Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 A seven foot tall kid in a full body gorilla costume? At the height of summer? This entire line of mistaken identity has already been fully explored in the other thread. Thats ok I knew there is no justification, thanks for confirming. Yes, because that's what I said. Obviously, you're not intersted in reasonable debate. Have a nice life.
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Direct Quote from The Operation Endurance Report: "The first creature, observed on 3 July 2011 at approximately 7:15 PM, was described by the TBRC observer as a smoothly walking brown-colored upright figure approximately 6.5 feet tall or taller. The observation lasted about two or three seconds and was made at a distance of about thirty yards." I'm so wrong? This is an awfully tall kid in a costume. And I'm curious, when he was approached by a man with a gun (30 yards no less), why did he not wave his hands and say, "Stop, don't shoot, I was kidding!! I'm a kid in a costume!!" And if this kid was hit, enough to draw blood, he would have dropped right there and began to scream in pain and possibly beg for his life. He certainly wouldn't have ran so fast that there was no way to find a sign of him. That's an amazing kid. Wearing a bigfoot suit in 90 degree weather, taking a hit from a gauge, and running for the hills, never stopping to catch his breath. Who's wrong??
Guest Bdh25 Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 A seven foot tall kid in a full body gorilla costume? At the height of summer? This entire line of mistaken identity has already been fully explored in the other thread. Yes, because that's what I said. Obviously, you're not intersted in reasonable debate. Have a nice life. I would gladly and patiently listen to your side of things, please, tell me. If after your side is shared and I am wrong, I wont hesitate to admit it.
Guest Patty3 Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 A seven foot tall kid in a full body gorilla costume? At the height of summer? This entire line of mistaken identity has already been fully explored in the other thread. There are roughly more than 20,000 people that are over 7 feet tall! How big does a person have to get before you can legally kill one? There are no excuse's for how wrong this whole scenario was.
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Bdh.. to be fair, much of what your looking for as far as details and some explanations can be found in the initial thread discussing this topic. All 14 or so pages of it... As well as links provided to their site, and explanations given there as well... In case you (and anyone else "new" to the discussion) missed it- here is a link to the "Echo Incident" thread.... From an "official" stance: The kill -vs- no kill debate has been done many many times over on the old BFF and the new one as well.... While you and other's are entitled to your opinion that its completely wrong, you must also accept that there are others (just so happens to include myself) who are proponents of a "type specimen" being obtained. You should also recognize and accept that those on the proponent side feel as strongly about it as those who are not- and both sides are not likely to have their minds changed. Just comes with the territory.... Art
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 There are roughly more than 20,000 people that are over 7 feet tall! How big does a person have to get before you can legally kill one? There are no excuse's for how wrong this whole scenario was. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts of the incident. I think that if you do, your fear of it having been a kid in a suit will be assuaged.
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 There are roughly more than 20,000 people that are over 7 feet tall! How big does a person have to get before you can legally kill one? There are no excuse's for how wrong this whole scenario was. Again, some time spent reading will explain away "some" of your concerns.... you should check out some of the above mentioned "Echo Incident" thread... One example of info you could glean from there would be: The area where this happened isnt "just off Main Street" in town... its on an extremely remote piece of private property, miles and miles from anywhere. There are even some aerial videos shown that make this very clear. For that reason alone, the chances for "some kid" to be running around in a BF suit = slim to none.` Note i didnt say "impossible"- i just said highly unlikely. I myself like to make sure i read up on everything available before coming to conclusions, and critiquing the actions of others... Art
Guest Patty3 Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) The kill -vs- no kill debate has been done many many times over on the old BFF and the new one as well.... While you and other's are entitled to your opinion that its completely wrong, you must also accept that there are others (just so happens to include myself) who are proponents of a "type specimen" being obtained. Art That's all well and good but when you start randomly shooting at upright walking creatures in the woods are you willing to take the chance that you're not killing a person? Science will tell you that any upright walking being living in the United States is most likely a human. Are the Bigfoot Forums willing to take responsibility for promoting this type of activity? Edited November 17, 2011 by Patty3
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Science will tell you that any upright walking being living in the United States is most likely a human. Unless it's a wood ape.
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 That's all well and good but when you start randomly shooting at upright walking creatures in the woods are you willing to take the chance that you're not killing a person? Science will tell you that any upright walking being living in the United States is most likely a human. Are the Bigfoot Forums willing to take responsibility for promoting this type of activity? Shooting at a Bigfoot is most likely shooting at a Bigfoot, assuming you have the ability to identify things. No one is promoting anything, it seems you're deciding that for yourself.
