bipedalist Posted August 2, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 2, 2011 Derek you stated your trip to the site included no discovered bodies recently but you may go back. Did you happen on any promising physical evidence or footprints (feel like billg asking that one, kudos to Bill)? Was there any new information that can be shared from your face-to-face with the shooter? Have you met Erickson yet? Thanks for your patience and considerations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) Prag, I'm not trying to impress you at all with relevant names. They impress me. Why, because they have chosen to devote a large part of their life to this research, and they are the closest thing we have to experts in this field. They also impress me because they get out in the field and investigate rather than sit in front of a computer and critique. Lots to be said for hands on IMO. They pay their own way and ask nothing in return. Very impressive IMO. Well I'm glad you are impressed, that's what keeps the field going besides blurry images and tracks. A lot of people get out in the field and have encounters but don't make a show of it Derekfoot. There is more to this mystery then proving they exist too. Some of the so-called experts' claims aren't all that impressive either. But they do have a name. Don't let groupthink get the best of us again? You really feel the need to reference to the Skookum cast? Really dude? You're right, I'm sorry you were the first to follow. Did you think I'd slap my head and say, " oh, he got me with that one" ? Please. There was somebody on the Skookum trip that has had visual observations of Sasquatch and also knows Elk. Me! No, I'm not a biologist but I know Elk well, and I have guided many successful hunts. Look, I'm sorry you weren't on the Skookum trip to direct us correctly. Back to the topic..... Dude, the Skookum Cast process was the perfect example of Groupthink! It had all the earmarks. Everyone fed off their own excitement. Both you and your elk expert apparently missed the evidence as well. I raise this in hopes you had learned from those mistakes not as a jab. Groupthink is something that every focused group endeavor has to watch out for. It affects leaders of countries, corporate officers, scientists, you are not immune DF. Why would I spend four days in Nor-Cal? Why would I call in the best people I know? Why would I spend $3,000.00 of my own money to put together the trip? Do you think I haven't done my homework? Do you think it might have something to do with the flesh sample results????? It took you what, 8 months after the alleged incident to meet the guy and get down there. If you spoke to him 2 weeks later, how is it conceivable that you weren't down there looking for evidence within a few days after that? Two bigfoot shot, and you don't go for 8 months? Some might consider that an major blunder. Would it be that you didn't quite believe it in the beginning? So, did you ever read the original 60 page thread yourself Derekfoot? I didn't come back here to debate procedure with you Prag, so I'm not going to. If you are such an expert on how to do it right, then I suggest you put together your own organization and get this mystery solved! Pronto!! Derekfoot, I'm not interested in solving the mystery. I went thru my few years of seeking that. Like I said, I've drafted a 37 page ESA Petition To List so as to get them the so-called protection people think they need. But I've come to recognize that proving their existence isn't all its cracked up to be. lol I've had encounters that were the most amazing experiences of my life DF. I didn't need to go out and call blast, hiding trailcams, or have sentries up on every ridge. My encounters happened whether I wanted them or not while in the bush. A few that I can't explain as well. My goal isn't running around proving bigfoot exists any longer either, mine is understanding the why of my own experiences but also seeking truth because there has been a lot of false claims in this field. There is also a bigger picture to this mystery. Bigger then you and me but one I am aware of as are others. These are the real important issues that others have begun to realize as well. There are more important things then finding proof. But the way the shots were alleged to have happened does not entirely add up and that's what I am questioning DF. A hunter at 80 yds thru a scope doesn't mistake a standing bigfoot waving its hands for a bear. No way! Just doesn't happen. How many times have you laughed at the skeptic who says to the witness that they just saw a bear? The misidentification misnomer works both ways Derekfoot. Oh and glad to see you back. Edited August 2, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Or maybe all the self proclaimed "heavey hitters" know that this is bull. Going along with it just to keep their names in the mix, then after it's found to be a hoax they all claim they had no idea so they are not considered hoaxers. After all bear hunter has no name so the blame could be put on him and no one would be dealt a biscardi type reputation........btw what makes someone call themself a "heavey hitter"? What exactly does it mean to be "A heavy hitter" regarding BF research? Who all is considered to be *legitimate* heavy hitters, is it the scientists, the researchers, the book authors, or is it all of them? I feel that we have numerous *heavy hitters* who are members here due to their research and intelligent and informational postings here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I think the most well-known example that even mostly outside folks would say "hey, I have seen that guy before" is Jeff Meldrum. Does that help SweetSusiq? If not I can PM you with more info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) 1. Prag, I never intended to make a show of it. I never intended to talk about it until after the paper is published. I only decided to talk about it when the shooter asked me, because SF was saying some things that the shooter wanted cleared up. You see Prag, this has never been a show for me. If the "leak" wouldn't have happened I wouldn't be here talking about it. 2. I refuse to talk to you about the Skookum cast. I've tried, dead end. Did we do a few things wrong? Of coarse. Are we perfect? No. Are you? Wrong thread anyways. 3. Why did it take me so long to go to the site? I'm sure you're smart enough to figure this out, but I'll help you a little. When I made the first call it was just another story. An interesting story none the less. It took multiple phone calls before I was comfortable with the shooter. Oh, and then there's the flesh sample. I wasn't moving until I knew much more about the flesh sample. Samples are not tested over night, it takes time. Also, the site is very high in elevation. When the flesh sample was obtained there was already over two feet of snow on site. Believe it or not, the site has been under multiple feet of snow until VERY recently. We got there just as soon as we were able. I own two businesses in a struggling economy. I don't have the funds to rent a helicopter and swoop into the snowy mountainside with the A team and just make things happen. I could have asked Wally for help but I didn't. To this day I've never asked him for a dime. There are already to many people that try to take advantage of him, and I won't be one of them. 4. No I have not read all 60 pages. I know that the shooter only posted a few times. 5. If you're not interested in solving the mystery that's fine, your prerogative, but I am. I've been interested in solving this for the last 26 years. 6. I'm sorry things don't add up for you. There's nothing I can do about that. Oh, and thank's, glad to be back! Edited August 2, 2011 by Derekfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Derek if your able to answer I'm curious as to what kinds of things were you hoping to find in California? Other than bodies of the animals what could have been of any use? Clearly you believe the story of the shooter so additional Bigfoot signs would not really do any further validating, and if a flesh sample exists already would finding another make much of a difference? I'm just curious if the objective was to locate a body or if you were looking for additional evidence and if so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 A couple points to ponder, while waiting for "results" (if there are any). 1-The alleged shooter, supposedly a rather "accomplished" big game hunter, using a supposed "high power hunting rifle" shoots the, uh-hmm, Sasquatch (at fairly close range mind you) in the thigh? I've always been taught to shoot a threat "center mass". This is also a hell of a lot easier than aiming for a non vital spot. And would dispatch the threat a lot more effectively. 2-If the leg exploded in such a manner that a large portion of thigh was detached, I seriously doubt that the squatch ran off into the woods after. The massive blood loss would have been instantanious. Not to mention the total loss of function of the leg in question. 3-Exactly what kind of rounds were used in the alleged weapon, explosive tip, hollow point, wad cutter? Sheeesh, If you shot a deer with the same effect, (chunks blown off), the carcass would be rendered useless. Just how does an accomplished "big game hunter" pull off such a bungled fiasco such as this. If he shot a juvenile squatch with the same effect, was half of it blown away? Something doesn't add up here. No sh-t Sherlock!-JMO-Knuck Not to mention that just everybody has picture cell phones today. I even have one! So here we have *The greatest find in history of Crypto-zoology* , and no one takes a picture? No one cuts a finger off? No one picks up a piece of the flesh? How hard would it be to do grab tissue, or the young one, while covering up the bodies? IMHO, This story makes No Sense so it's most likely a False story from beginning to end. Just my humble thoughts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Not to mention that just everybody has picture cell phones today. I even have one! So here we have *The greatest find in history of Crypto-zoology* , and no one takes a picture? No one cuts a finger off? No one picks up a piece of the flesh? How hard would it be to do grab tissue, or the young one, while covering up the bodies? IMHO, This story makes No Sense so it's most likely a False story from beginning to end. Just my humble thoughts... Have you read the whole thread? They DO have a piece of flesh. It has been tested and whatever they found was good enough to make DF believe there was a reason to follow up. That is what everyone is arguing about...for the most part. I am still not sure why this sounds so incredible to people. The only thing I think can be argued is the shooter's motives for shooting. We will know in due time if the story was true. There seems to be a lot of threads about samples and lots of hints from what is considered some pretty reliable sources around here about something thats going to break. I have read threads about a foot, a piece of meat, multiple hair, skin and blood samples...rumors of video and DNA testing. SOMEthing is happening out there. And it has a lot of people in the know more excited then I have ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I think SweetSusiQ is simply questioning why no evidence, including photographic, was taken immediately after the shooting incident. I would tend to agree with her that a single cell phone pic could have gone a long way to convince folks that the shooter was telling the truth. These two guys were hunting, AND they were in their vehicle. What are the odds of them NOT having a camera in their possession? Hunters frequently have a camera handy so they can get a shot of their trophy. At this stage, I'm much more excited about the DNA results being published than I am the story surrounding the shooting incident. My feeling is there is more to it than is being shared. Or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Bipedalist, yes there was a small piece of bone found within 10 feet of where the the flesh sample was found. It has some hair and a small piece of hide attached to it. The hair looks to be the same color as the hair on the flesh sample. It has not been tested yet so I can't speak the results. Also a few weeks ago, tracks were found within three miles of the site at a slightly lower elevation. Yes there are pictures of the tracks. I'm sure they will be released when the study is done, and yes they are really good tracks. I'll check with the shooter, and if it's cool with him I'll put them on our web site asap. Susiq, These guys were not up hunting that day trying to obtain proof of Sasquatch. They were bear hunting. After they left their truck and proceeded across the meadow all they had was one riffle. After the events unfolded they wanted to get out of there as soon as possible, not stick around and get photographic evidence. They were freaked out and scared. They wanted to leave, not linger and do a photo shoot. If that makes no sense to you then so be it. Sometimes things make no sense, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I find it incredible that people find it so hard to believe the two shooters just getting the heck out of Dodge. If I remember correctly Derek said the shooter was someone who didn't believe in Sasquatch (correct me if I'm wrong there) So under those circumstances I could see someone getting quite rattled by the events that occured following the first pull of the trigger. Imagine a fisherman accidently hooking the Loch Ness Monster, do you really think he'd calmly rebait his hook and continue to fish after that encounter? From the story you have a guy who believes he shot a bear, bear runs off on 2's and 4's crashing through bush, then they are approached by a couple of small apelike animals and begin to feel threatened and fire upon one of them. So Mama was hit, child was killed, and some people find it odd these two guys weren't waiting around snapping pictures not knowing if Daddy was going to come home? We like to think that we would do the "right" thing, collect evidence, take pictures report to appropriate peoples, But how could we possibly know how we'd react until we've experienced it. There are things about the story that causes me to raise an eyebrow, But them splitting quickly after the shooting is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 2, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 2, 2011 Great update, thanks for keeping us abreast of these breaking developments Derekfoot, it is much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Ditto on that, I couldn't get out of there fast enough. I would be so nervous I doubt I could even push a button on a phone if I wanted to...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) After the events unfolded they wanted to get out of there as soon as possible, not stick around and get photographic evidence. They were freaked out and scared. They wanted to leave, not linger and do a photo shoot. If that makes no sense to you then so be it. Sometimes things make no sense, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. That's what I am sayin'. I would have ran past my car and down the mountain. People don't know what they would do in any given situation. In all likelihood though, an experienced bear hunter who posts on a taxidermy forum would have a camera on him. JMVHO. But again, I gotta say, that would be the last thing on my mind. If I think what that whole scene looked like in my head just based on the most rudimentary aspects of the story that we have so far been told...I wouldn't want to remember. Edited August 3, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Check out Lindsay's blog. Apparently he and Stubstad visited the area of the Sierra Kills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts