GuyInIndiana Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 A claim of seeing a sasquatch and not misidentifying it, then emptying a shot gun at 'it' with other humans around who fled the scene is only that: a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I'm not really interested in the fine detail of the shooting and the position of the tea etc. I'm more intrigued by the adoption of a pro-kill position by some members of the TBRC but not others and how that pans out, especially in the field. Presumably, there would have been other TBRC members on this expedition who were not armed and disapproving of Colyer's intention to take one of these things out at the first opportunity? I'm sorry, but I've got a vision of half the TBRC members dressed up like Rambo, going after the Big Fella with murderous intent, while the other lot cower behind the West Cabin singing Kumbya and trying to make common cause with the Wood Apes by offering them little gifts of red marbles and feathers. What gives?? I notice that Craig Woolheater was very critical of a pro-kill position within the TBRC in another place and wonder again if this is not linked to his departure? Does anyone know if the new direction has caused much discontent within the group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) A claim of seeing a sasquatch and not misidentifying it, then emptying a shot gun at 'it' with other humans around who fled the scene is only that: a claim. And saying someone fired a gun at another person who is "lucky to be alive" is libel. You have never been to the site, know no one who has, know no one involved, and yet are prepared to say this whole thing a fabrication. Edited October 30, 2011 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 30, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted October 30, 2011 I know this is going to sound trite. But is it possible to keep the TBRC philosophy and internal political element out of this thread and discussion? Just asking. They are a 501©3 (or were) and are beholden to nobody but their board and membership. Doesn't mean we have to all agree with whatever BF harvesting/research protocol they throw up......just means they had permission to be on private property researching where they have been for ten years and a certain member claimed to have seen BF and had a weapon that he discharged with others around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 With all due respect Bipto, but the sheriff's department wouldn't have been the ones to worry about the hunting license, that would have fallen to a game warden. It may appear that Colyer was carrying a weapon with the intent to hunt with, in Oklahoma, and being a Texas State Resident, did not have an out of stater hunting license. Regardless of it being on private land, Colyer was an out of stater and is required by law to have an out of stater hunting license in the state of Oklahoma when carrying a firearm like this in the woods. The TBRC should really consider evaluating their protocols and procedures for carrying weapons in the woods, including following local hunting regulations. JMHO Sheriff's departments also check hunting licenses as well as run firearms to check their background then they come across hunters in the field. If there was any reason to escalate it, perhaps with a dead animal on scene, they could call it in to the game and fish department. So reporting to the sheriff's office is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Here's a question I haven't read an answer to yet. Bipto, in retrospect does, DC feel he would have done better with a camera in this encounter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 The rational explanation is that THEY were shot at, and Colyer misidentified "the creature" and went into a panic mode with that kind of shooting. The facts speak differently than the claims. The nephew is lucky he's still alive. I would like to know how it is "rational" to think a considerably larger than 6'3", hair covered, cone-headed bipedal wood ape can be misidentified as a young man and ice-tea holding woman AT 30 YARDS!!!! C'mon now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Bipto, in retrospect does, DC feel he would have done better with a camera in this encounter? That's not a question that's been asked of him, but unless the camera was already on and point in the direction of the animal, it wouldn't have been at all helpful. On a related note, we are discussing making exactly that part of our field protocol next year. We want to be able to equip all members in the field with head mounted GoPro cameras in order to record whatever they see during daylight hours. Edited October 30, 2011 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how anyone left those woods alive...Leaving her tea while fleeing for her life was the only smart thing anyone there managed to do! IMVHO.. I think some of you have dreamt up a wild scenario in your heads about how this played out, and you're just running with it. Trying to figure out how anyone left those woods alive? Really? Last I checked, the report was not that he entered the woods with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and pumped 10,000 50cal. rounds into the countryside indiscriminately. He fired a guage at a clearly identified target and missed. As far a hunting regulations go, there are no defined seasons, tags required, or even an acknowlegement of this animals existence. This would have been the starting point of putting those protections and definitions together. Edited October 30, 2011 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I would like to know how it is "rational" to think a considerably larger than 6'3", hair covered, cone-headed bipedal wood ape can be misidentified as a young man and ice-tea holding woman AT 30 YARDS!!!! C'mon now. I guess if you're of the opinion that they couldn't possibly exist, then what else could it have been other than a misidentification or hoax. However, they *do* exist as, apparently, do people who purportedly don't think they do yet hang out on a forum dedicated to bigfoot discussion. It's a mystery I've never understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 If the young couple interpreted the gunfire as "machine gun" fire, that shotgun magazine must have been emptied really quick. And if so, I doubt the guy behind the gun had much control over where any shots after the first actually went. 00/buck or a Slug gives quite a kick, and the more recoil there is, the more time would be needed between shots to reacquire the target. That is, unless you are simply emptying the gun in the general direction of your target. I also wonder if the BF and it's clan possibly chose to relocate to the next county, as a result of being shot at. I believe they are highly intelligent creatures, and certainly aware of the risks of remaining in the 'research' area. It might change the creature's perspective toward humans from that of curiosity to imminent danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I am very, very happy that no one got injured. Especially the hairy guy because I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that he (the hairy guy) will remember DC for quite some time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 That's not a question that's been asked of him, but unless the camera was already on and point in the direction of the animal, it wouldn't have been at all helpful. On a related note, we are discussing making exactly that part of our field protocol next year. We want to be able to equip all members in the field with head mounted GoPro cameras in order to record whatever they see during daylight hours. It's about the same effort to use a camcorder on a monopod, switch it on when you set out to investigate an area and just aim it where you look, and sometimes in the opposite direction of where you look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I hope this all gets back to Ketchum, Erickson, Randles, The General and everyone else who is sitting on some evidence. They were all a slighty better placed shot away from those NDA's being about as valuable as Enron Stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I am very, very happy that no one got injured. Especially the hairy guy because I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that he (the hairy guy) will remember DC for quite some time... * What explanation does Colyer offer for taking the shot and not bringing down his target? None. He believes the buckshot hit it, but it appears the slugs did not. It seems that Colyer believes the BF was wounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts