Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

........Like that guy who DID get charged at a Colorado park even though he said he fired his gun to ward off a bear attack. Both the park in KY and the park in Colorado are under federal jurisdiction. So what gives with the shooting in KY?

 

My brother was cited for shooting a warning shot (shotgun) in a National Forest campground in California as a bear was breaking into his vehicle at night. He had his young daughter and his brother-in-law's son in a tent. He was fined $150 after having to drive back up to Kern County to face a magistrate.

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, Twist said:

You believe there are special squadrons of people/government agents that’s main goal is to suppress Bigfoot ?   

 

I don't.

 

But did you know that the National Park Service has their own SWAT team that travels throughout the continent on various missions? True story. Ask me how I know.........

 

http://www.landrights.org/ak/wrst/cast.htm

Edited November 30, 2022 by Huntster

[hiflier]

18 minutes ago, norseman said:

If thats how it plays out in your own mind? Have at it. But I would question who is naive…..

 

I buy a big game package every year. I also have a Idaho hunting license. I have held a hunting license since I was 10 years old when I passed hunter safety.

 

So I am in possession of a legal Washington bear tag. I’m also not sure how anyone could charge me with poaching a Bear if I didn't have said carcass in my possession. And even if I did? I have a tag.

 

If its all black helicopters and men in black cloak and dagger stuff? They probably wouldn't charge me with a crime. They probably would throw me down a mine shaft and and I would be another missing hunter. Im not saying it is. But people in Ufology have claimed the government threatened them if they talked.

 

Who knows.

 

There's a follow up that said I was sure you had your ducks in a row. My point is if you grass a Bigfoot you won't get away with it. Fifteen or twenty years ago maybe. But not today. If you DID shoot a Bigfoot, however, your deed would be hidden behind the guise that, officially,  it was a bear that was killed.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by hiflier

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I don't.

 

But did you know that the National Park Service has their own SWAT team that travels throughout the continent on various missions? True story. Ask me how I know.........

 

For me, I wouldn't need to know, but since NPS is federal jurisdiction it makes perfect sense to have at least one federal SWAT unit. And the acronym SWAT is a purposeful psychological moniker. Like Wackenhut Security (whack-a-nut) at football games and such.

Edited November 30, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

1 minute ago, hiflier said:

.......since NPS is federal it makes perfect sense to have at least one federal SWAT unit........

 

To a fed? Yup. Makes perfect sense.

 

To me? Not hardly........

 

Quote

.......And the acronym SWAT is a purposeful psychological moniker.........

 

There's another thing government loves to do: purposeful psychological manipulation.

[norseman]

28 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

There's a follow up that said I was sure you had your ducks in a row. My point is if you grass a Bigfoot you won't get away with it. Fifteen or twenty years ago maybe. But not today. If you DID shoot a Bigfoot, however, your deed would be hidden behind the guise that, officially,  it was a bear that was killed.

 

 

So the same goes for you? You get a positive DNA test of a Bigfoot and it’s just gonna come back as Bear? And they are gonna write you a ticket for trespassing or doing science without any credentials on National Forest? How far down the rabbit hole are you gonna go?

 

Justin Smeja didn’t disappear, and he wasn’t charged with poaching in that particular case in which he claimed to shoot a family.

 

Hiflier? They gotta catch me first!

 

 

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, Huntster said:

There's another thing government loves to do: purposeful psychological manipulation.

 

But media gets involved as well. When I looked up that incident about the guy claiming he was shooting at a Bigfoot in KY? The first media article was dated June 1st, other articles were dated July 1st, and/or 31st, and then the same report on Aug 1st. And there were webpages full of links to the same report. So someone got the  media to do a little mind influencing by keeping the story alive for all the vacationing campers that summer to behave....PLUS....there was never a chance missed in any of those articles on using the word "myth" or "mythical." That way maybe people will be less likely to think there are any Sasquatches in the woods....only crazy crackpots who think they see Bigfoots in the shadows at 2:00 in the morning.

 

There are MANY reasons I pursue discovery in such a passionate manner. Media articles slanted like those were? Are only a small fraction of those reasons, however, they do add greatly to the public's perception of things.

 

[hiflier]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

Hiflier? They gotta catch me first!

 

Bingo, my friend. And you're right about the DNA stuff. The only caveat is to present enough hard DNA evidence to enough of the right people to move the needle a bit. I mean I'm sure Dr. Disotell knows about that chart but I've never heard of him ever mentioning it anywhere, on Monsterquest or anywhere else. Wonder why? I mean who's even heard about him much since he went to UMass Amherst. I know he made the news when a fairly large Bigfoot statue was stolen from his front yard (it got returned). Other than that, not much.

[Backdoc]

One more twist for you: 

 

 

you shoot Bigfoot and kill it either …

 

1) because Bigfoot turned and attacked you so it was self defense 

 

or 

 

2) you lie and say the Bigfoot you shot was trying to kill you and it was self defense. 
 

 

[hiflier]

I understand. But the issue is it won't matter because officially it will never be publicly called a Bigfoot and it will never appear in the papers that a Bigfoot was shot. Although, I can see the wording being similar to this: "According to (your state here) Wildlife Game Wardens, a man who thought he was shooting at a Bigfoot found out that he had actually shot and killed a bear and not the famous two legged mythical beast of folklore."

 

See how easy that was? The incident will go viral and everyone who reads the article will think the hunter was one of those gullible crackpot idiots who believe in unicorns. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

But media gets involved as well.........

 

They most certainly do! Indeed, it appears that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies use the media regularly as tools of misinformation, disinformation, and social manipulation.

[hiflier]

Clearly. And keeping Sasquatch stuffed into the myth corner is a big part of it. The more articles I read the more I see myth and mythical used. In fact, It has become extremely rare that it isn't used. True story: I emailed an author of a Bigfoot article that appeared in a Montana magazine that comes out quarterly or semi-annually questioned him about his use of the word myth. He wrote back and said he didn't use the word when he initially wrote the article and submitted it. He told me the magazine's editor had put the word in.

 

And there you go, Huntster, true story. That's what folks are up against. And it's everywhere that Bigfoot or Sasquatch gets publicly mentioned in whatever media, whether spoken or written. Even when a town advertises a Bigfoot conference or similar event, the announcement never fails to mention that vendors will be there selling BF merch.

 

Bigfoot the joke, the myth, the cash cow and, without proof, the public scam. Do I have an attitude? Yes I do, and nothing has changed in a long time. It's not a pretty picture.

 

Now. About that DNA chart

 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by hiflier

[Backdoc]

I have no problem with people’s varying view of Bigfoot as it relates to our government.   For me, I see no involvement in our government whatsoever with any cover-up , or reason to oppress any truth should they even know some truth.   To me their concern is only that people aren’t our there shooting at each other.  If Bigfoot was proven to exist only then would they get involved in protecting a near extinct species like they would the California condors.   But until then, I really doubt they know much more than most of us do or care very little until they have reason to care.  For now they have no reason to care.   
 

 

[hiflier]

10 hours ago, Backdoc said:

To me their concern is only that people aren’t our there shooting at each other.

 

Then they must be concerned because people DO shoot, and shoot at, each other. Others shoot at what they think are Bigfoots. And those incidents are only the ones we hear about. I brought that up to the biologist I spoke to and was told that there was going to be some kind of safety reminder coming out. That was three years ago, I have yet to see it.

Edited November 30, 2022 by hiflier

[MIB]

11 hours ago, Backdoc said:

For me, I see no involvement in our government whatsoever with any cover-up , or reason to oppress any truth should they even know some truth.

 

So far, ditto.  

 

I see no evidence that any agency "knows", even internally, that bigfoot exists.    In other words, no agency has an internal training or policy instructing their employees how to deal with a bigfoot report.   In my area we have many millions of acres of national forest and BLM-managed lands.   Employees of the two agencies in just this area number upwards of 500, maybe upwards of 1000, and none of them .. retirees included .. that I know, which is a **bunch**, have received any instruction regarding how react to a member of the public reporting bigfoot.   The employees are left totally on their own.   This also applies to people in the military stationed Fairchild AFB and JBLM over the years.    As I've said before, SOME individuals working for various agencies surely have knowledge, but it is individual knowledge, not agency knowledge.    There can be no conspiracy beyond a personal sense of need not to make waves that might interfere with promotions later.

 

While some folks may assert that lack of recognition is "proof" of a coverup, I don't think that is valid.   It appears to fall in with the scoftics logic suggesting lack of proof is proof of lack .. and we know better than that.   Since we know better, we shouldn't emulate it no matter how much we'd like it to be true.