The Echo Incident

[Guest]

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.

We wondered the same thing but another member had his own daylight sighting of a similarly sized and colored animal as it crossed a dry portion of the creek in front of him some weeks after Daryl's encounter. In that case, the witness was sitting inside some foliage and may have been hidden from view.

We presented this informantion at our conference earlier this month.

Edited October 30, 2011 by bipto

[Guest]

We discuss the Echo Incident on the most recent episode of The Bigfoot Show:

http://www.bigfootproject.com/bfs/bfs_027_rss.mp3

The part about Echo starts at about 1:30 in. Also available on iTunes.

Edited October 31, 2011 by bipto

[Guest Jodie]

Thanks Bipto, that might be easier.

[Guest parnassus]

It seems that Colyer believes the BF was wounded.

B

I understand they felt as though they tracked it and found no blood, hair or tissue. How far did they track it?

Thanks

p

[southernyahoo]

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.

Hmmmm maybe there is some competitiveness here. Better save up some more PTO for target practice.

[Guest]

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.

Is it possible to have night vision also so you can see what's happening at night, and could that also be recorded?

[Guest]

Is it possible to have night vision also so you can see what's happening at night, and could that also be recorded?

At the moment, there's no night vision equipment as versatile as a GoPro Hero. Even the smaller and very expensive 3rd gen units are much larger than a GoPro. While you can mount them to your head and over your eyes, you need to manually refocus to see near versus far meaning if you can see the ground in front of you you can't see very far away and if you can see far away, you can't see where you're walking. Also, the units don't record video (though they can be mated with separate video recorders). We have some of the most advanced units you can buy and they're very, very good, but they're not good enough to use like a GoPro.

This is the one I have: http://www.opticshq.com/page/Optics/PROD/freeship/MINI-14-Pinnacle

Attached are some photos I took by placing my iPhone's camera against the viewfinder of the NV unit. You can see that it allows fantastic visibility in the dark, but it's not a set up that you could use to record an image quickly.

I understand they felt as though they tracked it and found no blood, hair or tissue. How far did they track it?

No, nobody on the Echo Team found blood, hair, or tissue. It's hard for me to say how far it is from Daryl's encounter to the creek (which is as far as they could track it), but I'd say it's up to a hundred yards.

Edited October 31, 2011 by bipto

[Guest]

Ballistics? I don't remember ever talking about ballistics. I stated that it would be easier to carry in the brush, if close-range shooting was the concern. Didn't he state that he had to 'grab' the weapon? I assumed that that meant he wasn't carrying it at the time...That's all! I shot my first buck with .00 buckshot, and dropped it deader than a doornail. I have no doubt about the lethality of a shotgun with slugs, and .00 buck. None! It's the actual gun that I'd question. A 12 gauge has more variances than most weapons. I have a Winchester Defender, and a Browning Gold Hunter with a 28" barrel. Would you think that both of those '12 gauges' shoot the same? If he had a standard 12 gauge, I doubt we are having this conversation. I just don't understand the logic behind having a shorter barreled weapon. And as far as someone telling me a sawed off shotgun is the right gun...C'mon! Sure, they both are, if you plan on being 10 feet from a Squatch. The purpose of a shorter barrel is for a wider spread of the projectiles for close-range shots. Short-range is a pretty vague statement. I don't really consider 100 feet as close-range. That spread is huge from that range. And as far as the slug goes...Pretty inaccurate with a shorter barrel. Someone could hit a target from a hundred yards with a normal length barrel, but would still be a h*ll of a shot. I'd like to see that same shot with D.C's 1100.

I'm not sure if you're a salesman for Remington, but...Keep on fighting the good fight, brutha! If he chose the right weapon, there'd be a dead Squatch at the business end of the shot. Results trump semantics every time!

But just so we're clear..I don't think the shot would be any easier with a .44, nor do I think it is more suited for a kill shot. I just think it's better for close range because of the ease of being able to move through bush with it, and how effective it is from 'close range'. Plus, if you're carrying a pistol, you could still lug around a more suitable rifle for the shot. I have a .338 Win mag, a .300 Win short-mag, and a .444 Marlin. All of which I would have no problem taking a shot at a BF with. I'd even let one fly with my Matthews. I just wouldn't carry a short barreled shotty in the woods. Just because I am not prepared to copy and paste ballistics from a website, doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

I hope D.C gets another shot. Like I said, I don't have any problems with him personally. From what I've seen of the guy, I like him. I wish him the best with his research. I just think he should get a different gun if he plans on shooting a BF.

that's what those guys were using were the 12 gauge, they didn't have it as a back up weapon. pistols are so much harder to hit with than a long gun and also much harder to travel across state lines.. I hunt whitetail with blaser luxus in 300 win mag.it's a very good round, but for what they were doing a 12 gauge slug is a better gun.as far as barrel length,the only bearing on the performance of the gun is 10 fps per inch.a longer barrel gives you a better sight plane with a single bead.it's the chokes that matter,that's why most new shotguns have a 26" barrel and replaceable chokes.

the only thing i would change is get rid of the oo buckshot and put a fully rifled hastings barrel with a cantelever scope mount and then you could

shoot 2 " groups at 100.

set up with cylinder bore you can easily achieve a 6 " group at 100 yds. and slugs are much better in brush or heavy foliage than any pistol or rifle round.if you look at page 2 of this thread i posted about a dgs slugs take a look at there website and you will see how leathel they are.most guides use a 12 gauge with slugs for back up for dangerous game.

here is the gun

1100 tac 4

Edited October 31, 2011 by zigoapex

[Guest]

bipto,

Thanks for the answers. Only three more questions from me, if you permit, and then I promise no more.

Does your organization maintain trailcams on Branson's property and if so, have the trailcams supported the belief that "wood apes" live or move about near Honobia.

When Colyer fired his shots, could Diaz see him at that moment?

Colyer believes his first shot hit the wood ape, but all the other shots missed. Does this mean that he fired the remaining shots without sighting the target? (Or was the fire too rapid to sight anything?)

BTW, I like the term "wood ape". Adds romance to the quest, methinks.

Also I have listened to some of your podcasts and I'm impressed. Much more open minded than I would have guessed. (On the other hand, the "I don't understand why Bigfoot unbelievers post on a Bigfoot discussion site" [paraphrase] comment from above was disappointing).

[Guest]

Only three more questions from me, if you permit, and then I promise no more.

No worries. I'm here all week. Try the veal.

Does your organization maintain trailcams on Branson's property and if so, have the trailcams supported the belief that "wood apes" live or move about near Honobia.

We've had many, many cameras up all over that area for coming up on six years now and have hundreds of photos of bears, thousands of leaves moving in the sun, a handful of other animals, but no wood apes. We've had several personal experiences over the years that, along with the reports made by the family, have kept us coming back. Until Daryl's sighting, no one in the group had seen a wood ape in all the time we've been investigating there (the earliest trip into the area was more than ten years ago). After being there for six weeks this past summer, we've had two daylight sightings.

To be honest, we're very disappointed in trail cams. We've poured a significant amount of money into them and have purchased the best units you can buy and they simply don't work very well.

When Colyer fired his shots, could Diaz see him at that moment?

I don't believe so. He hadn't rounded the bend yet.

Colyer believes his first shot hit the wood ape, but all the other shots missed. Does this mean that he fired the remaining shots without sighting the target? (Or was the fire too rapid to sight anything?)

I'm not sure. He fired very quickly.

BTW, I like the term "wood ape". Adds romance to the quest, methinks.

Thanks. All the cool kids will be calling them that next year.

Also I have listened to some of your podcasts and I'm impressed. Much more open minded than I would have guessed.

I suppose that's a compliment, so thanks. Are you talking about The Bigfoot Show or the Bipcasts?

(On the other hand, the "I don't understand why Bigfoot unbelievers post on a Bigfoot discussion site" [paraphrase] comment from above was disappointing).

Disappointed or not, I've never understood why people who do not think wood apes are real spend any time discussing them on internet forums with people who do. I don't believe in chupacabra but also don't spend any time on forums telling people that do that they're wrong. Open minded skeptic? Great. The BFF was always a place they could participate. But an out and out scoftic? What's the point. Life's too short to waste it on them. Seems we all have better things to do than expend our limited time and energy endlessly arguing positions neither will cede to the other.

