Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

Isn't Glickman the guy that calculated Patty's weight to be 1,957 lbs?

Yes. He used a formula. Funny how sceptics never seem to read the rest of the report.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm not particularly sure why the fact that NA's have bigfoots in their traditional stories is giving everyone such heartburn. They also have bigfoots in basket designs, songs, and rock art (most famously the Hairy Man pictographs in California). As an anthropologist, I find it very intriguing because there are only two choices: either these animals are real, hence why the stories are so widespread OR its completely mythical and then why are the stories so widespread? At no point have I ever stated that these stories are evidence that bigfoot is real; but they are intriguing and worthy of study.

As an anthropologist I can't understand how you could reason things that way. I'm no anthropologist but I have had a deep and abiding interest in the field for much of my life. Native Americans having bigfoot in their traditions is not a fact at all but an interpretation by those who are seeking beyond objectivity support for the notion that bigfoot is a real species. As an anthropologist it seems you are ignoring traditions of beings all over the world that could be equally tailored to fit a bigfoot description. JMHO. Also, I think you should very soon find Correa having much more to say on this than I.

 

[Hairy Man]

It's unclear if you're saying the BFRO isn't there to find anything or the expeditions aren't. IMO that doesn't address why they don't find anything. They were and still claim to be a serious organization devoted to solving the 'mystery'. Even if you excuse the expeditions it doesn't account for the inability of the organization to obtain reliable evidence. No such creatures being there does.

They can claim all they want to be a serious organization, but they aren't (any longer). They aren't looking for evidence on expeditions...they are looking for participants to have a good time and have an "experience" sitting in cars along roads. Of course that addresses why they don't find anything...you'd have to actually look.

Respectfully, Hairy Man, if you can only address the PNW in terms of sasquatch than I don't understand how you can be so certain that real creatures or the most likely explanation. As I said, you can't have the bigfoot phenomenom and speak only of the PNW.

Sure I can; for the same reason I don't talk about hair or prints. If I can't speak about those areas with any intelligence, then I shouldn't be speaking about them.

Next question for the Q&A:

What do you think is the most likely cause for the completely widespread nature of the bigfoot phenomenom?

Define widespread. U.S.A.? North America? or bigger?

 

[Mad Hom]

Yes. He used a formula. Funny how sceptics never seem to read the rest of the report.

LAL...if dude is trying to tell us that Bigfeetsus tips the scales at nearly 2,000lbs ...what good is the rest of the report??

 

[LAL]

Well LaL...I'm wondering than if Fudd's Kodiak/PWI theory holds any liquid...that is if we don't have much in the way of Native American Lore East of the Mississippi why are we seeing so many Bigfeetsus there (allegedly).

I mean there is No lore there just like on Kodiak Island...yet we have Bigfeetsus howling in the night all over the Buckeye State...and Skunk Apes skulking about the everglades...what gives?!?

John Green noted there are areas that had very early reports from settler days that then had nothing for decades that now have reports again. He suggested sasquatches could be susceptible to the same diseases that wiped out so many of the native humans. (One of Dian Fossey's biggest fears about tourism was that her beloved gorillas would be infected with common human diseases that could be fatal to them.)

I would add the extensive logging and destruction of habitat that went on in the east.

Previously endangered species such as wolves, mountain lions, wolverines and Bald Eagles seem to be making a comeback in many areas of the country. I think it's quite possible sasquatches are too.

The Everglades protected the Seminole from extinction.

 

[Hairy Man]

As an anthropologist I can't understand how you could reason things that way. I'm no anthropologist but I have had a deep and abiding interest in the field for much of my life. Native Americans having bigfoot in their traditions is not a fact at all but an interpretation by those who are seeking beyond objectivity support for the notion that bigfoot is a real species. As an anthropologist it seems you are ignoring traditions of beings all over the world that could be equally tailored to fit a bigfoot description. JMHO. Also, I think you should very soon find Correa having much more to say on this than I.

As a native myself, I would like you to show me an example where a bigfooter has said a traditional animal was a bigfoot and a member of that tribe denied it.

I have been involved with natives all my life. The stories I gather come from them. If the Yokuts state that this pictograph is Hairy Man, then I'm willing to take them at their word (and since that info was recorded in the late 1800s, I'm fairly sure white people didn't influence that opinion). If you, or Correa, what to take issue with that, you have to take it to them.

I'm not ignoring the traditions of beings all over the world that could equally be tailored to fit bigfoot...I don't study other cultures...I don't have any space left in my brain for other countries. I think you are expecting too much from me.

 

[kitakaze]

I think that's significant, especially since Kodiak does not.

I also point out that the reports on Admiralty are few when compared to POW and Revellagigedo.

So:

Revellagigedo/POW = scores of reports
Admiralty = a few reports
Kodiak = no reports

Now, what does that tell you?

I think the first thing it tells me is that if we are to accept these reports as legitimate than few or scores is irrelevant. If sasquatch exist on Admiralty Island than they are doing so with an approximated 1600 brown bears to share habitat with.

Do you think there are sasquatches on Admiralty Island?

(BTW, as we've both seen, the mood of the debate has elsewhere become vociferous and I'm not interested in pointing fingers but it's good to know that such will never be the case here.)

 

[William Parcher]

It's unclear if you're saying the BFRO isn't there to find anything or the expeditions aren't. IMO that doesn't address why they don't find anything. They were and still claim to be a serious organization devoted to solving the 'mystery'. Even if you excuse the expeditions it doesn't account for the inability of the organization to obtain reliable evidence...

None of that should even matter. Nearly all Bigfoot encounters come from people who weren't looking for them at the time. This makes any BFRO expedition a prime candidate for documenting a BF. They are carrying many cameras as well, right?

 

[Huntster]

...One well-placed shot from a high-powered rifle is probably going to drop the biggie pronto......

Not a hunter, are you?

You remind me of Meriwether Lewis:

They learn.......Do you?:

Capt. Clark, October 20th, 1804--Great numbers of Buffalow Elk & Deer, Goats. our hunters killed 10 Deer & a Goat to day and wounded a white Bear, I saw several fresh tracks of those animals which is 3 times as large as a mans track.

Wanna' put the bad mouth on Capt. Clark, Mr. Know-it-All?

More:

Capt. Lewis, April 13th, 1805--we found a number of carcasses of the buffalo lying along shore, which had been drowned by falling through the ice in winter, and lodged on shore by the high water when the river broke up about the first of this month. we saw also many tracks of the white bear of enormous size, along the river shore and about the carcasses of the buffalo, on which I presume they feed. we have not as yet seen one of these animals, tho' their tracks are so abundant and recent. the men as well as ourselves, are anxious to meet with some of these bear. the Indians give a very formidable account of the streng[t]h and ferocity of this anamal, which they never dare to attack but in parties of six, eight, or ten persons; and are even then frequently defeated with the loss of one or more of their party. the savages attack this anamal with their bows and arrows and the indifferent guns with which the traders furnish them, with these they shoot with such uncertainty and at so short a distance, that (unless shot thro' head or heart wound not mortal) they frequently mis their aim & fall a sacrefice to the bear. two Minetaries were killed during the last winter in an attack on a white bear. this anamall is said more frequently to attack a man on meeting with him, than to flee from him. When the Indians are about to go in quest of the white bear, previous to their departure they paint themselves and perform all those supersticious rites commonly observed when they are about to make war uppon a neighbouring nation.

More:

....tho' we continue to see many tracks of the bear we have seen but very few of them, and those are at a great distance generally runing from us; I th[re]fore presume that they are extreemly wary and shy; the Indian account of them dose not corrispond with our experienc so far.....

First contact:

Capt. Lewis, April 29th 1805--Set out this morning at the usual hour. The wind was moderate. I walked on shore with one man. About 8 A.M. we fell in with two brown or yellow [white] bear, both of which we wounded. one of them made his escape; the other, after my firing on him, pursued me 70 or 80 yards but fortunately had been so badly wounded that he was unable to pursue so closely as to prevent my charging my gun; we again repeated our fir[e] and killed him. it was a male, not fully grown, we estimated his weight at 300 pounds, not having the means of ascertaining it precisely. The legs of this bear are somewhat longer than those of the black, as are its tallons and tusks incomparably larger and longer. the testicles, which in the black bear are placed pretty well back between the thyes and contained in one pouch like those of the dog and most quadrupeds, are in the yellow or brown bear, placed much further forward, and are suspended in separate pouches, from two to four inches asunder; it's colour is yellowish brown, the eyes small, black, and piercing; The front of the fore legs near the feet is usually black; the fur is finer, thicker, and deeper than that of the black bear. these are all the particulars in which this animal appeared to me to differ from the black bear; it is a much more furious and formidable animal, and will frequently pursue the hunter when wounded. it is astonishing to see the wounds they will bear before they can be put to death. the Indians may well fear this animal, equiped as they generally are with their bows and arrows or indifferent fuzees; but in the hands of skillful riflemen, they are by no means as formidable or dangerous as they have been presented.

Time to learn:

Capt. Lewis, May 5th, 1805--Captain Clark and Drouilliard killed the largest brown bear this evening which we have yet seen. It was a most tremendous-looking animal, and extremely hard to kill. Notwithstanding he had five balls through his lungs and five others in various parts, he swam more than half the distance across the river, to a sandbar, and it was at least twenty minutes before he died. He did not attempt to attack, but fled, and made the most tremendous roaring from the moment he was shot. We had no means of weighing this monster. Captain Clark thought he would weigh 500 pounds. For my own part, I think the estimate too small by 100 pounds. He measured 8 feet 7 1/2 inches from the nose to the extremity of the hind feet; 5 feet 10 1/2 inches around the breast; 1 foot 11 inches around the middle of the arm; and 3 feet 11 inches around the neck. His talons, which were five in number on each foot, were 4 3/8 inches in length. He was in good order. We therefore divided him among the party, and made them boil the oil and put it in a cask for future use. The oil is as hard as hog's lard when cool-much more so than that of the black bear. This bear differs from the common black bear in several respects: its talons are much longer and more blunt; its tail shorter; its hair, which is of a reddish or bay brown, is longer, thicker, and finer than that of the black bear, his liver, lungs, and heart are much larger, even in proportion with his size. The heart, particularly, was as large as that of a large ox. His maw was also ten times the size of black bear, and was filled with flesh and fish. His testicles were pendent from the belly and placed four inches asunder in separate bags or pouches. This animal also feeds on roots and almost every species of wild fruit.

The stage is getting set:

Capt. Lewis, May 6th, 1805--saw a brown bear swim the river above us, he disappeared before we could get in reach of him; I find that the curiosity of our party is pretty well satisfied with rispect to this anamal, the formidable appearance of the male bear killed on the 5th added to the difficulty with which they die, even when shot through the vital parts, has staggered the resolution [of] several of them [i.e., the men.], others however seem keen for action with the bear; I expect these gentlemen will give us some amusement sho[r]tly as they soon begin now to coppolate.

Getting a bit rattled:

Capt. Lewis, May 11th, 1805--About 5 P.M. my attention was struck by one of the Party running at a distance towards us and making signs and hallowing as if in distress. I ordered the perogues to put to, and waited untill he arrived; I now found that it was Bratton the man with the soar hand whom I had permitted to walk on shore, he arrived so much out of breath that it was several minutes before he could tell what had happened; At length he informed me that in the woody bottom on the Lard. side, about 1l/2 [miles] below us, he had shot a brown bear which immediately turned on him and pursued him a considerable distance but he had wounded it so badly that it could not overtake him; I immediately turned out with seven of the party in quest of this monster, we at length found his trale and persued him about a mile by the blood through very thick brush of rosebushes and the large leafed willow; We finally found him concealed in some very thick brush and shot him through the skull with two balls; we proceeded [to] dress him as soon as possible, we found him in good order; it was a monstrous beast, not quite so large as that we killed a few days past but in all other rispects much the same the hair is remarkably long, fine, and rich, tho' he appears parshally to have discharged his winter coat; we now found that Bratton had shot him through the center of the lungs, notwithstanding which he had pursued him near half a mile and had returned more than double that distance and with his talons had prepared himself a bed in the earth about 2 feet deep and five long and was perfectly alive when we found him which could not have been less than two hours after he received the wound; these bears, being so hard to die, reather intimedates us all; I must confess that I do not like the gentlemen and had rather fight two Indians than one bear; there is no other chance to conquer them by a single shot but by shooting them through the brains, and this becomes difficult in consequence of two large muscles which cover the sides of the forehead and the sharp projection of the center of the frontal bone, which is also of a pretty good thickness. the fleece and skin were as much as two men could possibly carry. by the time we returned the sun had set and I determined to remain here all night, and directed the cooks to render the bear's oil and put it in the kegs which was done. there was about eight gallons of it.

Cocky, yet still "reserved":

Capt. Lewis, May 12th, 1805--Set out at an early hour, the weather clear and Calm; I walked on shore this morning for the benifit of exersize which I much wanted, and also to examine the country and its productions, in these excurtions I most generally went alone, armed with my rifle and espontoon; thus equipped, I feel myself more than an equal match for a brown bear provided I get him in open woods or near the water, but feel myself a little diffident with respect to an attack in the open plains, I have therefore come to a resolution to act on the defencive only, should I meet these gentlemen in the open country.

Time to learn:

Capt. Lewis, May 14th, 1805--In the evening the men in two of the rear canoes discovered a large brown bear lying in the open grounds about 300 paces from the river, and six of them went out to attack him, all good hunters; they took the advantage of a small eminence which concealed them, and got within 40 paces of him unperceived, two of them reserved their fires as had been previously conscerted, the four others fired nearly at the same time and put each his bullet through him, two of the balls passed through the bulk of both lobes of his lungs, in an instant, this monster ran at them with open mouth, the two who had reserved their fir[e]s discharged their pieces at him as he came towards them, boath of them struck him, one only slightly, and the other fortunately broke his shoulder, this, however, only retarded his motion for a moment only, the men unable to reload their guns, took to flight, the bear pursued and had very nearly overtaken them before they reached the river; two of the party betook themselves to a canoe, and the others separated an[d] concealed themselves among the willows, reloaded their pieces, each discharged his piece at him as they had an opportunity they struck him several times again but the guns served only to direct the bear to them, in this manner he pursued two of them separately so close that they were obliged to throw away their guns and pouches and throw themselves into the river, altho' the bank was nearly twenty feet perpendicular; so enraged was this anamal that he plunged into the river only a few feet behind the second man he had compelled [to] take refuge in the water, when one of those who still remained on shore shot him through the head and finally killed him; they then took him on shore and butch[er]ed him when they found eight balls had passed through him in different directions; the bear being old the flesh was indifferent, they therefore only took the skin and fleece; the latter made us several gallons of oil.

"One well-placed shot from a high-powered rifle is probably going to drop the biggie pronto" (your words).

Clarke's words:

Capt. Lewis, May 19, 1805--Captain Clark walked on shore with two of the hunters and killed a brown bear; notwithstanding that it was shot through the heart, it ran at its usual pace nearly a quarter of a mile before it fell.

[Clark records the same incident.]

Capt. Clark, May 19th, 1805--I walked on Shore with two men we killed a white or grey bear; not withstanding that it was shot through the heart it ran at it's usial pace near a quarter mile before it fell.

[On the Missouri River near the confluence with the Musselshell River, now in Garfield County, Montana.]

Imagine this:

Capt. Lewis, May 22nd, 1805--We encamped earlyer this evening than usual in order [to] render the oil of a bear which we killed. I do not believe that the Black bear common to the lower part of this river and the Atlantic States, exists in this quarter; we have neither seen one of them nor their tracks, which would be easily distinguished by it's shorness of tallons when compared with the brown grizly or white bear. I believe that it is the same species or family of bears which assumes all those colours at different ages and seasons of the year.

We encamped earlier this evening than usual in order to render the oil of a bear which we killed. I do not believe that the black bear, common to the lower part of this river and the Atlantic states, exists in this quarter. We have neither seen one of them nor their tracks, which would be easily distinguished by its shortness of talons when compared with the brown grizzly, or white bear. I believe that it is the same species or family of bears which assumes all those colors at different ages and seasons of the year.

Not done yet:

Capt. Lewis, June 2nd, 1805--Accordingly I walked on shore most of the day with some of the hunters for that purpose and killed 6 Elk 2 buffal[o]e 2 Mule deer and a bear, these anamals were all in good order we therfore took as much of the meat as our canoes and perogues could conveniently carry. the bear was very near catching Drewyer; it also pursued Charbono who fired his gun in the air as he ran but fortunately eluded the vigilence of the bear by secreting himself very securely in the bushes untill Drewyer finally killed it by a shot in the head; the (only) shot indeed that will conquer the farocity of those tremendious anamals.

Done? Nope.

"Science", 1805 (remember that these were "educated" men, and that the brown bear should have been well known in Europe):

Capt. Lewis, June 13th, 1805--I am induced to believe that the Brown, the white and the Grizly bear of this country are the same species only differing in colour from age or more probably from the same natural cause that many other anamals of the same family differ in colour. one of those which we killed yesterday was of a creem-coloured white while the other in company with it was of the common bey or r[e]dish brown, which seems to be the most usual colour of them. the white one appeared from it's tallons and teath to be the youngest; it was smaller than the other, and although a monstrous beast we supposed that it had not yet attained it's growth and that it was a little upwards of two years old. the young cubs which we have killed have always been of a brownish white, but none of them as white as that we killed yesterday. one other that we killed sometime since which I mentioned sunk under some driftwood and was lost, had a white stripe or list of about eleven inches wide entirely arround his body just behind the shoalders, and was much darker than these bear usually are. the grizly bear we have never yet seen. I have seen their tallons in possession of the Indians and from their form I am preswaded if there is any difference between this species and the brown or white bear it is very inconsiderable. Ther is no such anamal as a black bear in this open country or of that species generally denominated the black bear.

The Lewis and Clark journals offer a view of the "educated" of 1800 as they learn.

You will never learn because you don't want to learn.

You wish to teach that of which you know not.

I pity those who "learn" from you.

 

[LAL]

LAL...if dude is trying to tell us that Bigfeetsus tips the scales at nearly 2,000lbs ...what good is the rest of the report??

Read it and find out. This was a three year study.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi1.html

What good is the formula if it doesn't work for all anthropoid apes?

Krantz used water columns for his estimates. Patterson used his eyes.

The weight of the bone mass may have been underestimated, the height is not certain and a few inches miscalculation could really throw off the weight. Glickman might be closer to the truth than we know.


http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi1.html

 

[Huntster]

Well LaL...I'm wondering than if Fudd's Kodiak/PWI theory holds any liquid...

No you're not.

You're treading water.

...that is if we don't have much in the way of Native American Lore East of the Mississippi why are we seeing so many Bigfeetsus there (allegedly).

Getting ready to read Glickman yet?

I mean there is No lore there just like on Kodiak Island...yet we have Bigfeetsus howling in the night all over the Buckeye State...and Skunk Apes skulking about the everglades...what gives?!?

I'm not sure, but I've got a clue.

You?

 

[Mad Hom]

No you're not.

You're treading water.



Getting ready to read Glickman yet?



I'm not sure, but I've got a clue.

You?

Cryptic as ever Fudd... but here's the deal...

Is there a body yet??

No??

Alrighty than...than Bigfeetsus is BS is the only likely explanation until such time as you have a body.

You can share scary stories, and stretch native American lore all you want Fuddley...none of it produces a body now does it??

Quote Glickman all day long till your hearts content...he is merely preaching to the choir...he could claim Bigfeetsus had horns and used Elk femurs as baseball bats you people would swallow it hook line and sinker. Glickman is irrelevent till a body is found...in fact Bigfeetsus is irrelevent...until a body is found.

 

[Mad Hom]

Read it and find out. This was a three year study.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi1.html

What good is the formula if it doesn't work for all anthropoid apes?

Krantz used water columns for his estimates. Patterson used his eyes.

The weight of the bone mass may have been underestimated, the height is not certain and a few inches miscalculation could really throw off the weight. Glickman might be closer to the truth than we know.


http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/nasi1.html

LAL....do you believe a Bigfeetsus could weigh 2,000 lbs??

 

[kitakaze]

They can claim all they want to be a serious organization, but they aren't (any longer). They aren't looking for evidence on expeditions...they are looking for participants to have a good time and have an "experience" sitting in cars along roads. Of course that addresses why they don't find anything...you'd have to actually look.

The 'any longer' part of your statement is important because the did fairly claim to be a serious organization for most of their existence. They have looked for reliable evidence and that any determined private organization should fail in methodic attempts to find any for a creature so widely reported reflects not on the organization but on whether or not such a creature actually exists.

Sure I can; for the same reason I don't talk about hair or prints. If I can't speak about those areas with any intelligence, then I shouldn't be speaking about them.

Then you might agree that anthropological observations have done nothing in terms of establishing the validity of claims of a creature so widely reported. Socio-anthropological obsevations on the other hand...

Define widespread. U.S.A.? North America? or bigger?

For this discussion, North America.

 

[Hairy Man]

I believe it is a pdf of the book and it did appear to be searchable. It's about 16 megabytes. I looked at it briefly. It has beautiful pics. I will look at it again later.

I apologize greatly LTC for not getting back to you sooner. I also walked out of my house without all the references I was going to give you because my head is pounding due to a major leak in the ceiling of my newly remodeled bathroom.

I looked through 10 different books and found quite a few references to Kushtaka as well as stories. Mr. Otter Man appears to be a little bit of everything. In several stories, he's in bipedal form, kidnapping kids with a basket on his back (and the descriptions are large and hairy [otter fur?]), whistles, has horrific screams, and smells bad. In other stories, he a regular human living in a house with a fire, and in others he's helping people out at sea.

Joseph Campbell in his "Ways of the Animals Powers" book series described Kushtaka as a problematic trickster, in that he has two different forms - a horrible monster-cannibal and one that is helpful and friendly (that can shape-shift from human to otter and back). Now, I don't know if the shape-shifting also applies to the cannibal, and its a three-way shift or what (and please note I don't believe for a minute that animals or people shape shift). Anyhow, it's apparent to me that the association to bigfoot is based on the stories where the Kushtaka is the monster-cannibal, but I could find no statements that Kushtaka = modern day bigfoot. Campbell did state that Kushtaka is similar to another being for a tribe listed in South America, but I didn't have a chance to follow up on what that being is.

 

[Huntster]

Please forgive the following minor pseudo-meltdown:

Bigfoot is on Admiralty Island, bigfoot is on Rhode Island. Bigfoot is in Iowa, bigfoot is in New Jersey.

Why the #$%& can anyone think that this is anything other than human behaviour?!.....

Obviously, you have also failed to read Glickman.

Yet again, here is the link, and here (for the reading impaired) are the words:

The relationship in the clustered data is the correlation
between population density and frequency: the Group
A correlation of +0.9661 is high relative to the Group B
correlation of +0.1244.A second relationship in the clustered data is the correlation
between population and frequency. When Group A
is separated from the dataset, its correlation to population
rises from +0.1192 to +0.5664.Group A is differentiated from Group B by its high correlation
to population density. This is consistent with the
model of receiving a report of a cataloged animal (Eq. 1).
Let’s assume that manufactured reports will be uniformly
distributed across the population. If the rate of
manufactured reports is constant, then the frequency of
reports should correlate to population.[/U] To some degree,
this is seen in Group B. There may be other unidentified
influencing factors such as mean media exposure to Bigfoot,
which may influence the density of manufacturing.
The author speculates that Group A and Group B represent
different phenomenon. Group B may represent
manufactured reports because of the correlation to population,
whereas Group A may represent a different phenomenon
because of its correlation to population
density. The author hypothesizes that if Green’s data is
the superposition of multiple phenomena that this is the
expected result.

 

[Mad Hom]

Obviously, you have also failed to read Glickman.

Yet again, here is the link, and here (for the reading impaired) are the words:

Blah Blah Blah.....Glickman.....Blah Blah Blah.....Glickman.....Blah Blah Blah...

 

[kitakaze]

As a native myself, I would like you to show me an example where a bigfooter has said a traditional animal was a bigfoot and a member of that tribe denied it.

I don't see the point of that. That and speaking as a Native American or an anthropologist is irrelevant to the claim you're making in the certainty that sasquatch exist.

I have been involved with natives all my life. The stories I gather come from them. If the Yokuts state that this pictograph is Hairy Man, then I'm willing to take them at their word (and since that info was recorded in the late 1800s, I'm fairly sure white people didn't influence that opinion). If you, or Correa, what to take issue with that, you have to take it to them.

That Hairy Man is synonymous with bigfoot is your own extrapolation so it should be taken to you and nobody else.

I'm not ignoring the traditions of beings all over the world that could equally be tailored to fit bigfoot...I don't study other cultures...I don't have any space left in my brain for other countries. I think you are expecting too much from me.

I'm not expecting too much from you and you are significantly ignoring the traditions of other cultures when you assert a certainty in the existence of bigfoot and Native American traditions as support of them.

 

[LTC8K6]

So, big bears can be hard to kill. We know that. They can also drop with the first hit.

They can be killed by guns. They are affected by gunshot wounds. They do bleed when shot.

Same applies to cape buffalo and elephants, etc.

A deer can run quite a ways when fatally shot, too.

How hard is it to kill a big gorilla with a gun? That would seem to be the more valid comparison.

If bigfoot exists, there is no reason that 5 shots in the chest area should not have put it down fairly quickly. Or 1 shot to the brain.

Now there are always your odd events or quirks of fate. People have been shot in the head with fairly weak rounds and the bullet just passed between the lobes and left them relatively unharmed. Weak rounds have failed to penetrate human skulls, too.

 

[Huntster]

Of course because Glickman is your chosen exalted Pope of higher Bigfeetsus learning isn't he Fudd?

Nope.

He's just a diplomate of the American College of Forensic Examiners who's opinion I value more than yours.

Whatever the man says you take as gospel...fine whatever Fudd.

It's not "gospel".

It's a learned opinion that I considered and portions of which I find valid.

Also what the hell does whether you liked Florida or not have to do with the price of tea in China?!?!?

To me, it's all I need.

BTW, I don't care if my tea comes from China or not, but I still like tea.

I know you feel Alaska is the greatest great place that was ever great Fudley but please explain the relavence it has on this discussion??

Why bother?

You'd just blather on in diversionary style until it's meaning was meaningless.