as valid and welcome in the scientific community and certainly by the bigfoot community and public at large. If it is argued that the scientists involved want to have everything known that's knowable from the samples before going public it's a ruse IMO. Knowing 100% of anything is an impossibility. But it does make for entertainment and I suppose it gives the "creators" of the story a certain satisfaction that they are occupying people's time and attention. However as for this thing having a real scientific payoff I think the odds are slim and none. The sample has already been tested, and they do know the results. They have just chosen to not share them with you yet. The General said it was "tried and true". If you look at this from the Olympic Project's point of view, it's pretty clear that they are fairly confident about the whole episode. It's safe to say they are serious researchers with a very good reputation. Why bring The General on staff, and have months go by with him still touting his story? Then after it's clear they have results, he is still associated with them. If those results had came back negative, or suspicious, it's safe to assume they would have begun distancing themselves from him. Just give them some time. If this ends up being a hoax of the highest order, you will have forever to shout, "I told you so!!", and all of those associated with the fiasco will be permanently tarnished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) @SouthernYahoo Your last two posts have been excellent. Awesome points and logic. Can you say if you have been given the results to the samples you have submitted? I am not sure if this has been asked and I apologize if it has. Why bring The General on staff, and have months go by with him still touting his story? Then after it's clear they have results, he is still associated with them. If those results had came back negative, or suspicious, it's safe to assume they would have begun distancing themselves from him. Just give them some time. If this ends up being a hoax of the highest order, you will have forever to shout, "I told you so!!", and all of those associated with the fiasco will be permanently tarnished. Not only that, but Ketchum has to know she is connected to this story now and I can't see the reasoning she would allow her name to touch such a fantastic story and risk the company she has built being dragged through the mud. Edited October 23, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The sample has already been tested, and they do know the results. They have just chosen to not share them with you yet. How about me i ain't a bad guy and i can keep a secret ~ Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted October 23, 2011 Moderator Share Posted October 23, 2011 I'll try to make this simple without being too simple hopefully. Bf either exists as a biological entity or it doesn't. If it does, then the "how" of it's existence without proof until now will have been due to some natural design or function of it's behavior or some disfunction of our reasoning, understanding and interpretation of prior evidence. You can't get around this unless you resort to the supernatural explanations. I think that reasoning and understanding failure is more likely than the paranormal when deeling with proven biological entities. Ultimately, It won't be extraordinary that it exists, what would be extraordinary is that we ignored it's existence, and tried to reason it into extinction. Southernyahoo You make a good valid point with the exception of the paranormal.DNA is going to prove the existance of a flesh and blood creature,yet will not prove the behavioral of this creature.This is what has been my argument all along.Doing this field work is what it is going to take to understanding these creatures. Sure The things i have said is going to take extornary evidence to prove but that will come with time.I am sure i am not the only one in this total nation who is reporting this. There alot more ppeople who are repoting thing that are alot more different then what I have said. Now the reason I have made my statements is because i wanted to putted out on the net. People needed to hear what I have encountered so i posted it out there knowing that yes i would be rediculed.So HG your statements towards me really did not bother me at all since my true intentions were to let people know that there is another aspect of this creature. Whether people want to believe me it does not matter since sooner or later they will find this out for themselves. Now whether General did shoot this creature which i assume they did,it is on there terms when they decide to release that information.I have no problem what so ever when they decide to do so.I have made my own discission not to gain any proof and i can assure you that I have been able to do so with the exception of DNA.My logic of gaining DNA is only in the case of being attacked which so far has not happened yet.But I am ready when that day comes. If in case that this DNA does have human elements of DNA ,I still see these creatures as a animal/human living primal within our forest.A creature that has an understanding of what it self is.It has stayed hidden only because of its understanding.It has made its own discision to remain hidden and will do so as long as we are looking for it.I could say more but would rather stay silent since this would be best for the creatures. General No matter what you you feel on what happen that day you shpt these creatures you did the right thing in a way just as long as you understand that you happen to be in a spot at the right time and at the right moment.My next question to you would be and this if you are willing to answer.Is there been talk of maybe proscution if DNA has confirmed human DNA?I will go to court with you as a wittness if it is ever brought up.I will swear in court on what I saw and have expieranced.I will even gain what evidence that i have and bring it to court so that that court may understand that they are dealing with a living being .A being that is half human/animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 General, Do you use a Bloodhound to hunt bear? Did you initially inform Randles that a Bloodhound was used to find the recovered piece of flesh and he just failed to mention it in his article for the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) So HG your statements towards me really did not bother me at all since my true intentions were to let people know that there is another aspect of this creature. Whether people want to believe me it does not matter since sooner or later they will find this out for themselves. Well, don't let Inc1 see those comments. He may try and revoke my new title. Julio, I am not saying what happened to you didn't happen. I am saying have you ever thought that what you are encountering and what others are encountering are not the same being/creature since you and another witness can't sit down in front of a line-up and both say you saw the same thing? I hope the DNA really does come soon. At least one part of the argument would end. Without a slab monkey, not all of it would though. Edited October 23, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 General, Do you use a Bloodhound to hunt bear? Did you initially inform Randles that a Bloodhound was used to find the recovered piece of flesh and he just failed to mention it in his article for the OP? I'm guessing they could fill a book with everything Randles left out of that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 That's funny slim... more later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Sorry SY bud ~ i just didn't understand that post at all, it reminded me of this. Tim Can't winem all, atleast some people get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 We know that very different humanoid beings existed in the past, we also know that atleast one type has survived to this day. Great post, you confused me here though... Are you referring to humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) I have been thinking quite a bit about this whole topic for the last week. Working offshore and spending 6-8 hours a day at 1000 feet inside a tin can all alone gives you time to ponder things. I come home, settle in and bring up Fox news and see the story I posted about in this thread http://bigfootforums...by-bear-hunter/ and I start to wonder even more as to why a supposedly experienced bear hunter ( who I continue for the time being to give the benefit of the doubt in having shot two Sasquatches until proven otherwise) would have made the decision he made at the time. I'm sorry..but I am just not buying the "They looked too human" claim anymore. Above you see a man that made a tragic mistake that still came forward and took responsibility for his actions, right or wrong. He fired blind at a dark figure in the woods and tried to help the mortally wounded Marine as best he could, notified authorities and is waiting to see if charges will be filed. A stupid mistake, but at least he is man enough to own up to it at the time and face the consequences. General..if you where hunting for bear as you claim you would have been prepared to extract the carcass from the kill site immediately. If you shot two Sasquatch out of fear for your well-being that is understandable, however it should be noted that bear hunters are typically very cool customers. The prospect is high that the first shot will not bring the bear down and you have to be prepared to respond; it's the same way when shooting people who are armed and wearing body-armor. But you stated that you did not remove the bodies that day because they looked too human and you where afraid. The above example offered by the grandfather above clearly defines that your excuse is (forgive my Marine Corps vernacular) ****-poor. Personally I believe that you went out with the full intention of killing a Sasquatch. I don't believe there where proper bear tags withing 100 miles of you, let-a-lone in your possession at the time and after the shooting you realized you had bitten of much much more than you could chew legally and ethically and you panicked. To add further tragedy to this gruesome situation you (seemingly) chose to let the "too human appearing" dead Sasquatch/s, one of which you say died in your arms lay like roadkill to be devoured or rot whichever came first; until of course you had time to think and went back for a tissue sample only to find the carcasses allegedly gone yet you elude to finding a fetus although you did not come right out and say it openly. I am glad that if this did in fact take place that you eventually came forward, although I don't speculate that it was for the sole purpose of clearing your conscience. Maybe the supposed book will tell the whole story in it's entirety? Who knows. Maybe your tissue samples, whatever they might be will be confirmed by Ketchum and Erickson's film? I'll get back to that in a second. I have spent many days in my career in the Marines standing in dress blues in front of school children answering questions...I have been asked more times than I can count " Have you ever killed anyone" my answer is always the same. "I certainly hope so, because if I didn't who knows how many American's or innocent civilians might that person have gone on to harm?" which is the same answer I was given when as a child I asked my own father who was a Huey door gunner in Vietnam if he ever killed anyone. It's the same answer that will be given by any soldier, police officer or person that has ever had to put rounds down range in anger. Point being you take moral, ethical and personal responsibility for the choice you make and the actions you perform in the now, not in the the sweet by and by. Edited October 23, 2011 by MarkMc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Great post, you confused me here though... Are you referring to humans? Yes I was referring to humans (modern sapiens) there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Geo- As I stated in my post I have no problem with killing them out of fear for personal safety. For what's it worth bears can shred a vehicle just as quickly and I have had the scary experience of a matue bf ninety feet away and showing me its teeth. If you have time for a juvenile to die in your arms you have time to do the right thing. Killing is a harsh business...period. Harsh actions require harsh questions to be asked and answered. The man has stated openly that they were very human in appearance yet he chose to [sic] "not deal with it at the time". Fear is no excuse for making poor decisions once imminent danger has passed, unless you have something to hide. If you doubt it I suggest you take it up with one of the thousands or soldiers/sailors/marines or airmen in theatre and operate in an aura of fear everyday and still manage to take responsibility for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Last night I had a lively Sierra Shooting discussion with a friend who happens to be and avid bigfoot believer. First off let me say that while I am these days a benign skeptic I lean heavily towards the idea that there's been nothing to bigfoot since the mid 70's after which the line went extinct. In any event my conversation lead me to bone up on the SS. I was even more dismayed that the shooting took place a year ago and not in July 2011 as I first thought. There is one huge element of this shooting that IMO fairly screams nonsense. The shooters were bear hunters. Now correct me if I'm wrong but bears a large heavy animals. If you're going to hunt bear you're going to be well versed in the collection and transportation of dead large heavy carcasses. So why didn't the hunters collect the small creature throw it in the truck and hightail it out of there secure in the knowledge that with a full body they were at the very least fame bound. But no the experienced bear hunters armed with sufficient firepower to shoot their way out of further encounter tuck tails between legs and vacate the scene of such monumental encounter. I can half understand if there was only one hunter but two hunters oh come on they could have heaved a really big BF into the truck as well as covering one another in the event of further encounters. But they leave a smallish animal to rot in the bush and or disappear as can be anticipated by any number of causes. Nope they totally ignore the potential of this and knowingly or unknowingly deprive science the proverbial body on the slab so desperately needed to keep the bigfoot issue afloat. I guess the more things change the more they remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts