Tbrc Operation Endurance Report

[Guest Bdh25]

Wow, some folks disagree with you and it becomes a conspiracy against you, complete with "interference" from the establishment.

Maybe you should get used to not having everyone agree with your point of view. As you get older, you'll see that your opinion is of no greater - or of less - value than anyone elses. Nobody thinks you're the bad guy or that a shooter of BF is necessarily a hero... That's a lot of drama on your part. Good luck with that.

I'd like to agree that you were indeed wrong. You were wrong not to familiarize yourself with the forum rules before writing statements that had to be edited and accusing others of bias and a conflict of interest. Maybe you should try to notice these rules too much so you'll be better able to play well with others, especially when expressing differing opinions.

Yep you have it all figured out, wow good thing you pointed that out or I might have gone on thinking that its wrong to shoot BF's. Its all my fault, I didnt study the rules, but you aparently know them all word for word. What if we stayed on subject instead of something that has nothing to do with BF.

Good luck with blaiming the voices of reason, anyone that reads this thread that's not pro TBRC will see the truth.

Yes, exactly

[See-Te-Cah NC]

What if we stayed on subject instead of something that has nothing to do with BF.

You mean like accusing others of having conflicts of interest?

LOL!

[Guest Bdh25]

everyone else keeps bringing it up not me. Whats your stance on the shooting subject?

[Guest]

Does not the presence of the young couple in the vicinity, however, contradict that view? The shooter was unaware of the presence of two people in that area who felt close enough to the action that they were potentially in danger. By definition doesn't this mean that the shooter was not fully confident of the safety of his action?

As I've said several time already, they were never in danger. They heard gunshots they could not identify and were understandably shaken, but they weren't in the line of fire or even remotely close enough to be in danger. In the heat of the moment, they obviously thought they were in danger, but they never were.

Consider the facts after the event. The police, notified by the couple before they knew what had happened, felt no need to pursue any action whatsoever in the matter. We continue to have access to the land and, in fact, are working more closely than ever with the property owners. The reality of the situation today does not align with this internet theory that the couple was feeling under a rain of gunfire.

As I've also said in the other thread, if the circumstances of this shooting was unsafe and irresponsible, then surly *every* discharge of firearms in the woods is unsafe and irresponsible.

If some quasi-military extended camp-out to kill a bigfoot pumps people up with the notion that there are indeed bigfoots around them, is it any wonder that an armed participant in that activity could end up discharging a weapon under less than ideal conditions?

Your description of our operation as a "quasi-military extended camp-out" is ridiculously amusing to me. It totally mischaracterizes the purpose of the operation and is, frankly, insulting. Honestly, I expected better of you.

As for the alleged height of the alleged bigfoot, just how tall did Roger and Bob claim Patty to be? And how tall does Bill Munns claim Patty to have been?

Irrelevant.

[Guest Patty3]

You mean like accusing others of having conflicts of interest?

Like noticing this story is hauntingly familiar, the similarities to the Erickson project are uncanny.

[Guest]

That could be very interesting if it is noticed that hard knocks come when there are humans around, or danger of some sort.

That knock was consistent with many we heard over the weeks. We assume, in that context, they were trying to intimidate us into leaving. In other circumstances, we think they have used knocks to locate one another.

[Guest]

^^^ would YOU stick a needle in him Susi !! ??? (or try to clip/yank out some of his hair ??) No thanks !

Everyone just say's to him "Good Day Mr Valuev, so nice to see you Mr Valuev !!"

Maybe Art. But have you seen him fight? Technique o.k., speed average, and NO punch!

[Joe Frazier -- THE Greatest. RIP]

[Guest]

Like noticing this story is hauntingly familiar, the similarities to the Erickson project are uncanny.

If I may quote you... "OMG"!!! This doesn't even remotely resemble The Erickson Project. You may want to do some studying. You may have it confused with the Sierra Shootings possibly?? That is not The Erickson Project. As far as it has been reported, no one involved in the Erickson project has fired at at Bigfoot. You really keep showing just how uninformed you are.

[Guest]

2. And the only " witnesses" who might have felt as if they were assaulted were given a substantial amount of money by the group whose member did the shooting. So it is likely that there would be no one to press/substantiate charges even if the county sheriff or prosecutor felt that a crime might have been committed.

We paid the money *after* the sheriff was satisfied with what happened and solely because we felt bad about the damage done to his truck. There was no quid pro quo whatsoever. Suggestions that there was are totally unfounded.

This would certainly qualify as a "fail" in the hunter safety class I took.

Doubtful. The people being *nearby* was an unfortunate coincidence, but as I've said numerous times, in reality they were never close to being in danger.

[Guest Patty3]

As I've also said in the other thread, if the circumstances of this shooting was unsafe and irresponsible, then surly *every* discharge of firearms in the woods is unsafe and irresponsible.

You still don't get it do you? A upright walking "whatever" was shot at. In this country you don't shoot at anything that walks upright and if that part of the story wasn't fabricated you better start praying that nobody has turned up missing.

[Guest]

...a little too much "Harry and The Hendersons" and not enough "Boggy Creek".

*like*

Bipto, Do you ever run dogs with you while searching for a BF, or have them stationed nearby to respond to a quick call for their services?

We typically do not have dogs present. Having some in reserve is something we're exploring for the future.

[Guest Bdh25]

Hey AZ instead of going after patty for trivial things in an attempt to change the subject, let's debate the real subject here.

[Guest]

How can anyone ever expect the public to take bigfoot research serious when you have groups doing this and endangering lives for the sake of enticing donations on their website?

Show me one instance where we've attempted to profit from this event. Just one.

[Guest]

You still don't get it do you? A upright walking "whatever" was shot at. In this country you don't shoot at anything that walks upright and if that part of the story wasn't fabricated you better start praying that nobody has turned up missing.

If anyone is at fault, it would be this costumed prankster, masquerading as a Bigfoot. This was on private land and he would have been trespassing. If someone dressed up as a bear and crawled on all fours during bear season, I'm sorry but no one would be prosecuted for shooting him. Walking around on someone else's property, wearing a bigfoot suit, and walking around armed peoples cabins is downright suicidal.

[Guest]

It was without a doubt an irresponsible discharge of a firearm resulting in the needless suffering of a BF.

Unless you were hiding behind a tree nearby when it happened, I don't see how you have any standing to make such a statement.