Edited October 31, 2011 by bipto

[Guest]

Bipto...Concerning research on private property. Are there any contracts drawn up in the event that a Sasquatch is harvested? Considering the possibility of huge amounts of money to the first person that successfully proves existence, there could be huge legal issues involved. Say D.C hits, and kills the wood ape. Not that I don't think the state would take immediate possession, but if there's no contracts written up, couldn't the land owner say that he didn't want them harvested, and thought that you guys were only conducting non-invasive research? Or is there something written up that entitles all involved parties their respective piece of the pie? If D.C shoots it, would he have to share proceeds with the TBRC, or is he a seperate entity? Would his book rights involve a split with the organization? The reason I ask is I'm just curious how the Bigfoot group dynamic works? With all the money spent on the research, I'd have to imagine that there is a proprietor of sorts. With $2000 being shelled out to the iced tea bandidos, there has to be some sort of revenue generating, or someone footing the bill. How does your organization generate money? Shirt sales, promo items, donations, etc? I know the BFRO runs those expeditions to generate revenue, so I am just curious. If you're not at liberty to disclose that info, I completely understand. I've considered doing a similar thing up in Wa considering the access I have to WL professionals, biologists, game wardens, etc, and the access to specialized equipment. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Edited October 31, 2011 by PacNWSquatcher

[MagniAesir]

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

I am confused here, why would he need a hunting license to hunt Sasquatch?

Here in BC I need a hunting license to hunt animals specified in the Hunting regulations as having an open season.

I do not need a hunting license to carry a firearms in the woods if not hunting (that is what my PAL is for)

Since there is no open season here in BC for Sasquatch I couldn't get a tag for one anyways.

As far as I can tell the only thing your question/statements are doing is blurring the issue, please explain why you think they are pertinent

As far as the shotgun goes I would suggest a good set of ghost ring sights.

When I get the chance I am trading the smooth barrel on my mossberg for a rifled barrel with ghost ring sights.

I love the ghost ring sights on my 450 marlin

Edited October 31, 2011 by MagniAesir

[Guest]

The hunting license is sort of a catch-22 thing. You can't get a Squatch tag, but then again, you can't hunt without a valid license They are hunting, right? No matter what you say, they'll interpret it the way it looks to them. If they admitted to hunting anything to a game warden, and were carrying an illegal hunting weapon, or stalking something with a weapon, it could technically be a sticky situation. There may be open carry laws in a lot of places, but if you're caught creeping through the timber without any valid tag, good luck explaining it. And please....Don't ever tell

them you are hunting BF:) I doubt you'd get in trouble though. It's just one of those situations where you'll be standing around getting a lot of questions asked of you.

Edited October 31, 2011 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest COGrizzly]

Here we have the founder of the BFF telling folks on this site what happened and all these ridiculous questions and he still has the courtesy to respond with dignity and respect.

Thanks Bipto.

[Guest]

I am confused here, why would he need a hunting license to hunt Sasquatch?

In Oklahoma, it is legal to carry weapons on private property as long as you have permission from the property owner.

Are there any contracts drawn up in the event that a Sasquatch is harvested?

We have protocols to handle the collection of any evidence. That's about all I'll say on the matter.

How does your organization generate money?

The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy is a 501©(3) tax-exempt non-profit scientific-research organization, as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. We generate revenue from three sources: membership dues, personal tax-deductible contributions, and revenue from our conference. Our board of directors establishes an annual budget that is essentially divided into three areas that support our mision statement: Education/Outreach, Marketing/PR, and Field Operations. The bulk of our money goes into field operations to purchase equipment such as cameras, audio records, etc. Each of these three divisions has a director who oversees them. I'm the group's marketing weasel and mouthpiece, Daryl manages field operations, and Alton in responsible for our educational activities (such as speaking to school groups, clubs, and the general pubic).

In comparison, the BFRO isn't any kind of legal entity and has no formal structure. The only other 501©(3) that I'm aware of in this field is the AIBR, though there may be others.

Edited October 31, 2011 by bipto