Just found this one looking for other things. Anyone else seen a report of sasquatch doin' it? I woulda been one pissed off sasquatch if some dumb human interuppted my threesome! Here, I'll Bold a few interesting parts...


http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1408

YEAR: 1966

SEASON: Spring

MONTH: May

DATE: May 1966

PROVINCE: British Columbia

COUNTRY: Canada

LOCATION DETAILS: Please see above info.

NEAREST TOWN: Spillimacheen, BC

NEAREST ROAD: dirt road west from town

OBSERVED: I have a BS Geology degree from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, 1961.

In 1965 I was plant Manager for a remote plant owned by NL Industries, Inc., located about 7 miles northwest of Spillamacheen, BC on a public road. The plant is on the west face of Spillamacheen Mountain. Since I was a young (31) man at the time and having only worked for the firm for little more than a year, I was reluctant to make my finding public. Now that I am retired I no longer have such feelings.

On an early May, 1965 morning, I drove up the road from the mill site on a Grizzly hunt. About a half mile above the mill site, there is a small clearing of about an acred on the east bank of the Spillamacheen river. Just north of this clearing, the road makes a dogleg left and there is a road cut on the right side of the road.about 4' high.

ALSO NOTICED: First occassion, a line of footprints came from the direction of the Columbia River bridge in a northeast direction. Second I came to the clearing from the north on foot and came upon three creatures I thought were grizzly bears, but they were upright and were scuffling. Two began mating in the normal human fashion instead of from the rear. I was about 100 yards from them and took a shot at one with a rifle, but missed and the three ran into the woods to the east.
OTHER WITNESSES: None

OTHER STORIES: None, except for reports on A&E, History Channel,
and Discovery channel.

TIME AND CONDITIONS: Clear, early morning, 4"fresh snow,

ENVIRONMENT: clearing, see above.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Kevin Withers:

The footprints were seen in 1965 and were barefoot humanoid prints, bigger than a size ten shoe, with a stride length of three to four feet. The witness had to jump from one print to the next when attempting to duplicate the stride. The prints were pointed straight ahead and were in a straight path, suggesting that the animal making these prints knew exactly where it was going. They came from the direction of the town of Spillamacheen (approximate population 50) and headed off into the wilderness. It was in this same place that the witness' sighting of three bigfoot took place a year later, in 1966.

The witness was hunting grizzly bear. He had parked his vehicle on the side of the road and was walking up the road when, in a clearing off to the side he glimpsed, for just a few seconds, three gaunt looking, brown, hair covered animals, at a distance of about thirty-five to forty feet. The animals appeared to be wrestling with each other as they moved in a direction away from the witness.
Believing the animals to be bears, and afraid of being spotted by them, the witness immediately ran across the road and climbed a steep four foot embankment, where he found a log that he could drop down behind and hide.

By this time the animals had moved to a distance of approximately 150 feet, and as the witness watched them continue to scuffle as they moved farther away, he could tell that one animal appeared to be asserting authority over the other two. After they had moved away to the edge of the clearing at a distance of about 300 feet, the assertive animal began copulating with one of them, with the third standing and moving around them about ten feet away. The animal on the ground laid on its back with its legs flat on the ground; the other was on top in a face to face position.
At this point, the witness still believed the animals to be bears. After the two had been copulating on the ground for about one minute, the one standing stopped moving around and so the witness took a shot at it. He missed his shot, and the animals ran into the tree line, each of them running on two legs.

The witness did not believe that these animals were anything but bears until a year later, when he actually killed a grizzly bear, and then realized that what he had seen a year earlier were definitely not bears.

A note regarding the witness' rifle and his failure to hit the target when he fired at the standing animal: The witness was shooting a Marlin 30-06 rifle with a four power scope, using 180 grain bullets. Normally, with 150 grain, the witness could shoot a two inch group at 100 yards with this rifle. However, going after grizzly bear that day, he decided to use 180 grain bullets, even though he hadn't used 180 grain in this rifle before. He had previously hunted with this rifle using 150 grain, and he mistakenly thought that there wouldn't be that much of a difference in accuracy with the more powerful ammunition. However, 180 grain bullets created different harmonics in the rifle barrel, causing a whipping action, and a spread of between one and two feet at 100 yards. He sent the rifle back to Marlin and they replaced the barrel with a heavier one, but he never used the rifle again and ended up trading it to a friend.

So, if these were bigfoot, how could the witness think they were bears, especially since he saw them from only thirty-five to forty feet away?

I believe that this can be explained by considering three factors:

First, at no time during this sighting did the witness view the front of any of the animals. And the initial sighting, from thirty-five to forty feet away, was very brief, with the animals constantly in motion, wrestling and scuffling.

Second, as the witness states, "I was looking for bears, so that's what I saw." The witness stated that the three animals, all six to seven feet in height, looked "gaunt." Earlier he had heard someone describe a bear seen in the area as "gaunt," so this reinforced his assumption that the animals were bears.

And third, in the mid 1960s, not many people had heard of bigfoot yet. It was only later, after Patterson's famous 1967 film, that this animal started getting publicity. While the witness had heard of bigfoot and yeti footprints being found, he was not familiar with what a bigfoot or yeti looked like.

A person who knew something about bears but nothing about bigfoot could be expected to assume that a trio of large hairy animals were bears. When confronted with the unfamiliar, the mind tends to force what is seen into a known category. People pick labels that most closely match their preconceptions of the world.

Because of the nature of this report, in the end it must rise or fall on the credibility of the witness. I interviewed the witness extensively several times, and each time I found him to be credible and consistent in his story, and therefore I consider this report to be a legitimate one of a bigfoot sighting.

I don't know if a 30-06 is enough gun to stop me in the middle of...

edited for spelling

"Two began mating in the normal human fashion instead of from the rear."

Sounds like he leads a very drab life.
NS

Actually mating from the front (among other positional choices) is normal for many great apes.

There seems to be a line at the door, to read this one.

Jeez! Didn't think of that! HILARIOUS. And, a very good point

Bears mate in late May to early June.

But they bear their young in February in a den, too. Gestation is delayed:



Chimps? Like humans, mating occurs throughout the year and there is no evidence of a birth season.

But chimps aren't a northern species....................

I think the one just milling around and watching is the freak....

Yes, the grizz hunter was lucky he wasn't spotted earlier by the out-of-luck squatch, could have been trouble

I don't buy it, if you went to school you know what a bear looks like. He had a scope that would have given him a closer look and at that point the only thing going through his mind sould have been " that aint no bear!"

me thinks it is BS just the thought of going out in the field with a rifle that you have not sighted in ,hunting grizzly at that you would figure that you would want it to be perfect.I think he was fraked out by the whole thing of what he was seeing and that is what caused him to miss.But then again what do I know right!He should have took out his camera and took a picture because he sure knew what he was looking at. He would have became rich with one photo

Dear Penthouse...

Maybe he saw hippies. After all it was the 60's.

Hippies? Maybe. Or, maybe it was a girl norcal dated in the 70's? Ohhhhhhhhhh (in an Andrew Dice Clay voice)

He missed his shot, and the animals ran into the tree line, each of them running on two legs.



And yet he still thought they were bears after beating feet on two legs? Hogwash

Take it easy, he may have missed his shot, but the only shot that the studly one missed is that middle leg drag that always gets in the way at the most inopportune times!~

Oh crap

Reminds me of the Harry and the Hendersons show, where the dad asks the daughter:
How did you know Harry's a guy?

DAD!!

We have to get Harry some shorts,,,,,,,,,,,

A two foot group at 100 yards??? That barrel must have been made out of garden hose. I don't think I'm buying this.

From the account




Well, I thought I had heard every excuse there is for missing a shot - until now

But alas, more of that professional investigative prowess

from the account










First, the reporter accepts that a person who cannot seem to discern a bear from a bigfoot at THIRTY FIVE/FORTY FEET in broad unobstructed daylight is reliable. ( thats about 2 1/2 car lengths)

Then the report apparentally accepts that the observer watched them WALK some 100 yds ( doesnt specify 2 legs but then note they got up with 2 legs indiucating they were 4 legged before)

Yet at 100 yds he fired on them? What stopped him from firing sooner?

Now heres the "professional" deduction



If a person cannot discern a bear from a bigfoot ( using the standard description as a baseline) while you are watching them wrestle ( side note Did he ever report this to the Dr Ruth of Bigfootery Henner Fahrenbach?) then he doesnt need to be toting a rifle and firing at long range targets. One would think the movement would make it pretty certain.



So, the witness believed they were bears also



OK, it was a bigfoot because the individual hadnt seen an illustration of one and believes he shot a bear?

And people wonder why........



Talk about a sales pitch for justifying a report



This part should alarm the investigator



a guy cannot recognize bears at 35 ft but later when he kills one can back recognize what it wasnt? This dude doesnt need to be around firearms of game.

That definitely struck me funny.

Anyways, that was quite a story. I'm not sure what to make of it at this point.



Also funny! LOL



You guys have me crackin' up this morning!!

. . .I didn't realize there were so many comedians on this site.

Well I think there might be a mistake in the distance reported. The first distance of 35ft - 40ft is very close to get to one bigfoot with out it knowing you are there, let alone three of them. I don't think that would be possible. That is the distance of a school bus, plus he climbed up a 4ft embankment and got behind a log and they still didn't see or hear him, "I don't think sooo" I find this hard to believe at 40ft. But if this was at 35 to 40 yrds instead of feet, then I think this makes more sense. He might have been able to climb a 4ft embankment and get behind a log unnoticed, if he were at that distance With this distance the next measurement makes better sense also, 150 is 50yrds this falls in place 35yrds to 40yrds to then 50yrds. then the last measurement of 300ft fits in better as it is 100yrds. Now to the gun issue I don't think anyone in their right mind would go hunting Grizzly without testing his equipment and knowing exactly how he was shooting with it, so if this story is true this guy was not in his right mind and anything he says is not credible. I hunt deer in IL with a slug and shotgun I can put a slug through an oil filter at 100yrds, and I would never go after Grizzly like he did.

I once shot a buck from a tree stand, the buck was five yrds from my tree he turned and ran head first into the tree I was in and the whole tree shook. If I had been on the ground he might have killed me. It was nice though because I didn't have to track him because he was laying right under me when I climbed down.

I don't know if this bigfoot story is true or not but at the distances I mentioned I think it more plausible.

I see that LongGabber is back. Oh Boy. What does this even mean?
It doesn't make any sense Gabber.
Can " back recognize"
"be around firearms of game" I am confused.

Can you spell alcohol?

+100 points for hilarious and accurate nickname

B-e-e-r thats right isn't it?

Well I like Hennessey but cant spell it drunk, so yeah, B-E-E-R sounds right!

The difference in shooting a 180 vs. 150 grain bullet from a naught 6 at 100 yards would be so negligable that they may actually poke through the same hole, indescernably, on a target. The .30-06 (30 caliber, introduced in 1906) can be had with bullet weights ranging from 110 to 220 grains and was developed as a military cartridge expected to be accurate out to over 1000 (yes one thousand) yards. The 150 and 180 gr bullets fall right in the sweet spot of .30-06 accuracy as the 173 gr M1 boattail version seems to be (generally) the most accurate of all miltary versions.

At one hundred yards, a variance of more than 3 inches because of a switch from 150 to to 180 gr ammo would imply that the barrel of the rifle was made of bamboo.

Also,

Are we really talking about a guy out hunting bear in 1966 with a lever action rifle (what else did Marlin make?) that was so concerned with harmonics and barrel whip that he sent his rifle in after one shot... even though it made tight groups with a different bullet weight... never to shoot it again???? A rifle that he trusted to stalk dangerous game???? And that Marlin installed a bull barrell on it and he never even tried it out???? Since when can a lever action rifle chamber 30-06? No tube fed magazine allows pointed bullets to work without polymer tips.

Did Marlin chamber a .30-06 in 1966?

Was a Marlin bull barrel available in 1966?

Did he really have a pre '64 Winchester 70 ("the rifleman's rifle") but either he or the interviewer confused the name (honestly, Remington, Browning, even Ruger... but Marlin???). That would probably be the rifle one would have if they had read about barrel whip and harmonics, and were concerned about such things, but would they have abandoned it after a single shot from a different bullet weight than normal?

From a shooters perspective, that report read like TOTAL B.S.

He lost the coin toss.

Some research tells me the 180 grain load in .30-06 would likely have been a Nosler Partition, which seems to be available in that caliber with a round point. Marlin at the time were switching around calibers because 45-70 was getting rare, and they had just brought out the .444. Maybe he got something not too well thought out. Folks also apparently do shoot "pointed" bullets from tube fed, when they want to use a special load, the general advice being to treat it as a 2 shot repeater, with one in the chamber, one in the tube.

Anyway, the reason he spelled all that out was possibly because it was an unusual configuration, rather than bragging.

Ohhhh

Apparently Marlin had a bolt action in the late 50's based on imported actions, with microgroove rifling that did not handle high powered loads very well! Can't find more details on that though.

LOL!!!

I know whatcha mean.

haha, the way patty looked, he may have won.

I have to doubt this one. Nosler may have made a projectile with a round tip for .30-06 at the time (though 99% of their production would have been spitzer tips), but I cannot see a rifle manufacturer putting out a gun for one rare round, when the effect of someone reading the caliber on the side of the the barrell and placing rounds in it readily available at any place in america that sold rifle ammo could have caused catastrophic (very pontentially lethal) failure. This would have also been (to the best my knowledge) the first non-rimmed case chambered in a lever action rifle... it would have most likely been a bit of a story in the shooting press.

Maybe if someone had milled him a custom action and barrel... but then why would he send the rifle back to the manufacturer.

Also, if all this really did happen and a guy in 1966 is disappointed by .30-06 ballistics compared to anything else shot out of a lever action rifle at the time (realistically 600yd accuracy vs 200yd accuracy) to the point that he sends the gun back after a single shot then we most certainly have a bigfoot sighting turned in by the pickiest shooter in the history of the world. Every other person I know would have probably tried, say... at least the rest of the box of ammo (or even one freaking group!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) on some paper targets before ruling the rifle out forever!!!!!!

TOTAL B.S.