Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) Bipto, is there any chance that the knocking sounds could have been car doors that DC was investigating just prior to his encounter? Unlikely. The sounds they heard were consistent with others they had been hearing for some time. It wasn't a solitary event but part of a continuum of activity both before and after the encounter. Thanks for the details bipto. The account says the vehicle started within a few seconds. How far was the tea from the vehicle? Another question is whether or not the was permission granted specifically to use firearms to hunt on the property. Why was the nephew given $2000 if the vehicle was not struck by gunfire? Has Colyer ever hunted game animals ie has he passed a hunter safety course? And has he ever demonstrated the ability to shoot a shotgun effectively? Thanks p I don't have a number with regard to the distance to the truck. It was even further than where the beverage was found. At least a hundred yards. Perhaps more. The property owners told investigators from very early one that they should carry firearms. Most everyone down there does, even the family members. Besides bigfoot, there are bears and cougar in the area and it's extremely remote. With regard to the payment for the truck, we felt bad that the nephew was so spooked by the gunfire that he left in such a hurry that his truck was damaged. It was a very unfortunate coincidence that he found himself down there at that moment. No one in the group damaged his vehicle, but it would not have been damaged except for the fact that he was so freaked out. Colyer is very experienced with firearms, both from his childhood to his military service and beyond. He was instrumental in organizing the TBRC's conceal carry training event and has in my presence consistently demonstrated an exemplary understanding of gun safety protocols. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time anyone in the TBRC has fired at something during an operation. I've just completed recording an episode of The Bigfoot Show and this event is discussed in some detail. The show will be released tomorrow for those who are interested in hearing more. I would like to know is what type of sights were used on the shot gun. Was it a regular bead front sight or was he using a conventional type scope, or a red dot scope?Also if using a scope how far was it set for? Was it set for 25 yards or fifty yards? If it was set at 25 yards your going to have a little drop depending on the type of scope being used. Your windage elevation either it's going to pull left or right. If the scope was set at 50 yards it's going to shoot high at the 25 to 30 yard distance. Also do you have any idea when the last time was he zeroed the gun in prior to taking the shot? Here's what I got. "Because the forest is so extremely dense, when we heard the noise, on an impulse I quickly grabbed my Remington shotgun because I did not know if I would meet up with something as I rounded a tree or a turn in the trail. I was ready for close-quarters. I saw the wood ape at a distance of around 30 yards or so as it walked smoothly to the south. The shotgun is equipped with a conventional bead front sight and I fired it extensively two weeks prior at a variety of distances." Attached is a picture of the weapon Daryl used. Hope that answers your question. I feel a bit for Bipto who must really, really hate the 'Derek Randles' position he now finds himself in: having to defend the actions of another and propagate what many believe to be a tall story not because he has science or objectivity on his side, but because he has faith in a friend and colleague.... You don't need to feel bad for me, though I appreciate the thought. I'm very happy to represent this organization and its members. I have a great deal of respect for everyone involved in our work and am proud to be a member. Edited October 29, 2011 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 Zig, I'm getting from the author of the article that he didn't have a clear view, 25-30 yards or not. Between that distance and unloading a shotgun should produce results other than what was received if his view was unobstructed. I'm not anti-guns and I'm all for taking one out if the opportunity presented itself. I am for hunting properly. Eagerness to obtain a bf has to be curbed when people are hunting a biped. Just please make sure of your target when you are shooting at things that you don't have a clear view of and especially if that thing walks on two legs. Legally blind or not. You are making it sound like misidentifications never happen, and hasn't happened when the author states the subject was seen only from the side and the back and some of that time was through foliage. That's the way I have interpreted it. You're making it sound like it was posing for one of those old accordion cameras. mis-identification happens,but that's not what happened here, he saw it walk threw the clearing. then shot as it entered an opening.again,it was hair covered,8 ft tall,and huge.your making assumptions on how it happened,you weren't there. He knew what it was or he would not have taken the shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) Nevermind, I see the answer to my question above. Edited October 29, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) Thanks for the details bipto. The account says the vehicle started within a few seconds. How far was the tea from the vehicle? Another question is whether or not the was permission granted specifically to use firearms to hunt on the property. Why was the nephew given $2000 if the vehicle was not struck by gunfire? Has Colyer ever hunted game animals ie has he passed a hunter safety course? And has he ever demonstrated the ability to shoot a shotgun effectively? Thanks p Come on ! you posted the story and you cant remember what happened to the vehicle ? Your not very good with the research thing , you just like throwing more wood on the fire. "He ran back to his truck and fled the area, apparently damaging his truck in the process. Colyer never saw or heard the truck prior to its departure, nor did he see or hear the two people. Their position, relative to Colyer’s, was to the west through the dense forest, while the animal Colyer was attempting to collect was to his southwest. Neither they nor their vehicle was ever in the line of fire." "Upon learning of the damage to his truck, said to amount to $1200, the TBRC offered the nephew $2,000 to help offset the cost of repairs. The check was cashed a few days after it was sent." Edited October 29, 2011 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) 30 yards is awfully close. To float the idea that the shooter could not identify an 8 foot, hair covered creature in clear view is really unbelievable. I think some people are really underestimating the abilities hunters have aquired after a lifetime of being in the field. Most of my family are varmint callers and it is not uncommon to "positively identify" a 40 pound coyote coming in at 500 yards, and that's conservative. I also find interesting the amount of double think that is taking place in this thread. Some members clearly don't believe bigfoot exists, yet they are grilling Bipto on the details of someone firing at a bigfoot. So what are you implying? Are they lying? Did they shoot at the iced-tea holding girl? Did they shoot at an 8 foot ghillie suit wearing marine sniper? What's your theory, because in your minds, there is no way he fired on a squatch. Edited October 29, 2011 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 It has nothing to do with believing or not believing. It has to do with lining up the facts and eliminating the non-facts. Biped + shotgun salvo are the facts. The shot doesn't sound like it should have ever been taken. 8 feet tall as repeated here is a non-fact. It was reported as just over 6'3". There are people of this height. Identifying a subject and judging from that distance mentioned through the woods is also different than on a football field (yes a clearing was mentioned). I'm sure waiting around for bigfoot creates an atmosphere conducive to creating excitement when that moment comes. I stated that I wasn't there and I could be off. But so could you guys, unless you guys were there as well. If there is a chance that I am right, the shot should never have been taken. I'm not against the belief in bigfoot. I hope someone is able to bag one. I'm saying the article lays out facts to indicate the shot('s) should have been held solely on the fact that it could have been a person. If someone is going to pop something on two legs, they should at least be able to see it's face in order to be sure. Like I said before, 100% clarity. 99% or less doesn't cut it when shooting at this type of target (bipedal). If you think you are shooting at a whitetail buck and it winds being a mule deer, oh well. If you shoot at a bigfoot and it winds up being a person. Yikes. Also, thanks for clarifying bipto. That adds more to the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Sorry guy's I just dont see the confusion here.... Let's look at what's stated in the article.... bolding by me... When Colyer rounded a bend in the road and entered a clearing in front of the West Cabin, he witnessed a large, brown, upright, hair-covered figure walking in front of him at a distance of roughly 25-30 yards. Colyer noted it had long hair on its shoulders and the back of its head, which was distinctly conical in shape. He saw it from the left side and slightly to the back; its front was not visible to him at any point. Upon later comparison with a 6’3″ tall TBRC member, the creature was estimated to have been both more massive and somewhat taller. . Height, was not just over 6'3"... it was estimated upon comparison to someone that was 6'3", to be both more massive and somewhat taller- that could easily put it in the 7' to 8' range. The first sighting WAS in a clearing, he saw a "hair covered figure", at only 25-30 yards..... No offense, but is anyone still confused on the identification part ???? If its accurate, I hardly see the problem telling ^^^that, from a human being... No clothes, hairy all over, coned head.... yep- A Bigfoot..... I really dont get what all the fuss is about, and how it was "so unsafe" after seeing what he did.... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 We've seen blobsquatches here that have had the same criteria and have received mixed answers. Why not one answer? Because there are variables like dark colored bulky cloths, to name one among many. Somewhat over 6'3" (if he got the height estimate correct because it's not as easy as implied) could mean that height but it could also mean 6'4". The key passage from the article and the reason for the confusion is this one " its front was not visible to him at any point." That to me equals, hold your fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 FG.. if it was me, you most likely would have found me sitting against a tree, muttering incoherently to myself, with all cartridges unfired and still in the tube.... (and possibly needing a change of drawers.. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) It has nothing to do with believing or not believing. It has to do with lining up the facts and eliminating the non-facts. Biped + shotgun salvo are the facts. The shot doesn't sound like it should have ever been taken. 8 feet tall as repeated here is a non-fact. It was reported as just over 6'3". There are people of this height. Identifying a subject and judging from that distance mentioned through the woods is also different than on a football field (yes a clearing was mentioned). I'm sure waiting around for bigfoot creates an atmosphere conducive to creating excitement when that moment comes. I stated that I wasn't there and I could be off. But so could you guys, unless you guys were there as well. If there is a chance that I am right, the shot should never have been taken. I'm not against the belief in bigfoot. I hope someone is able to bag one. I'm saying the article lays out facts to indicate the shot('s) should have been held solely on the fact that it could have been a person. If someone is going to pop something on two legs, they should at least be able to see it's face in order to be sure. Like I said before, 100% clarity. 99% or less doesn't cut it when shooting at this type of target (bipedal). If you think you are shooting at a whitetail buck and it winds being a mule deer, oh well. If you shoot at a bigfoot and it winds up being a person. Yikes. Also, thanks for clarifying bipto. That adds more to the picture. " Upon later comparison with a 6’3″ tall TBRC member, the creature was estimated to have been both more massive and somewhat taller." somewhat taller than 6'3", so somewhat is what 6'4" ,come on !! yeah guys are out in the middle of nowhere running around in ghillie suits on summer day in the 90's, and see a guy with a shotgun and just keep walking away from him? nobody was hurt, 2 people jumped to conclusions and now people are trying to make the worst of it. if you hunt you must not be very good at it, by the time you see it's face ,it's butt, and ask it for id ,it will be 4 counties away before you get the gun up. I've been hunting since i'm 5 and now 46,and never came even close to shooting something that I didn't know what it was. The guy that shot was in the military and hunted, he new what he was doing. Nobody was even close to being hurt. book closed, end of story, give it a rest. I Don't mean to be so sarcastic, but give it up, he did nothing wrong.If it was such a dangerous encounter,why did the land owner let them back on the property and nobody was fined ? because they did nothing wrong. Edited October 30, 2011 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Under the ascribed circumstances, if I had been in D.C's place and of a mind to collect a specimen I would have taken the shot also. If all rounds had hit, the debate would be over. Just wasn't D.C's day for killing one. Edited October 30, 2011 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 lol Okay Zigoapex, fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I've had an elk quartering away from me and I did not have to look him in the eyes to know it was an elk. He pointed out identifying characteristics, and keep in mind it was only 30 yards away. That is from home plate to first base. If bigfoot was leading off on first, you would know it's not a ball player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I am wondering seriously if Colyer had a hunting license for Oklahoma, especially since it's now required in Oklahoma to pass a Hunter Safety Course for anyone that has not had it before. To carry a firearm in the woods in Oklahoma, unless you are under 16, you have to obtain a hunting license. Also from what I've read, it seems that Colyer was firing blindly after the first shot, for the landowner's relative to relate it to machine-gun fire. He was pumping a lot of lead in a short time. That was reckless in itself. Not condemning Colyer for his actions, he was there, we weren't, but to unload that many rounds in so short a time, it seems pretty reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Did they shoot at an 8 foot ghillie suit wearing marine sniper? Anyone who thinks there were people down there in bulky clothes (and I know you don't, AzB) should read this: http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/noaa-july-searing-heat-report_2011-08-08?page=3 It was stinking hot down there for two solid months, especially in July. Anyone wearing more than a tshirt was risking heat stroke. Edited October 30, 2011 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts