@pauldude000
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
By the way, Ryan — Yes, I am. I have never used that username here, but that was an amazingly good guess.
@Gumshoguy That would be the expectable evidence. People would naturally use what they have close at hand. If all I had was a twenty-two…. I would probably use it to the best of my ability. I probably would not live through that encounter, but I would do my best. If I had my choice it wouldn’t be a twenty-two though, lol.
@Ryan C Anytime.I have perused this thread and am somewhat astonished. I am not sure what to think about Steve’s claims. The simple fact is that without more evidence than has been provided by any of the parties, the issue is literally a moot point. Most of the priciples are dead from what I understand. If I read Knobby right concerning the matter, only Gimlin, MK Davis, and Scott Carpenter are left alive out of all of them. I could be wrong in that, I don’t have a personal clue.
If so, then Steve is claiming to have backing by two out of the three.
No matter how you slice this issue, it is still hearsay, no matter who you listen to. As far as liars are concerned, I once read that pathological liars are the most convincing, as they truly believe their own lies, and are often some of the nicest people you ever met, so we can’t go by appearances only. Being a nice person doesn’t mean you tell the truth. I bring this up as I read someone post that as a defense for I think Gimlin.
All I am pointing out is that any judgement on the issue, without more evidence than has been provided by anyone including Steve, is a knee jerk reaction. Maybe Steve has more evidence than he has shared, I don’t know that either.
Personally, I question the relevance of the whole matter, as whether the concept is true or false, what exactly does it change??? Nothing as far as I know.
Either way, the PG film would still be of a Bigfoot, and as far as I understand, that is the only thing that the accusations would really affect of any momentus.
It is pretty cyclic around here. I have some guesses but remember they are just that, even if they sound likely. My guess is that the family group I have around here has a large territory. I think they cycle back and forth through a fairly large hunting range, probably based on local deer populations. I can have activity hot and heavy for a few weeks, then only very sporadic activity for a month or more, then it heats back up. In the middle of the winter though, activity gets very sporadic for the entirety of the season. Not dead, mind you, just very occasional.
Season wise, early spring to late fall has the most activity here, overall.
The fact that they can withstand our winters here is very odd to me though, as it doesn’t make much sense. Our winters get cold enough that a human would only have minutes to a half-hour before hypothermia would set in, yet these things have hair covered bodies not dense fur. They have to have one hell of a metabolism to provide enough body heat to survive our winters
@Knobby In general you are correct. The 30.06 or even the 300 short mag are capable of taking one down. However, the odds of getting a good enough shot placement necessary for an instant takedown, under extreme duress such as shooting at a stationary but hostile acting bigfoot, are slim unless you have some sort of training. At a moving target? That would be a lucky shot even with a 30.06. I agree that a heavy hunting load would be required, minimum of at least 180 grains, preferably 220.
The calibers and bullet masses I referenced can do the job even with a somewhat badly placed shot. Even then it is not a guarantee. The .375 H&H mag is the smallest legal caliber for the big five for a reason, and the caliber starts at around 270 grain bullets, and goes to around 350 grain if I remember right.
For our preferred (mine as well) 30.06, a heavy 220 grain would do the job, assuming that they didn’t use too soft of lead for fast mushrooming capability, as it has a hard time penetrating thick bone. FMJ would shatter joints, but deflects off of bone pretty easy unless it is a pretty dead-on hit to the bone, and leaves way to small of a wound channel.
Due to sheer size of the bigfoot, it is going to be equivalent in bone mass to at least a grizzly, if not even larger bone structure.
The problem is that most people literally don’t have a clue about calibers. They tend to base their judgement on others experience. For even person that kills a grizzly with a 30.06, you find another that shot one several times only to watch it run off, sometimes without even a blood trail to follow. Among experienced hunters across the nation, and especially in Alaska, the vote is out for the 30.06 for grizzly. What I mean by this is that it is evident that it is possible to take down a big grizzly with good shot placement from a 30.06, but not guaranteed even then. Some hunters that HAVE shot a big brown bear with a 30.06 claim they would never do it again. If you go JUST by the evidence at hand, it is an iffy cartridge for something that large.
@Amy H
A .275 rigby is not a 270WSM (winchester short magnum). The main rifle Bell (Karamojo) used was the 7X57 Mauser using heavy grain military FMJ bullets for the caliber (178 – 250 grains). Ha also favored the .303 british and the 318 Westley Richards (also known as the 318 rimless nitro express). He only took one shot, the skull. The shot is known as the “bell shot.”
He is a famous hunter. Very famous. None of the calibers he used is legal in Africa right now either for the big 5 dangerous game (elephant, Rhino, Lion, Leopard, Cape Buffalo), as the ONLY shot that USUALLY works with such calibers is the bell shot, which is very hard to do unless you are n exceptional marksman like Bell was. Most hunters would love to claim the title, but aren’t even close.
