Guest slimwitless Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Crow, the answers to your questions are out there. The story about the driver pointing the gun at General comes from Lindsay's blog via Ken Walker. General says it's not true. I believe the juvenile was claimed to be roughly the size of a seven or eight year old. Yes, General claims the juvenile died in his arms within minutes of being shot. And no, you weren't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I read where General's partner raised a gun and pointed it at General after the second shooting. Well I've been around enough guns, gunmen,hunters and armed professionals to allow me ask the following question open to anyone to answer.....What kind of Yahoo fires on a young juvenile but is traveling with another Yahoo ignorant enough to level a weapon on partner? I don't give a **** about being upset scared etc etc. Was the juvenile 9 feet tall? Did it weigh 400lbs? Oh come on it died in General's arms did it not? So exactly how gosh darn big and menacing was it? In any event there are character anomalies here or there's an anomaly laced story being portrayed. I suspect this is all leading up to a couple of book deals and DVD sales. But tell you what when the story makes it on PBS NOVA then perhaps there's some legs to it. In the meantime IMO it's more about capitalism than science. I tried to +1 ya there but I'm out of em for the day! Yeah, this all just seems so fishy. Honestly, if you aren't a bigfoot fanatic and you shot one, it seems odd that you wouldn't bag those bodies up and start trying to collect some serious $$$ from it. (it's what I would have expected) yet we are supposed to buy that they just left them there and came back for the "steak" later? It even has a melodramatic "dying in his arms" climax.... Call me cynically skeptical about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Crow, the answers to your questions are out there. The story about the driver pointing the gun at General comes from Lindsay's blog via Ken Walker. General says it's not true. I believe the juvenile was claimed to be roughly the size of a seven or eight year old. Yes, General claims the juvenile died in his arms within minutes of being shot. And no, you weren't there. Unless you're the driver then you weren't there either. Edited October 26, 2011 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yes! See my question that was posted a week ago and thrown into this thread around page 40 or so. Who was the driver? There were supposedly 2 people and 3 squatches there. One guy could have this other chunk of flesh and not be tied up with these NDA's and project. Find the guy. Get his story. Take a pic of the chunk and see if he'd cut a piece off. Take it in front of a national audience and say "here is hard evidence of Bigfoot". Step right up and check it out skeptics. The Ketchum deal must have some flaws if it keeps getting pushed back on release. We can only speculate what the flaws are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Unless you're the driver then you weren't there either. That's true. I also don't pretend to know how someone else would react in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Is it possible it was sort of stumbling on all fours instead of running on all fours. Bigfoot has longer arms than a human so if it was running, stumbling forward, and putting it's hands down to keep from going down it would look sort of like it was running on all fours, especially from a long ways away. I agree that it is very hard to imagine that General didn't carry the juvenile to the truck and get out of there, but unless you have been in that exact situation it is hard to say exactly how you would react. Imagine the thought of a 9 ft father coming after you for not only shooting his wife and baby, but taking the babies body. Also, the thought of it looking human in the face would have to completely freak somebody out. For the record if I was going through what General is going through I would try to make some money off it too. Just because he is writing a book and trying to make money doesn't mean he is lying. I'm not saying I completely believe the story because in my mind it would be a little crazy to 100% believe it without proof. I'm leaning towards believing it, but of course in the back of my mind there is some doubt. I do live in Georgia so the Ga boys story is a close one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Is it possible it was sort of stumbling on all fours instead of running on all fours. Bigfoot has longer arms than a human so if it was running, stumbling forward, and putting it's hands down to keep from going down it would look sort of like it was running on all fours, especially from a long ways away. I agree that it is very hard to imagine that General didn't carry the juvenile to the truck and get out of there, but unless you have been in that exact situation it is hard to say exactly how you would react. Imagine the thought of a 9 ft father coming after you for not only shooting his wife and baby, but taking the babies body. Also, the thought of it looking human in the face would have to completely freak somebody out. For the record if I was going through what General is going through I would try to make some money off it too. Just because he is writing a book and trying to make money doesn't mean he is lying. I'm not saying I completely believe the story because in my mind it would be a little crazy to 100% believe it without proof. I'm leaning towards believing it, but of course in the back of my mind there is some doubt. I do live in Georgia so the Ga boys story is a close one. I think alot more happened than is being told and probably more going on about the samples also.It seems all went silent lately. maybe the calm before the storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I read where General's partner raised a gun and pointed it at General after the second shooting. Well I've been around enough guns, gunmen,hunters and armed professionals to allow me ask the following question open to anyone to answer.....What kind of Yahoo fires on a young juvenile but is traveling with another Yahoo ignorant enough to level a weapon on partner? To be fair, this rumor was disavowed by General. And if at any point we are asked to pay for the information as Stank stated, then that's when my cynicism will take over. Journal publication is the only thing that can give everything associated with this study credibility, including General's story (unless he's hiding a body in his garage.) If they publish books afterwards, I'm cool with that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 It's not like General brought his story to BFF, expecting everyone to believe it. He came here to try to set the facts straight, after being exposed. General doesn't owe anyone anything and I have to give him credit for coming back here from time to time, to answer questions. I don't know what to make of this whole incident, but based on the OP's level of integrity, compared to other BF organizations, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Journal publication is the only thing that can give everything associated with this study credibility, including General's story (unless he's hiding a body in his garage.) If they publish books afterwards, I'm cool with that, too. I agree. An in-depth account needs to be available after the study comes out. I have no problems paying for it. That's traditionally how these things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MJ151 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Jerrywayne, Just an FYI. That's not a shark, it's a sturgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 It's not like General brought his story to BFF, expecting everyone to believe it. He came here to try to set the facts straight, after being exposed. General doesn't owe anyone anything and I have to give him credit for coming back here from time to time, to answer questions. I don't know what to make of this whole incident, but based on the OP's level of integrity, compared to other BF organizations, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If you have an agenda and it's safe to assume there is an agenda now then you most certainly will do everything you can to stop any elements of the story that might cast negative doubts in your direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It's possible that the incident actually happened and they are just defending the story as it happened. The only way I could see there being an agenda, (at least in the way you phrased it) is if their story was purposely leaked for Lindsay to stumble upon. Is that what you're getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Jerrywayne, Just an FYI. That's not a shark, it's a sturgeon. Sure its not a coelacanth? Just kidding. Thanks for the correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I guess it all comes down to I'm lying or im not (at this point sense DNA and many other details aren't released) I suppose it would be real interesting if I submited to a lie detector test on film. Maybe I already have. Time will tell I'm looking forward to sharing all i know with you. Yes, that is what it all comes down to. When this story goes mainstream, you will have plenty of time, and requests, to submit to a lie detector, even if you already have. Bottom line: if your story were true, as a seasoned hunter, you should have collected the odd little creature you just shot and killed and taken it to the nearest game warden and said, "hey, I don't have a clue as to what kind of animal I just shot, I felt it was going to attack us so I killed it. What IS this thing, anyway?" The fact that as a seasoned hunter you did not do so implies to me that either something else happened and you have withheld that information, or else it is a total, but needed, fabrication to explain why you have a story but no body. I'm not totally closed to your story; how could I or anyone not involved know with certainty the truth of your account, one way or the other. If you guys have all the evidence y'all say you do, then my comments are immaterial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts