Bonjour!

Ok, iv'e read some reports where our big elusive hairy friend had been shot. Now here's my question: Here in Québec we don't have a 'gun culture' that said without any judgement over my southern friends and neighbors. That being said, i was wondering what would it take to harm or even kill a bf ? I don't want to start a pro kill anti kill thread here but i was curious since i never even SAW a gun in my life and i'm in my 30's (Except one time with my pal who is in the RCMP)

Seems to me that everytime a bf get shot, it ran away without even being injured, or so do i understand...

Merci!

according to arnold schwarznegger

IF IT BLEEDS! WE CAN KILL IT!

Hi Nothed,
Therein lies the problem doesn't it?
We have not killed one.
We do not even have proof that it bleeds, do we?
This lack of simple biological evidence (beyond tracks and unidentified hairs) is the greatest hurdle in BF research today IMHO.
I suspect that most who post on this board believe that Bf (if it exists at all) is a mammal, most likely a primate. Mammals and primates bleed and die all the time and not only when they are shot. All sorts of accidents and natural occurances can kill or wound an animal. While bodies of dead animals don't exactly litter the countryside, they can and have been found. There are stories of BF being been shot at all over North America - not just in the south - so why don't we have a body or body part?
Is everyone always that bad a shot? Why is BF always wounded in a way that allows it to make an escape?
When hit by a car or caught in a natural disaster why does it always get away?
It is often said that the most simple explanation is usually the best. In this case the most simple explanation is that BF doesn't exist.
Think about it.
I have, and I don't like what the verdict that keeps coming back at me.
No BF.
Jan

I talked about this in another thread.It seems that BF has grown into this creature that cannot be killed.Either people are real bad shots,or BF is matrix quick.Big game hunters have been taking down elephants,buffalo,grizzly bears,rhinos,etc. in one shot using big bore hunting rifles.I refuse to believe that BF has any "special" protection against a well placed bullet(s).

That pretty much says it all from where I sit. The absence of tangible remains is the ten ton sasquatch that dominates this problem. There are plenty of plausible explanations why remains would be scarce. But when the sum total of all known remains is none, nada, zip...the explanations begin to look a little lame.

I continue to think the balance of the evidence favors the existence of this animal. If nothing turns up in the next ten years, that balance will probably shift for me.

-Vern

I spend a lot of time in the woods. I don't see dead squirrels, deer and other animals littering the forest floors. Does that mean animals don't exist either?
This animals gift from nature is elussiveness. (did that come accross right?)

im thinkin aa 30/30 minmum but you have to have a real good shot placement

Take away the;

1) sighting reports

2) Footprint pictures and casts


...what other actual evidence or proof is there?

We have things in the realm of speculation...

hairs,vocalizations,books,blobsquatch pics and vids. G/P film

These sources of speculation ,together or seperately, prove absolutly...nothing!

And all the science of the 21st century cannot prove the existence of this creature. Isn't it interesting that all other creatures in Cryptozoology are myths..only Bigfoot is considered definitly real by the faithful

I'm new here and I'm not showing any disrespect to the regulars but GC, doesn't the Mystery ape discovery prove to you or anyone that there is a chance it could be a possible reality?

I spend a fair amount of thim in the woods too. And I usually don't see dead squirrels or deer. But sometimes I do, especially skeletonized deer which have been thoroughly scavenged. And I see carcasses of both of them by the roadside--quite regularly.

I understand what you are saying bG, but the fact that something isn't a regular experience for one person isn't necessarily a good explanation why it never occurs for any of 300 million people

-Vern

well it is rare for everyone to see a dead animal in the forest period...it just doesnt happen often.

No,you don't see dead animals often.They are eaten quickly and their remains join the detritus of the forrest floor soon thereafter.I think the point is that we have people saying they've put bullets into a BF and have nothing to show for it.No blood,no body,no tufts of hair,no foot prints,nada.

Jan and Vern. You two both echo my feelings on this. The verdict does not look. But I still have some hope.


I think most instanced of shooting BS and no body has a lot to do with.

1. Outright BS
2. Hunter wont admit they blew a shot and missed completely.
3. Person used a light caliber.

Natural causes and no body? Maybe they bury their dead or maybe they even canibalise their dead.

Roadside collisions? More than likely a bear was hit or other large animal. Overactive human imagination adds the rest.

Or

Maybe BF are like house cats and run off to die in seclusion if possible.

Bigfoot is not the only creature romping around about the countryside that the above statements hold true for. In Australia there have been numerous sightings of the Thylacine, aka Tasmanian Tiger believed to be extinct since the death of the last one in captivity on July 9, 1936. The big difference here is that we do know for a fact that they did exist at one time, but as far as evidence it's the same thing, sightings primarily and some blurry photographs. Yet nobody has been able to shoot one, none have been hit by a car, and none have been captured. Does this mean they don't exist? Absolutely not, and it wouldn't be the first time something that has been decreed to be extinct suddenly shows up again.

A good example of this is the Coelacanth, once declared by scientists to have been extinct for at least 65 MILLION YEARS! Yet in 1938 one shows up in a fishing net off the coast of Africa. The Lord Howe Island Phasmid, The Bavarian Pine Mole, The Long Legged Warbler of Fiji, all declared extinct, all have been rediscovered to still exist, in the case of the Warbler declared extinct in 1894, rediscovered in 2003. And the list goes on.

In the case of scientists and sceptics saying things don't exist because they refuse to rely on eye witness reports, tracks and other anecdotal evidence, how many times have they been proven wrong before? For centuries they had heard about an animal that was supposedly crossed between a giraffe and and antelope, witnesses were scoffed at for the same reasons those who believe in Bigfoot are scoffed at. Yet in 1901 the Okapi of Africa was finally recognized by science, as a living creature, and the sceptics had no choice but to follow in like. The mountain gorilla followed the same path, stories ensued for years about their existence, science and sceptics pooh poohed again, and in 1902 Science had no choice but to once again accept that a creature only known by anecdotal evidence did in fact exist.

You may be thinking that sure, but that was over 100 years ago, science knows a lot more now. True, and they are learning more each day, but they still don't know everyting. If you think we aren't still discovering new animals today, you're wrong again. Since 1980, there have been 38 new species of primates discovered around the world, since 1992 they have disovered 7 new species of animals in Viet Nam, from squirrel size to a Wild Bull, and in 2001 scientists discovered 2 new species of frogs, snakes and toads as well as a new species of lizards in the rain forest of Bolivia.

Anecdotal evidence has it's value, and as the evidence pours in from more and more sources, the probability that it exists increases proportionally.

Even known large game doesn't automatically drop with every shot. I'm not a hunter, but at least a few in this very forum have related stories about shooting a deer, for example, and having to chase it down quite a distance.

Lewis and Clark ran into several grizzlies in their travels, and have a few stories of pumping musket ball after musket ball into these terrifying animals that would not drop. But, grizzlies can be killed with the right firearm, skill, and placement.

Sasquatch aren't immortal. They aren't made of titanium. They aren't ghosts. They are flesh and blood.

StinkFoot Posted on Feb 11 2004, 03:23 PM
[QUOTE]I think the point is that we have people saying they've put bullets into a BF and have nothing to show for it.No blood,no body,no tufts of hair,no foot prints,nada.[QUOTE]


i have heard is that most of the shot at a bf are at night and there normally not postive if they hit one or not

Yes. If, that is, they are anything more than figments of our fertile imaginations.

-Vern

I agree with the following points made already: gotta have good shot placement, gotta have high enough caliber, fact that they are probably strong enough to get far away to die hidden if they are shot, we don't see alot of carcasses in the wild. One thing not mentioned is that of the one carcass seen of black bears who's population is over 300,000 in the U.S. we should not be too hopeful of finding the carcass of a rare animal of much higher intelligence not to mention the shyness of this creature and its ability to hide in plain sight who's population is believed to be only around 2000+. Its just not gonna happen. I don't know what the odds on that would be but they are way up there.

Hi Vern,
I have been wondering about this animal for 40 years.
There was an interesting thread (or portion thereof) months ago on BFF where someone had asked 'how long are you willing to wait' before deciding that BF exists only in the forests of the human mind. Responding at the time I think I said 5 years.
After corresponding with Streamrunner and others on the board who are engaged in field research and believe that they have seen this animal, I might be willing to go out to 10 years but not beyond that.
I'll poke around and see if I can find a link to the thread.
Jan

Well heck. That makes you a real vet, Jan. I've only wondered for 37 years, since I first saw clips from the P&G film. Wait 35 or 40 years, what's another 10?