Simple fact is that a Grizzly or even a bigfoot could be killed with a .22 rimfire — with an eye shot at the right angle.
None of that changes the truth of one word of what I said though. Not one word. Unless someone can put five rounds in less than an inch circle at 100yds while under pressure, they better not try any fancy shot with a small caliber — or they will miss. That is a fact of life. Most people under severe stress can’t hit a dinner plate at 25 yards with anything but a shotgun without training.
Just sayin. When it comes to this, I do know what I am talking about.
As an afterthought, it is probably where the old cowboy saying “Ten foot tall and bulletproof” actually came from.
The old black powder rounds the cowboys used in the 1800’s to the early 1900’s were far less potent than modern smokeless powder rounds of even the same cartridge. There is some overlap, but for hunting black powder was more available, far more stabil in a variety of environments, as well as less dangerous to the user than many early smokeless options. A modern smokeless 45 Long Colt (45LC) round is identical to what the average cowboy shot, yet would blow up their 1890 lever-action Winchester black-powder based rifle, as an example. You can still buy a brand new lever action 1890 model in 45LC, but it is designed to handle modern cartridge chamber and barrel pressures.
Steve E, I can help with this one. Most times where people shoot and shoot, they are using either a shotgun (bad idea), handgun (most are a very bad idea), or a deer rifle (also bad idea). Shotguns, excepting only buckshot and slugs, is designed to take down small mammals and birds, depending upon the size and weight of the round shot inside the shell. Most common shells carried by hunters are 6 shot (upland game birds, squirrels, rabbits, etc.), 4 shot (larger mammals such as raccoon, opossum, skunks etc.), 2 – BB shot (Turkeys, coyotes, etc.), buckshot (deer or self-defense), and slugs (deer to sometimes doubtedly but arguably bear).
Deer rifle rounds are used for thin-skinned large game (mammals up to the size of mule deer). However, that deer round is not rated for anything as thick as even an elk, moose, bear, or ANY dangerous game.
To put this into perspective, most rounds sold in the lower 48 are not suitable for anything larger than a deer. Most people that shoot at a sasquatch are out — deer hunting.
The problem is this, the bullets used for deer hunting are designed for rapid expansion upon hitting a thin-skinned animal. They do not hold together, nor penetrate enough for effective rounds against large boned or heavy skinned animals, to provide a quick, clean, humane kill. It may still kill a larger animal, but it may that that animal a long time to die from the wound.
Against a man in self defense, people tend to shoot center of mass, which is in the chest. They sometimes make the mistake of doing that to a grizzly as well, which really tends to make the grizzly mad, causing the shooter to have a very interesting day, to say the least. This is guaranteed if they use a standard deer round. Some rifle rounds are not even legal in all 48 states for deer, such as the .223 used in the average AR rifle platform.
Rounds designed for bigger game have a few characteristics, which are not solely just a caliber issue. Grain weight matters a lot. Deer rounds tend to be small, light, and fast, where big game rounds tend to be massive, big diameter, and slow. The reason is inertia. A heavy mass will penetrate farther in a given material than a light mass moving fast.
Handguns have far less penetration capability per caliber than most any rifle of the same caliber. asically, to be a good round against anything big, it should have a VERY heavy bullet for a handgun, such as a 10mm, 44 mag, 45 colt, etc.
With a bigfoot, unless you see it at a distance, you are only going to get from one to a couple of shots atit, period. Ut takes time to get back on target, and if you didn’t kill or cripple it with the first shot, you may have a very interesting day, just like with a grizzly. This is almost guaranteed not to happen with your average handgun, shotgun round, or deer rifle round, or anything considered a “varmint” round like the .223, blackout, 22-220, etc. Varmint rounds are extremely light and extremely fast.
Rounds that might take one down?
Handgun (already listed above)
Rifle (heavy 30-06 round, heavy 300 win mag, or many of the 45 caliber hunting rounds. Possibly even a 50 caliber black powder.)
Shotgun (A few very heavy brenneke or sabot slugs.)In a basic nutshell, probably NOT what someone has on hand when they decide to start shooting at a bigfoot. It has never surprised me that they don’t often drop when shot. With most calibers, it would take a lucky shot directly through the heart that missed the ribs, directly between the eyes, or through an eye socket into the brain — all extremely tiny targets even at fairly close range.
Otherwise that Bigfoot will live at least long enough to kill or drive off their attacker.
Barbed wire Shannon, and it did catch hair. The heifers. That was part of the evidence that let me know the cow was pulled over the top from the outside of the fence. Hair, severely bent T-post next to the hair, a splattering of cow crap over a small area, three small splats where the cow literally pooped it’s pants when it was grabbed. Indention in the ground on the outside of the fence which is the general size/shape of a really large footprint, but in grass so not a guarantee.
Had that cow tried to jump the fence, I would have had hair in all four wires when it got hung up in the barbed wire. The fence is too tall for a cow to jump. It would have also broken off the T-post or bent it flat to the ground, not just at a 50 degree angle or so. Almost but not quite 45 degrees towards the outside of the pasture.
