Guest Cervelo Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I think some have missed Patty3s point. I'm pro kill but I would have a very difficult decision to make if confronted with biggie at any distance over 30yrds much less moving down or across a trail. What is it most likley on two legs IMO a person. If you have limited experience hunting or outdoors misidentification happens every hunting season with much regret on someones part! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I, too, have reservations about this account. The alleged shooter's character or experience can have little bearing on whether or not he responsibly discharged a firearm at that moment. Some may assume that he was fully confident in the identity of his target and confident that he could safely shoot in that situation. 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? 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? 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? the couple was not close to them, they ran from hearing the shots,not from bullets hitting trees by them. He had a view of the animal before he shot at it and was only 30 yds away. the man was in the military and he is an experienced hunter. it is far more dangerous during hunting season than this situation was. I don't understand why people keep beating a dead horse. If it was such a dangerous situation, why didn't the sheriff's office give citations? and before you imply the sheriff should of did this or that, he investigated and talked to witnesses, concluded they did nothing wrong. Some people on hear keep implying that they are in a position to know the truth of what happened from hundred's of miles away and in the process are totally belittling the local sheriff's office and their professionalism in their field of expertise and basically calling the men that where there liars. If want to give an opinion on whether kill/no kill that's one thing, but imply more than that with out being there or doing an investigation of your own is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 bipedalist, on 04 November 2011 - 03:05 PM, said: The last impact sounded wood on wood at near 21 seconds.....and forceful at that Bipto said: On the "loud knock" file? Yeah, that was a serious impact. Susi asks: Could that mean like an exclamation point! That type of knock may mean something serious perhaps? That could be very interesting if it is noticed that hard knocks come when there are humans around, or danger of some sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) This whole incident left me incensed from the minute I saw it posted. With all due respect to your efforts and your organization, Bipto, I truly wish you and everyone involved would sit down and reconsider your position and actions here. I really believe that, if Sasquatch exists and we are patient, diligent, innovative and tenacious enough, a type-specimen will not be required to prove it to anyone. I even believe that, with enough patience, the type specimen will deliver itself. If we are able to work ourselves into a position to observe them over the long term, nature will provide the body eventually. First off, what you folks are currently doing is attempting to kill an animal (being?) that means you absolutely no harm. For what purpose? Scientific study? To me, that's a cop-out. The easy, quick way. See my opinion above. Secondly, this DC dude...the supposed "military experienced" shooter. This guy can't hit a target the size of a bigfoot with a shotgun from 30 yards away and he empties his weapon in the process. I'm sorry, but hours spent playing Call of Duty and spraying everything on the screen with lead non-stop doesn't translate into "military" experience. This guys actions show me absolutely no knowledge or comprehension of fire control or fire discipline. I wouldn't let him loose in the woods with a BB gun, myself. Not around me. What the hell would he have done if this wounded animal decided to come back at him? Hit it over the head with an empty weapon?? He would have got what's coming to him, in my opinion..... I agree (for a change) with Saskeptic. His actions were irresponsible. They were also incompetent. If you and your group feel they must continue to search to kill one of these creatures, you might want to at least involve competent personnel in that endeavor. At least that way there will be a body instead of an animal wounded and suffering for no valid reason (in my opinion, of course). Edited November 17, 2011 by BeachFoot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Bipto, Thank you for sticking around and answering all the questions and not rising to the bait of some posters. I agree, kudos are in order for how you've handled yourself Bipto, despite my statement of skepticism regarding the details of the alleged event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 What Beachfoot said!!! Well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) the couple was not close to them, they ran from hearing the shots,not from bullets hitting trees by them. He had a view of the animal before he shot at it and was only 30 yds away. the man was in the military and he is an experienced hunter. it is far more dangerous during hunting season than this situation was. I don't understand why people keep beating a dead horse. If it was such a dangerous situation, why didn't the sheriff's office give citations? and before you imply the sheriff should of did this or that, he investigated and talked to witnesses, concluded they did nothing wrong. Some people on hear keep implying that they are in a position to know the truth of what happened from hundred's of miles away and in the process are totally belittling the local sheriff's office and their professionalism in their field of expertise and basically calling the men that where there liars. If want to give an opinion on whether kill/no kill that's one thing, but imply more than that with out being there or doing an investigation of your own is just wrong. Z Let's not exaggerate the role of law enforcement in sanctioning this. All we know is that the legal system didn't charge anyone, isn't that right? 1. That isn't at all the same as saying that conduct was safe or responsible. For example, how about running through the woods with a loaded gun, safety off? Is that illegal? No, but it's very dangerous. 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. So lets not suggest that not being charged or prosecuted means that a behavior was approved by the sheriff, or safe or responsible or even legal. It just means that the sheriff decided that a conviction in a court of law was unlikely. I'm not passing judgment on the incident, I'm just saying that we shouldnt infer that sheriff approved of it just because no one was charged with a crime. My father was a rural prosecutor, and I know a little bit about how these things work. Edited November 17, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Read the report, listened to the audio on the TBRC website.. great job! Totally understand the groups disappointment in discovering that camera traps are not reliable. Keep it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 the couple was not close to them, they ran from hearing the shots,not from bullets hitting trees by them. The couple heard shots (plural) in the woods close enough that they felt the need to run. You don't need (nor did I imply) bullets raining down near you to determine that this was a dangerous situation. The alleged shooter had no idea the couple was there, correct? If that's true, and they were close enough that they felt the need to run (and is it not also true that the shooter was close enough that he heard the couple either get in and/or start their truck's engine?), then I don't care how experienced the shooter was, he discharged a weapon dangerously close to the couple. This would certainly qualify as a "fail" in the hunter safety class I took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Just a thought here. Whether I am a proponent, a non believer, or fence sitter, I have read a lot of comments here in this thread that are being taken wrong, or otherwise misinterpreted. I think it was Blackdog, who said it a few posts back, that there was irresponsible handling of a fire arm. I don't care if it was in fact a sasquatch, or a large human in a suit. The shooting happened from a distance of over 100yds, did it not? (SEE #1 below) I will also assume that the shotgun used didn't have a scope attached. (Most of them don't for good reason.) So this shooter was some distance from the target animal? Are his eyes THAT good? Could he 110% tell that it wasn't a human in very good make-up and costume? Further it's stated above that as justification for the shooting, that noone yelled out in pain, noone wound up missing, no body was found, and eventual that the blood tests from that found at the scene, should bear out as justification for the shooting. Well, I'm sorry, but total identification of the target, (for firing a weapon, and the justification for same,) should all take place BEFORE the trigger is pulled. At that distance, without optic magnification,(scope, spotting scope, binoculars etc) to fully identify the target as non-human, those rounds should never have been fired.I'm not going to argue further in this thread, but I am very familiar with fire arms and thier proper handling. In my educated opinion, this shooting incident was wholly irresponsible, and further incidents like it may very well yeild a charge of murder against someone who had no intention to kill another human being. JMEO-Knuck AS per normal now, ill put my disclaimer in that this is just my opinion as a member and not a moderator, so the boss doesnt get an in box full of reports about how im "abusing my power"..... #1 Knuck buddy, no offense but maybe you should have read the actual account as reported and not some of the "misinterpreted" "wrong" comments... The shooting was listed at MAX 25-30 yards from the shooter, who was standing in a CLEARING, in BROAD DAYLIGHT...... Size was clearly stated at over 6-1/2 feet tall, and VERY wide shouldered...... So we have a guy who see's a large bipedal hair covered (from head to toe) creature, notes it has a coned head, notes it is very big and very tall.... and he decides he has an opportunity in front of him to finally land a type specimen.... For the UMPTEENTH time (combination of you and others) WHAT exactly is so confusing or dangerous about that.... ??? PLEASE ! - will all of you so called "gun experts" and "self proclaimed hunting pro's" please stop either exaggerating the situation, or clearly making up details to suit your argument. You may not like his choice to fire- for your own reasons, but its disingenuous to try to twist the details around to make it look like some crazed gun-nut running through the woods, blasting blindly at every shadow he see's..... Try reading the actual account of what happened, instead of making up your own "attempted murder scene" in your mind, and trying to skew the discussion off of what actually "happened" (as has been stated at least). It's fine that some of you are obviously "no kill"... But what you clearly dont understand is that many/most of us who are "pro-kill" are only in for ONE.... Because ONE cold, stiff, stinky, & hairy body on a cold steel slab answers ALL the questions. It will provide the "PROTECTION" that all you seem to clamor for. It gives the scientific community something to work with that helps classify the creature where it truly belongs. No one can remain a skeptic or non-believer (scientists at least)who can walk up and put there hands on a type specimen. You all like to harp about how "cruel" it is, and how awful and wring your hands in despair- while completely ignoring the huge and positive impact that would result from one complete intact specimen being located.... Do you really think Bigfoot would rather be run over by a train ? or by a logging truck? The chances of finding a "naturally" expired specimen are obviously slim to none. Death is death, unfortunate as it may be, in this case if someone on a research expedition has a chance to bag one animal and use that opportunity to change how the World views this subject- then i say blast away! In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, "and that's all I've got to say about that.." ART Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Death is death, unfortunate as it may be, in this case if someone on a research expedition has a chance to bag one animal and use that opportunity to change how the World views this subject- then i say blast away! ART So far that attitude (if we believe all of the recent reports) has netted us two wounded and suffering creatures, and one dead "child". In that case, I guess the type specimen that those of your opinion are clamoring for got away.... I just hope for our sake that Sasquatch doesn't change their "no harm" attitude towards us as a result of all of the unprovoked attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I will disagree again Beachfoot... a little too much "Harry and The Hendersons" and not enough "Boggy Creek". There's plenty of credible sounding (to me anyway) reports out there of aggressive behavior that wouldnt be described as "no harm".... I am also not stating that I emphatically believe this account, nor the Sierra Shootings account you mention- but ALL we have to go by at this point is the ACCOUNTS as they've been given to us. Changing distances, adding emotional language, and making unfounded charges against either shooter (DC or General) is not fair. It's attempting to skew the discussion in favor of one viewpoint... and I think its better to stick at least to the stated "facts"... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachFoot Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) I don't recall skewing anything. The facts are as I stated in my last post. Two (2) wounded creatures and one dead "child". One shot at less than 100 yards (wounded), one at well within that (dead). Another shot inside of 30 yards (wounded). As for any emotional language, if you don't believe that "suffering" is a direct result of "wounded", then go stick a fork in your hand or, if you don't believe animals feel suffering, do it to your favourite pet. These ARE the facts. Yes, I have read reports as well that include aggressive behaviour. Animals (and humans) will become aggressive when they feel that they, their offspring or their environment might be in danger. However, I don't recall reading any reports where the individual experiencing this aggressive behaviour walked away bleeding and possibly dying. Considering what harm Sasquatch COULD do if they chose to, I would say that their overall attitude is "no harm" when it comes to humans. Let's keep going into their house, blasting away at them and see if an animal with their intelligence doesn't change it's mind. Edited November 17, 2011 by BeachFoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Until I see some bodies or very good pics both of these stories are nothing more than that! So if ya want to get all worked up over what ya read on the Internet well rage on!!! It's good reading and fun to watch the "discussion"!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 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 Has this big guy had any DNA work done? I don't think that he is totally human. Yikes! I'd probably faint if he approached me with his fists up. Of course, he'd have to crawl to get low enough to hit me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts