The Echo Incident

[Guest Jodie]

Potassium, something as big as bigfoot would need potassium in large amounts, since it is water soluble, for muscle co-ordination. I also have wondered about the presence of quartz and iron, if there was any correlation there, but no one ever thinks to check the geological stuff out. It would be hard to say if there is a connection without pulling old sighting reports and seeing if there was a pattern.

[MagniAesir]

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.

Well this will really blow your mind then.

It is no secret here that I do not believe that Sasquatch exist.

I also do not think your member did anything wrong except in possibly his choice of not having ghost ring sights or a scope on his rig.

I can also tell you that a bear can be hit by a round and travel for miles with little to no blood trail because the blood was soaked up by the hair

[Guest]

It is no secret here that I do not believe that Sasquatch exist.

OK, this is entirely off-topic, but why hang out here? Nothing good on TV?

I can also tell you that a bear can be hit by a round and travel for miles with little to no blood trail because the blood was soaked up by the hair

We've had many discussions along those lines.

[Painthorse]

Potassium, something as big as bigfoot would need potassium in large amounts, since it is water soluble, for muscle co-ordination. I also have wondered about the presence of quartz and iron, if there was any correlation there, but no one ever thinks to check the geological stuff out. It would be hard to say if there is a connection without pulling old sighting reports and seeing if there was a pattern.

Yup Jodie, what you wrote above is basically what I meant in my question in a prior post about "connecting the dots". "Something" that makes the property more appealing to the b/f's for the activity to be there over the years.

Something that is appealing enough that makes it more likely that they are living in that general area "for a reason" and not just "passing through".

[MagniAesir]

OK, this is entirely off-topic, but why hang out here? Nothing good on TV?

We've had many discussions along those lines.

Once upon a time there were two types of researchers.

#1 Coelocanths are extinct and do not now exist, all reports are lies or mis-identifications. No need to investigate case closed

#2 I do not believe that coelocanths exist today, however these reports are worth investigating.

Just because I do not believe that something exists, does not mean I cannot be fascinated with the subject.

I will totally hack a quote here.

The fool believes he knows everything.

The wise know they do not

[georgerm]

SweetSusiq, on 31 October 2011 - 10:19 AM, said:

One concern I have with any and all shooting at animals is that the shooter should know what is in the background should the hunter miss.

Over the 17 years that we have lived in this area which is on the edge of our city limits, I have often heard loud gunfire coming from the open land area in front of our home.

At first I was alarmed but soon discovered that hunters were hunting near here. Through the years I have been out walking my little dogs and have heard the shot followed by a buzzing sound past my head heading towards the golf course.

This is not good and your concerns are well taken. Many hunters know where their bullets are going but many don't. If this happens again, locate the hunter and call the police. Some hunting "accidents" are not accidents, since it can happen intentionally. I was shot at one time while sleeping on a warm rock in the sun after a long hunt and heard a bullet wiz by. I searched for the "hunter" but "it" fled the scene.

Back to the topic. What was the topic? ...........oh yes, the shooting. Hope the team gets the BF evidence that we need. One dead BF will help precipitate laws to protect them and end the search for evidence. Hope you can bring in the goods to make your efforts pay off. Be careful out there.

I assume the shooter knew the situation, was responsible, and was an experienced rifleman. Others should not attempt a shot if you can't clearly see the animal. Don't take it since there might be a person close by or it might be a person running with heavy brown clothes. Is a rare BF shot worth it?

Also the animal will probably be wounded and escape like what may have happened. It may have been struck by a few pellets in places that don't bleed, so the animal is now wounded. I wonder if BFs can be like wounded bears, that can think in terms of revenge and are dangerous?

Keep looking for it, since it may be dead a few miles away. It may take a month to die, then other BFs may try to bury it which might be an obvious mound of rocks or sticks. It will be worth the search. Bring back the evidence and report in Bipto to keep us informed. Thanks.........

Edited November 1, 2011 by georgerm

[Guest]

The fool believes he knows everything.

The wise know they do not

I can buy that.

[Guest parnassus]

With respect, I think the TBRC has led the field in terms of deploying technology like: hair catchers, track plates and game cams; although I believe their main game cam project is located in the Big Thicket area of Texas rather than Oklahoma. And yes, it is very frustrating that all this tech has not produced conclusive results by now.

I am impressed by the disparate collection of groups that continue to research this area of Oklahoma and keep on going back. I am not wholly convinced that the creature exists outside of folklore, but it is these relatively small, isolated 'hotspots' in the southern states that intrigue me the most. Small, that is, in comparison to a wilderness like the PNW and much of the Rockies.

With luck, it is one of these isolated habitats that will finally provide us with the proof we need. They can run, but they can't hide...... forever .

I have visited the USA many times and have been struck by the relative ease of finding a black bear say, in New Jersey, compared to Washington. This is because the amount of prime bear country in NJ is minuscule compared to WA and the animals are concentrated within a small geographical area.

By extending the same rationale, the Wood Ape might eventually give up its secrets.

It's not the same rationale. Bears are known animals. They have been known for thousands of years. Men killed them with great ease and relish using a great variety of weapons and vehicles. Fossils of bears are found.

You have a skewed idea of the US.

The amount of wilderness in the Rockies and the PNW is not very large and even much of that has roads and trails. Rich Americans pay guides to take them to these areas with horses. Almost the entire US has been logged extensively and explored and hunted and exploited for whatever might have value incluiding subsurface minerals, recreational assets and watersheds. Forestry and wildlife managers monitor renewable resources, and recreation use becomes heavier every year. But really the amount of wilderness is irrelevant, as Bigfoot is reported all over the country, where there is no wilderness. Anglos have explored and exploited North America for hundreds of years and we drive billions of miles on our roads, and no Bigfoot or its remains has ever been found. There are literally millions of trailcams in the forests, and they have photographed every large mammal, even the rarest wolverine, but never have they captured an image of a Bigfoot.

None of this proves Bigfoot doesnt exist; but taken as whole, it makes it supremely unlikely that there is a population of flesh and blood Bigfoot of the type popularly described. Name something very unlikely, and Bigfoot is less likely.

[Guest NEernElitist]

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.

Nonetheless, in this case, I think the concept of "kill to conserve" is a bit lost on me. It's taking an awfully big chance, considering A) we have no "real" evidence that this creature exists, B ) it is allegedly the approximate shape of a human and, C) by the accounts of the story, this area apparently isn't all that far from where people might be lurking. I mean, if you look at the facts, the odds are he shot at a human. I say this because we still don't have definitive proof this is a non-human primate. Even if he says he "knew what he was looking at", how does he really know what a bigfoot looks like? How does anyone know? It just seems irresponsible to me. Prove it's a biological reality, then kill one. Why take a chance that it's really a person? That is an irreversible mistake.

I know people are going to say "you can't mistake a 6'3" hairy ape-man for a teenager" but really, what other evidence to we have to go on? As has been pointed out many times on the BF Show, memory is not infallible, and ones estimations of reality can be distorted by a number of factors, including a desire to prove something. I'm paraphrasing many thoughts, of course.

With a dearth of evidence to show that this is a "real" humanoid being, with humans lurking about, and guns involved, wouldn't you err on the side of caution? This seems, in my opinion, to be placing a lot of faith in very thin evidence, especially with such a terminal outcome. I'd hate to see someone with the best intentions, who thinks he knows what he is looking at, go to jail for manslaughter.

Thanks. Love the BF Show, love the forums, love to hear some opinions about this.

Edited November 1, 2011 by NEernElitist

[georgerm]

It's not the same rationale. Bears are known animals. They have been known for thousands of years. Men killed them with great ease and relish using a great variety of weapons and vehicles. Fossils of bears are found.

You have a skewed idea of the US.

The amount of wilderness in the Rockies and the PNW is not very large and even much of that has roads and trails. Rich Americans pay guides to take them to these areas with horses. Almost the entire US has been logged extensively and explored and hunted and exploited for whatever might have value incluiding subsurface minerals, recreational assets and watersheds. Forestry and wildlife managers monitor renewable resources, and recreation use becomes heavier every year. But really the amount of wilderness is irrelevant, as Bigfoot is reported all over the country, where there is no wilderness. Anglos have explored and exploited North America for hundreds of years and we drive billions of miles on our roads, and no Bigfoot or its remains has ever been found. There are literally millions of trailcams in the forests, and they have photographed every large mammal, even the rarest wolverine, but never have they captured an image of a Bigfoot.

None of this proves Bigfoot doesnt exist; but taken as whole, it makes it supremely unlikely that there is a population of flesh and blood Bigfoot of the type popularly described. Name something very unlikely, and Bigfoot is less likely.

Your description of the US and the PNW is some what accurate, but misleading. The Sasquatch that some call rock apes are out there and can terrify the most weathered miner. We have many places with in 20 minutes of downtown Coos Bay/North Bend of 35k, Oregon, where you can go set up a tent, and you won't see a person or another camper for months and no on will know you are there nor care. You will not hear loggers because the timber will grow for the next 10 years and mining is nonexistent. The nearest gravel one lane road is 5 miles away, and you may hear a vehicle once a week or once a month depending on the camp location. You are now in the food chain, and all of the animals will check you out including hungry bears, and cougars.

BF is with in 30 miles of you, and may stop by your tent to scare hell out of you. BF is a hundered times smarter than a bear and you will see a bear once a month since they will smell you and stay clear. Leave out some beans on the fire, and once a week a bear will rip up your camp. You are out there.................where mysteries exist........BF may watch you each day and you will have no clue unless it releases its odor to spook you. We just spent 5 hours and several miles from your camp site stringing out 1200' of blue steel rope down into a ravine to pull out a dead buck. BFs have been shot dead several times, but most won't spend all day pulling out a huge dead animal they can't eat and besides............are there more of these scary monsters around? Oregon is wild out there............so call it wildcountry rather than wilderness.

[Guest parnassus]

Actually questions like these are better addressed to the organization itself. Bipto has been more than gracious is his replies and it's time to get this thread back on topic. Equally there is already a thread specifically to discuss the Kill/No Kill issue.

Thank You,

Grayjay

Beg pardon, I am speaking out of ignorance here but are you a mod? bipto is the spokesman for the organization. Several people have attempted to shut down this thread, and I don't understand what is up with that. Compared to other threads, this staying on topic IMO. And if it weren't, isn't it primarily the initial posters role to deal with that?

This is the first known organized attempt to kill a Bigfoot in which shots were actually fired in a relatively controlled and documented situation. As such, I think this is a very important topic to discuss for the benefit of everyone who is interested in the topic. What methods were used? What precautions were taken? What potential complications should be anticipated? And a bunch of other issues.

Some have expressed reservations. Others have approved. Let's face it: this is a topic that needs discussion. Can we agree that obtaining of a specimen is of paramount import? How is that going to happen? You may not agree that this is the best way, but it's not abstract philosophy, it's real; and discussion does not mean continuous back patting or condemnation. I think we are doing ok here. If you are a mod, we will of course comply with the rules as interpreted by the mods, but I am not sensing that we are outside the rules here.

Edited November 1, 2011 by parnassus

[yowiie]

It's not the same rationale. Bears are known animals. They have been known for thousands of years. Men killed them with great ease and relish using a great variety of weapons and vehicles. Fossils of bears are found.

You have a skewed idea of the US.

The amount of wilderness in the Rockies and the PNW is not very large and even much of that has roads and trails. Rich Americans pay guides to take them to these areas with horses. Almost the entire US has been logged extensively and explored and hunted and exploited for whatever might have value incluiding subsurface minerals, recreational assets and watersheds. Forestry and wildlife managers monitor renewable resources, and recreation use becomes heavier every year. But really the amount of wilderness is irrelevant, as Bigfoot is reported all over the country, where there is no wilderness. Anglos have explored and exploited North America for hundreds of years and we drive billions of miles on our roads, and no Bigfoot or its remains has ever been found. There are literally millions of trailcams in the forests, and they have photographed every large mammal, even the rarest wolverine, but never have they captured an image of a Bigfoot.

None of this proves Bigfoot doesnt exist; but taken as whole, it makes it supremely unlikely that there is a population of flesh and blood Bigfoot of the type popularly described. Name something very unlikely, and Bigfoot is less likely.

Parnassus,

These animals do exist, being within 30 metres of one will varify the fact. I don't believe that all sightings in the USA are legit but of course there are legitimat encounters. As for a population of these animals, I doubt it.

[Guest parnassus]

Just to clarify, I do not use a .44m as a hunting weapon; I carry it in a hip holster for protection when I bow hunt in areas where black bears are a common occurrence and lions are seen. I actually think I could load it with blanks and it would work just as well, because black bears are really not truly aggressive, though they know how to put on a good show until they find a way to get away. Lions scare me a little bit because they can attack from above and behind without warning, which definitely rules out a slung shotgun. I carry an arkansas toothpick on the opposite side from my .44m, so I think I'd give a lion his money's worth even if I got jumped. I would never carry a shotgun for defense unless I was in griz/polar bear country.

I last hunted for deer with a shotgun in Michigan, and I know in that state that extended magazines like the Tac 3 has are illegal for hunting, because of the potential for unwarranted blazing away. It is hard to argue with the idea that if you haven't killed it in six shots you ought to stop and rethink your capabilities; (i think the same about rifle magazines); short barrels certainly limit your accuracy. (On the other side of the coin, I'm not sure it's bad that he missed).

Edited November 1, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest Strick]

It's not the same rationale. Bears are known animals. They have been known for thousands of years. Men killed them with great ease and relish using a great variety of weapons and vehicles. Fossils of bears are found.

You have a skewed idea of the US.

The amount of wilderness in the Rockies and the PNW is not very large and even much of that has roads and trails............ Name something very unlikely, and Bigfoot is less likely.

My point holds its own internal logic but reveals the difference between Bigfoot sceptical fundamentalists like you and those, like me, who are open-minded to the possibility but remain to be convinced.

Of course it's easier to locate a wild animal in a small area of really good territory rather than a larger area of similar territory. Needles are always difficult to locate in haystacks, but the task is much simpler to accomplish if the haystack consists of 4 bails and not 500!

Your point is that an impossible thing is always impossible and juggling the variables makes no difference. This is true.

I love my dodgy analogies, so here's another one: Great Aunt Bessie's house should be a really good place to locate Great Aunt Bessie. However, if she was cremated and scattered 15 years ago, no amount of hanging out at her house will produce a sighting. However, if there is a small chance that the old girl escaped death and incineration, then hanging out at her house would remain a very good place to look for her...

I will totally hack a quote here.

The fool believes he knows everything.

The wise know they do not

Way to go...............

[Guest]

A) we have no "real" evidence that this creature exists

I'm not sure who "we" are, but Daryl is quite clear about what he saw. *You* have no real evidence because you have not seen one.

B ) it is allegedly the approximate shape of a human

Approximately, but also covered in brown hair, much more massive, and with a pointy head. Also, in this case, it was seen clearly, with minimal obstruction, and in broad daylight.

C) by the accounts of the story, this area apparently isn't all that far from where people might be lurking.

Yes, it is. It's very far from where people lurk. See my previous posts about the location. More than hour from the highway, treacherous truck-eating road, multiple locked gates, dead end. It's the perfect habitat for a reclusive primate.

I mean, if you look at the facts, the odds are he shot at a human.

No, the odds aren't that, but you don't have all the facts.

Prove it's a biological reality, then kill one.

Logical fallacy. Again, prove to *you* it's real, then kill one. Daryl knows they're real and knows what he shot at.

As has been pointed out many times on the BF Show, memory is not infallible, and ones estimations of reality can be distorted by a number of factors, including a desire to prove something.

Nobody's perfect, but in this case, we interviewed him very shortly afterward and have other evidence to support his account (tracks, broken branch, etc.).

With a dearth of evidence to show that this is a "real" humanoid being, with humans lurking about, and guns involved, wouldn't you err on the side of caution? This seems, in my opinion, to be placing a lot of faith in very thin evidence, especially with such a terminal outcome.

Again, the dearth of evidence doesn't matter when you see one for yourself.

Thanks. Love the BF Show, love the forums, love to hear some opinions about this.

Glad you like the show, glad you like the forums, hope you're OK with my opinons.

The amount of wilderness in the Rockies and the PNW is not very large and even much of that has roads and trails. Rich Americans pay guides to take them to these areas with horses. Almost the entire US has been logged extensively and explored and hunted and exploited for whatever might have value incluiding subsurface minerals, recreational assets and watersheds. Forestry and wildlife managers monitor renewable resources, and recreation use becomes heavier every year. But really the amount of wilderness is irrelevant, as Bigfoot is reported all over the country, where there is no wilderness. Anglos have explored and exploited North America for hundreds of years and we drive billions of miles on our roads, and no Bigfoot or its remains has ever been found. There are literally millions of trailcams in the forests, and they have photographed every large mammal, even the rarest wolverine, but never have they captured an image of a Bigfoot.

I disagree with almost everything you've written here.

There are vast areas of wilderness in the US, especially in the West, but Texas alone is second only to Alaska for the amount of forested land it contains:

http://www.physorg.com/news157268101.html

There are millions of acres of forest in our country where people seldom go. I know because I've been in many of them. Those areas where people do go don't see large numbers of them and they're not evenly distributed all over the land. They're typically present during certain times of the year and follow known paths (either hiking trails or staying close to roads). Even in Oklahoma, there are places so remote you'd swear you'd travelled back in time. Just because we know about a place and just because people have been to it in the past doesn't mean it's still not remote and essentially void of human activity.

You point of view is not uncommon, but it's also not born out by my own experience and the experiences of other I'm am acquainted with.

bipto is the spokesman for the organization.

That's true, I am the group's official spokesman.