What the evidence says to me is that something (a bigfoot) hiding behind the evergreens about six feet from the back fence hopped out and grabbed the unsuspecting cow. The cows were there because of the ruckus of other bigfoot trying to scare them towards the back area — the coyote wannabe (1 voice imitating as pack, which just sounds stupid, not coyote, and the other barking like a dog but sounding the size of Clifford the Big Red Dog) At the end is when I heard the cows go off and go nuts, which would be when the heifer was grabbed,
The fact that she is alive says she managed to either struggle loose, which I doubt, or that she got a good kick or two in while struggling and was let go or dropped outside the fence.
Anyway, after that ruckus I ran out with a spotlight and a handgun, but everything was dead silent and cold as heck. I couldn’t see or hear anything, but my dogs refused to go with me to the pasture. I felt that “watched” feeling and my gut instinct was screaming to get the heck out of dodge, so I went back inside for the night.
Anyway, was exciting at the very least.
I don’t know why people want to know “the specific location. “That is like asking “what is the specific location to find a whitetail deer.” The simple fact of the matter is that if you locate habitat that deer will like, you will almost certainly find deer in the area. Bigfoot are no different, and they pretty much like any habitat where they can find food and water from everything I have seen. They pretty much like everywhere we do, and some places where we don’t.
If you start searching the Sierra mountains, you will be in their habitat already. You may never come across the same exact group, who cares, but you will be in –>someone’s<– territory as soon as you get out of your truck.
If they are close enough of a match to mate with humans and produce offspring as has been reported historically, then they can certainly catch contagious human diseases.
@paul w I don’t doubt that there were offspring from that situation, which I am already familiar with. That is not the point.
Someone can point at a sasquatch and call it an animal all day long, and it will not make it less ->human<- than it is.
Humans, even something with DNA that is mostly human, can indeed mate with humans and have kids — I don’t debate that at all. Ape DNA is not even close. Apes are not close enough as a specie (science) or of the same kind (scripture) as humans to breed and have offspring.
The only PROVABLE things that distinguish sasquatch from humans are actually minor, such as size, slight changes in foot structure, slight changes in bodily proportions, and dense hair covering over the entire body instead of just parts, such as head and groin. Various conditions known to affect humans can even account for everything but the foot issue.
To put things into perspective, if you shaved one, trimmed it’s hair, and put it in pants, what would you think you see? What if you did that to an ape? You would still see an ape if you shaved one, same goes for any monkey or great ape specie. The differences are too vast.
The information was in np way flattering to either Russia or their attempt. Russia in fact flat denied the attempts were even made for a very long time. You aren’t talking about a country like the United States where officials try to cover up the truth… You are talking a Communist Russia during the height of the cold war, that would bury anyone who knew anything about it. It was a totalitarian state. The facts about the experiments didn’t come out until long after the country’s government basically imploded. The scientists themselves neither had a choice of what they worked on, nor did their government even care if it was against their individual morals.
@Wolf Define human or animal either one. Definitions get real sticky really quickly. You may actually come cross silly statements referring to such things as opposable thumbs.The problem I see is whether a person goes by specie, or by kind when you make the reference. Science would say all creatures are animals where religions as well as philosophies would digress.
When you are talking about humans, it is humanity or “human kind” which cannot breed outside of the kind. Similar species often can interbreed. Al cats could fall under the title of cat “kind” where the same is not true of specie, as lions (panthera leo) and tigers (panthera tigris) are of two separate species but can interbreed, for example.
@Paul W — Concerning ape rape offspring. Not happening. Scientists tried hard in Russia to create a human/ape hybrid, including but not limited to artificial insemination of both female humans and apes with the opposites sperm. Simple fact is that an ape cannot breed with a human and produce offspring. The DNA is not close enough to be viable, unlike with, say, zebras and horses producing the hybrid zorse, or lions and tigers producing the hybrid liger.
Russia was after a super soldier with the strength of an ape and the intelligence of a human… a mini squatch, in essence. Yet, even with years of manipulation and experiment, they never could get either type of egg to grow with the other’s spermatozoa.
When they say that an apes DNA is 96 or 98% human, that disregards that the DNA “blocks” are not put together the same way. The DNA in a side by side comparison is not even close to identical. Of the 96 to 98% (of the same type “blocks” or sections of DNA dealing with specific traits) nothing is in the right place or sequence, or of a huge majority of critical blocks, not even close to being in the right place or sequence.
For a saasquatch to mate with a human and have human offspring, it not only has to share the same type blocks, but the order in which blocks are assembled has to be the same as well. The DNA has to be able to link up properly between the two strands to join in the nucleus and ultimately make a viable living cell.
If sasquatch can mate with humans and have kids, then, like it or not, they are human as far as their DNA is concerned — not animals.