-Vern

Well, I am hoping that the Big Feller is out there. I would love for the Big Feller to be out there
But if it came down to me believing in the Big Feller just on the evidence ...for/against.....and nothing else? No brainer..he doesn't exist!

. Cuz Bigfoot got no burden of proof for its existence.

But here is where faith comes in! In faith combined with reports and footprints..I believe in Bigfoot.
That's probably not very smart...but there it is.

[quote=VernF,Feb 11 2004, 05:07 PM] [/QUOTE]
Well heck. That makes you a real vet, Jan. I've only wondered for 37 years, since I first saw clips from the P&G film. Wait 35 or 40 years, what's another 10?

-Vern [/quote]
I was lucky I guess. By virtue of proximity I was sort of in on the ground floor of BF. When we were kids we used to visit my grandparents in N. California (Mendocino and Albion) almost every summer from 1955 on. I can remember listening to the radio when I was 10 or so and hearing the announcer talk about a bigfoot sighting near Fort Bragg, I think it was. Fort Bragg was only 20 or 30 miles away. We had been there a few days before.
I asked my Grandpa what was a Bigfoot? He told me about them and the people who said they had seen one (I think he was a skeptic but can't remember). But immediately afterwards, I went out to camp and play in the redwoods in back of the house and I was on the lookout for BF and I have been on the lookout ever since.
Then in the early 60's I read Sanderson's book and in 67 the Patterson film came out.
I have been all over N. California since but the excitement and wonder of the Redwoods near Mendocino have never worn off. If BF exists he is most certainly to be found there among the streams of sunlight and the shadows of the great trees.
I'll be going back there early this summer and you can bet I will be still looking.
Jan

OK this is the way i see it. lets say a 30.06 for example makes a hole. on a small animal like a coyote the hole is large compared to the body witch only holds so much blood. little animal little blood big hole end of story.
On a large animal there's even less a hole due to that fact there probably only going to be a entry and no exit hole. then theres lot of blood in him and long hair that will hold most blood on it forming a clot that will prevent any more from leakin out. he then will get to a safe place where he can rest and some what heal. unless it infects and kills him latter. He will probably not go to a busy road to die along side. most shots would probably not be a well placed shot unless it was executed by someone with nerves of steal. Like me or maybe a few others.

I don't think shooting bigfoot is the problem, TRACKING bigfoot is the problem.

Example: You can track an elephant, lion, tiger, mountain lion, deer or grizzly and most of their habits are discernable. If you shoot an elephant you can be fairly certain he will not climb a tree. Same for a deer. These animals are fairly predictable in their ways even if that includes dangerous unpredictable behaviour.


I read a lot of different and varied claims about bigfoot research but I have not read where anyone has claimed to be able to track a bigfoot with any consistancy.

If we can learn to do this then maybe we finally catch us a booger.

Well, good luck with that, Jan. I hope you have an unambiguous sighting. Among other reasons, I'd like to have unreserved confirmation from someone I think is trustworthy.

And if you see nothing else, being in old growth forest is compensation enough. There is precious little of it left in relative terms and, as you noted, it can be mighty majestic.

-Vern

I think if the scientific community becomes *seriously* involved it can be proved. Once again, look at the bondo ape discovery in Africa. You have a upright walking ape and the interest from the science community is luke warm at best. People just don't take this stuff seriously, I wish it were different.

HiBigGun!
Don't get me wrong..I truly believe in the Big Feller. But it is not solely based on the evidence. I feel that we should know more by now!

NOT TRUE! vern
their is actually alot of old growth trimber left.!
you just have to show a little patience. it won't fully mature for a nother hundred or two years.

I guess 40 years is getting pretty close for me also. I think skepticism is the smartest approach. The lack of a body is obviously the 500-pound gorilla (to paraphrase Vern) on our backs. The weight of the evidence has to leap this obviously very high hurdle. For me it does. For me the answer must be luck (the bigfoot are very lucky) and probably extremely rare and they live in a territory that we can only poke around the boundaries. If you were to throw a dart at a map of northern California in Humbolt or Del Norte Counties for example, I would be willing to bet that you could not reach the place that the dart hit without extreme difficulty and if you did reach it, you would do so having every animal in miles around knowing you were there. And if that is too easy for you, try reaching it at night without a flashlight when it seems that is when Mr. BF is making his rounds.

That´s not the whole truth is it. The animal is walking on all four like a regular chimp.

It turned out to be a Chimp, Gorilla hybrid right?

I'll be coming up to 40 yrs soon, as well, believing in this critter who.. goes out of its way.. to test that belief!
Hell, we've been wondering about the Big Feller for more years then many people on this board have been alive. I think it is going to be like Green said...not in this lifetime. And that is such a shame. You'd thing that we would have received some sort of reward for our faith by now.
But I guess Mr. Bigfoot didn't ask for our faith, or belief, not does he want it! So we only have ourselves to blame for buying tickets to an event which will probably never happen.
In almost 40 yrs nothing has happened to make a body think that the day is near when we get to meet Mr. Bigfoot. Except for the Patterson film, which gave us all hope! Our knowledge does not equal his wish not to be disturbed. And he has no interest in our time table over his own.
Oh people can KiYi about this evidence, or that evidence, argue about it, debate over it but it brings us no closer to meeting the fellow.
I'm afraid that he doesn't care about our evidence..or probably much about us either! But there is still a few years to go yet...might as well spend them hoping.

Jan V, could you be more specific on Bigfoot beeing shot all over norht america?I dont recall reading very many reports of shooting incidents...not sure but i think ive got more fingers in my hands than these reports?

This is a good point you make here COCO about the tracking but this is still only half true. Not only does someone have to possess the skill to find and follow the trail of a Bigfoot over varied terrain, this person must also have the courage to follow it all the way home. I doubt if many people would be willing to walk directly into a Bigfoot den.

About 300 years ago, on hearing that a French courtier had said he had never known fear, another courtier replied, "Then he's never pinched out a candle."

I think there are people who'd go up to a Bigfoot. Gimlin said that he could have spurred his horse close enough to lasso Patty--and he wanted to follow her on horseback after Patterson's film ran out, but Patterson wouldn't let him. (Having a horse may add to one's nerve.) But Gimlin-types are fairly rare, unfortunately.

I don´t really trust Gimlin here! The way 95% of you would react if you saw it that close would be the same way Freeman reacted when he made his film.

Trust me when I say that you would be too shocked to do more then hold the camera steady unless you have been so close to a BF before.

If you quickly think of your options/stand there and be safe or maybe get killed. or follow and maybe get killed and maybe not. theirs little differents. when baiting bear was legal here. I would stay till it was too dark to shoot. I could hear bear around me and was kind of nervous walkin out. not being able to see anything more than 5 or 10 feet in front of me. I just decided it didn't much matter what I thought. it wouldn't change the outcome of anything. just hope for the best and push on!

Gimlin's in that 5% then. He's a cool customer, not easily rattled. Some people are just that way. And of course the cowboy culture encouraged that sort of unflustered attitude, which must have made it somewhat more common.

I truthely beleive that Bigfoot is HIGHLY intelligent. Thus meaning it knows how to heal himself if shot... Like with different Herbs, and other materials since it lives in Forest and creeks where theres a lot of minerals that can lead to QUICK healing.

Speaking of bears, there's a picture by the famous 19th century western artist Charles Russell showing a group of mounted cowboys lassoing a grizzly. They have two ropes around it and are pulling in opposite directions. It must have been exciting until they got that second rope attached.

Lots of 19th century folks on the frontier took on huge risks.

PiRanha Posted on Feb 15 2004, 10:00 PM


I highly doubt they know how to heal themselves. If you have the inteligence to heal yourself than I think youd know how to make tools and other items to make life more luxorious out there. what I mean by tools it maby a bow? THe indains knew how to heal themselves and then they made axes,bows,arrows and other items. So if they know how to heal themselves then I think thed know how to make othe items. To my knowledge there have been know documented sighting of them trying to heal themselves or having been seen w/ other "man made" items?

Wow! I just love 'Kit' Russel's art work! You can almost step into his paintings!
And I am pretty sure all of his paintings are from 'things and events' which he personally observed.

"They made Montana for the wild ones.
..for the Pagans, for the Sioux and Crow
..and God saved the best just fot Charlie..
You better get her on down before she goes.
You better get her on down, for she's sure to go..!

[Ian Tyson; Cowboyography]