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Patty3, I'll address your two points separately. That's all well and good but when you start randomly shooting at upright walking creatures in the woods are you willing to take the chance that you're not killing a person? Science will tell you that any upright walking being living in the United States is most likely a human." I didnt do any shooting. Neither did Bipto... He's a member of an organization involved with said shooting, and he's come back to a forum (that wouldnt be here without him by the way), to answer questions about the incident. Coming to broad based conclusions driven by more of the fact that your a caring person (which is great/admirable)- still isn't quite fair to him or even the shooter. There has been no official recognition of species yet- the fact that you and other's may feel that they're very close to human is one viewpoint. There are other's that have them more in line of a slightly advanced large anthropoid ape. Either way, it can and has to be discussed on here- giving and accepting both sides of the argument- as far human -vs- not so human, and kill -vs- no kill. It's how it has to be done in order to "work". If not it just breaks down into a war of words.... Are the Bigfoot Forums willing to take responsibility for promoting this type of activity? Even as a moderator of these forums, I am still allowed/entitled to have and express an opinion. (for now anyways) When I do, there's simply no reason for anyone to think that it's anything other than just that. The volunteer mod position that I fulfill- I do so in an effort to keep things relatively peaceful on here, and to make everyone's BFF experience a better and more civil experience. It in no way gives me the kind of "power" to make "official policy statements". I also recommend to alot of newer members that they familiarize themselves with the rules and guidelines, as in this specific case- they more than adequately point out that the BFF has no official stance on anything- even as to whether Bigfoot/Sasquatch exists.... You can find them on any page- top right just under the "search box".... or here's a convenient link to use..... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules I hope my explaining this is helpful.... I'm always (mostly) here to help...! Art
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 I say we teach them to read, help them get their G.E.D., then shoot them. Who's with me?!
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 That's all well and good but when you start randomly shooting at upright walking creatures in the woods are you willing to take the chance that you're not killing a person? Science will tell you that any upright walking being living in the United States is most likely a human. Are the Bigfoot Forums willing to take responsibility for promoting this type of activity? quote " Science will tell you that any upright walking being living in the United States is most likely a human." Circular logic. Science has no choice but to follow that conclusion since they don't accept the existence of Sasquatch, be it human or completely primate. Since there is no conclusive evidence via media, DNA or footprints, and obviously no archetypal specimen. Personally as a Native American and one that as experienced a close encounter with one, I am no kill unless the circumstances left me no alternative. However since Sasquatch is not recognized by science or law as an existing species the choice of collecting a specimen for science becomes a philosophical/ideological one. It does little good to argue over something that will never be settled until one side or the other provides conclusive proof or Sasquatch as a species decides to forsake eons of solitude and step out of the shadows. (I doubt the latter is going to happen) so the burden falls on those of us who claim to care about these creatures to provide that irrefutable evidence. That being said there are plenty of good people that genuinely care about the overall survival and good of the species that happen to be in the pro-kill camp. quote: "Are the Bigfoot Forums willing to take responsibility for promoting this type of activity?" Honest, respectful and thoughtful discussion of a topic does not infer promotion of or condoning that activity. Talk is cheap. Pure and simple. But it is invaluable as a means of offering objective opinions and alternative solutions.
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 I say we teach them to read, help them get their G.E.D., then shoot them. Who's with me?! Thanks Jon.. Nothing I "love" more than trying to put fires out for over an hour, then to have someone pitch a well timed gallon of gasoline on the embers...... **Assuming your comment was made to be "tongue in cheek", or hoping at least.. The reading ability and G.E.D passing would be more than enough (even for me) to reach the "Human" threshold.. At that point, maybe a good haircut is all that's needed..? See Russian boxer Valuev for example of finished product.... Hey, on second thought- maybe it was Valuev that was wandering around the backyard where Larry Surface shot that NV video??? Definite resemblance there ! Art
Guest Blackdog Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 I won't debate the kill/no kill thing because it's a waste of time for all of us. I will not participate in a conversation that's rude and insulting nor will I engage anyone unwilling to learn the basic facts of the situation. Ignorance and excessive emotion are no substitue for a reasonable exchange of opinions. You obviously are ignorant of the TBRC, the people behind it, and our motivation. Kindly limit your comments to the facts and leave your imagination out of it. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts of the incident. I think that if you do, your fear of it having been a kid in a suit will be assuaged. Facts? I'm sorry but there is no fact that a bigfoot was shot at, only the anecdotal word of DC. The only fact in that is that he said he shot at a bigfoot, that doesn't mean he did. Decrying others for being emotional in this discussion only shows your emotional involvement in this discussion and shows your bias for DC's story and does nothing to convince anyone, other than the willing to believe, that it actually happened. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that qualifies as a fact, other than DC's story, that a bigfoot was shot at? If so I haven't seen anything yet and before I believe anything actually happened I need more than a story and promises of more to come. Until then I don't believe a word of it and I think if he did shoot at something it was a very reckless disregard of basic firearm safety and a selfish act that possibly endangered human life. IMHO he should not be allowed to carry firearms in the field when doing his research, at the very least he demonstrated poor judgement in selecting his target which is THE BASIC rule. No exceptions.
Recommended Posts