or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Finding Bigfoot - Page 42

post #616 of 745
Watched about half the video. Well, if BF's are getting more aggressive, given how many rural Americans are armed to the teeth, one of them should be bagged pretty soon. That would sure be exciting!

Just saw the rest of the video. As for the guys who went out looking for the "wounded" BF (or bear) and found one of the bullets, what on earth were they doing going after a large, wounded, potentially dangerous animal (even if it was "only" a black bear) with no more effective a weapon than a machete or bush knife? Or, did they really know they weren't going to find anything? I'd also be very surprised if a .30-30 softpoint bullet could shoot clear through a BF and still penetrate so much wood.

A .30-30 would be a fairly paltry cartridge to use on a BF. Back when I was a believer, I actually hoped to hunt the BF and bought a Browning Safari Grade bolt action in .338 Winchester Magnum. Grover Krantz carried a .358 Norma Magnum (ballistically very similar to the .338) when he went out in pursuit of BFs.
Edited by JLibourel - 8/20/13 at 5:06pm
post #617 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Watched about half the video. Well, if BF's are getting more aggressive, given how many rural Americans are armed to the teeth, one of them should be bagged pretty soon. That would sure be exciting!

Just saw the rest of the video. As for the guys who went out looking for the "wounded" BF (or bear) and found one of the bullets, what on earth were they doing going after a large, wounded, potentially dangerous animal (even if it was "only" a black bear) with no more effective a weapon than a machete or bush knife? Or, did they really know they weren't going to find anything? I'd also be very surprised if a .30-30 softpoint bullet could shoot clear through a BF and still penetrate so much wood.

A .30-30 would be a fairly paltry cartridge to use on a BF. Back when I was a believer, I actually hoped to hunt the BF and bought a Browning Safari Grade bolt action in .338 Winchester Magnum. Grover Krantz carried a .358 Norma Magnum (ballistically very similar to the .338) when he went out in pursuit of BFs.

I had no idea you were that committed :-) I suspect that bullet didn't hit anything alive. Don't you think piercing a tree is much denser than a body? Are you sure about the caliber? Maybe they mentioned it.


While no smoking gun here, guy claims the grunt is a BF which later threw a boulder in his direction. Also claims he was being warned away from a "nest" he filmed.


post #618 of 745
^I couldn't get the sound on the linked video. That had to be about the blobbiest blobsquatch I've ever seen!

I agree with you about the bullet and the tree and that it didn't hit anything alive. The narrators mentioned several times that it was a .30-30. The rifle the young man was shown using was a Marlin Model 336, most of which have been chambered for .30-30. I have two Marlin 336s myself--a .30-30 carbine and a full-length (24-inch-barrel) rifle in .35 Remington.
post #619 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

^I couldn't get the sound on the linked video. That had to be about the blobbiest blobsquatch I've ever seen!

I agree with you about the bullet and the tree and that it didn't hit anything alive. The narrators mentioned several times that it was a .30-30. The rifle the young man was shown using was a Marlin Model 336, most of which have been chambered for .30-30. I have two Marlin 336s myself--a .30-30 carbine and a full-length (24-inch-barrel) rifle in .35 Remington.

The sound is the only worthy part of the vid. Try it again when you have a chance.
post #620 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

The sound is the only worthy part of the vid. Try it again when you have a chance.

I don't know what the problem is. On the two other YouTube videos you have linked, the sound comes through loud and clear!

On another note, if you were going to hunt the Bigfoot, what would your choice be for a rifle?
post #621 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

The sound is the only worthy part of the vid. Try it again when you have a chance.

I don't know what the problem is. On the two other YouTube videos you have linked, the sound comes through loud and clear!

On another note, if you were going to hunt the Bigfoot, what would your choice be for a rifle?

Rifle? Wimp! A couple of dogs, and a pocket knife! That or my magical sword Stormbringer.
post #622 of 745
^Don't you know that dogs are supposed to be terrified of Bigfoots, which is why no houndsman has ever been able to run one down?

At least in deference to my old age, can't you let me use a Bowie knife? Perhaps the best choice would be my Randall "Bear Bowie," which was designed, as I recall in the words of the Randall catalog, "by a big game sportsman for hunting bear."
post #623 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

^Don't you know that dogs are supposed to be terrified of Bigfoots, which is why no houndsman has ever been able to run one down?

At least in deference to my old age, can't you let me use a Bowie knife? Perhaps the best choice would be my Randall "Bear Bowie," which was designed, as I recall in the words of the Randall catalog, "by a big game sportsman for hunting bear."

I used to work with a guy who hunted boar with a knife. Not sure what kind of knife he used.
post #624 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

I used to work with a guy who hunted boar with a knife. Not sure what kind of knife he used.

I've known a few fellows who've done that. Better them than me, although a lot would depend on the size of the pig. Not long ago while out with my Tosa, I met a woman who had Argentine Dogos. They weren't with her, but she claims her [female] roommate used them to hunt wild boar with a knife. Sounds like a very scary lady. I feel confident that the two women were of the Lesbian persuasion.
post #625 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

I used to work with a guy who hunted boar with a knife. Not sure what kind of knife he used.

I've known a few fellows who've done that. Better them than me, although a lot would depend on the size of the pig. Not long ago while out with my Tosa, I met a woman who had Argentine Dogos. They weren't with her, but she claims her [female] roommate used them to hunt wild boar with a knife. Sounds like a very scary lady. I feel confident that the two women were of the Lesbian persuasion.

You got that right.
post #626 of 745
Today is an important anniversary in the annals of Bigfoot history, for it was 55 years ago this very day that Jerry Crew discovered the huge, man-like tracks in the soft earth around his bulldozer, although he didn't take the matter to the press until October, whereupon the term "Bigfoot" was coined. And after 55 years, what really tangible has turned up? Nothing!

I note that in nearly all the mountains of Southern California where I have hiked or otherwise spent time have had reports of Bigfoot activity--Los Padres National Forest, San Gabriel Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, even the Santa Monicas and the Santa Anas! The only exceptions are the Verdugos (unsurprisingly) and the Mt. San Jacinto area (except for Indian legends of the monster-demon Taquitz). And to think I was in Bigfoot country all that time and never suspected it!

I'll have more comments shortly after I get a book on the Bigfoot phenomenon in a few days.
post #627 of 745
Last night I saw a piece on the evening news about how an amateur photographer had set up some motion-activated trailcams in the Angeles Forest a short distance back from Glendora. What he got was a lot of dramatic, clear-as-a-bell footage of the local wildlife, including lots of footage of mountain lions and black bears, including a mountain lion killing a mule deer.

Now let's put this in some perspective: This was an amateur photographer. He was operating on the periphery of the Greater Los Angeles Megalopolis. The trailhead he used is probably no more than a 40 minute drive, if that, from downtown LA on open freeways. Yet, he got some wonderful wildlife videos. If any video of BF existed with that kind of proximity and clarity, it would prove, to my mind anyway, the existence of such a creature beyond any reasonable doubt.

So why are there no such videos of Bigfoot?

Have a lot of other BF stuff to discuss over the next few days.
post #628 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

Last night I saw a piece on the evening news about how an amateur photographer had set up some motion-activated trailcams in the Angeles Forest a short distance back from Glendora. What he got was a lot of dramatic, clear-as-a-bell footage of the local wildlife, including lots of footage of mountain lions and black bears, including a mountain lion killing a mule deer.

Now let's put this in some perspective: This was an amateur photographer. He was operating on the periphery of the Greater Los Angeles Megalopolis. The trailhead he used is probably no more than a 40 minute drive, if that, from downtown LA on open freeways. Yet, he got some wonderful wildlife videos. If any video of BF existed with that kind of proximity and clarity, it would prove, to my mind anyway, the existence of such a creature beyond any reasonable doubt.

So why are there no such videos of Bigfoot?

Have a lot of other BF stuff to discuss over the next few days.


To augment your point, many BF hunters setup trail cams. Very little results. There are a few interesting trail cam pics out there, the one from Vermont for example posted in this thread a while back, the camera licker, the skinny bigfoot vid (also posted here). There is also the one from PA where it looks like a chimp, suspected to be a juvenile.

A new video, not much there but something is moving. (you can watch this one in 1080)
post #629 of 745
Recently, I read Joshua Blu Buhs' book Bigfoot: The Life and Times of a Legend. It was published in 2009, but I just became aware of it. There follow some comments I made to a correspondent who is a BF believer:

The Buhs book is not without its flaws. It is rife with a lot of pompous sociological analysis that seems off the mark to me. He also show his ignorance by lumping True and Argosy, which in their heyday were good and respected magazines, with the trashy "men's adventure" mags of the same era.

A few things I learned from the book:

John W. Burns, who coined the term "Sasquatch" and first publicized them to the outside world, believed the Sasquatch were Indians, primitive and brutal but fully human. Some Indian accounts of the 1930s describe the Sasquatch as conversing with them in their native dialects. Before the 1950s, the image seemed much more "cave man" than "ape."

I have to wonder if William Roe's account of his sighting of a female Sasquatch on Mica Mountain wasn't instrumental in creating the new image of the Sasquatch as a sort of bipedal gorilla. I know that John Green first thought of the Sasquatch as Indians but later changed to the idea they were apes. Roe's account was, I would have to admit, rather plausible. It was undramatic, included a number of details and on the face of it was very convincing. However, the drawing prepared by his daughter of the animal he saw is really very implausible--an ape with several human features--boobs and bipedalism. The creature has arms reaching almost past the knees, which is very odd for a biped. Even the (probably) semi-arboreal Australopithecines had shorter arms than that. The first fully bipedal, fully terrestrial primate is our probable ancestor, the nearly human Homo erectus. In his limb and bodily proportions he seems to have been nearly identical to us moderns.

I strongly suspect that an illustration of the Roe sighting by the eminent artist Mort Kunstler for an article in True by Ivan Sanderson was the inspiration for the costume Roger Patterson used for his film. The behavior of the creature in the Patterson-Gimlin film mimics that of the critter Roe described almost exactly. [The drawing by Roe's daughter suggested the creature had rather short body hair, rather like a smooth-haired dog. The breasts on Roe's creature were rather shapely and attractive by human standards. Kunster made her considerably shaggier and gave her big, pendulous, shaggy boobs, just like the thing in Patterson's film.]

I also found it interesting that Bernard Heuvelmans, who can be said to have founded the science of Cryptozoology and was nothing if not sympathetic to the matter of mystery beasts, immediately rejected the Patterson film as a fake. Also, that Ivan Sanderson could be somewhat mendacious about presenting evidence.

A few things I didn't know prior to reading Buhs' book: Men had been making fake giant tracks in the Northwest since the 1920s. It seems to have been a common prank. Ray Wallace almost certainly made the 1958 tracks in Bluff Creek, for instance. I had always thought the Bossburg, Washington, "Cripple Foot" tracks were a cogent argument in favor of the existence of BFs. However, they were evidently fakes made by Ivan Marx. Likewise, I learned that dermatoglyphs (I think that's the term) that Grover Krantz set so much store by can be easily faked.

I was discussing this with my friend Dave Workman, who still writes for Gun World. He has been an outdoor writer in the Pacific Northwest his entire adult life and has known just about all the luminaries in the "Bigfoot pantheon"--Roger Patterson, Grover Krantz, Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, John Green et al. I was giving him all the reasons why I had gone from believer to skeptic. He said, "Maybe so, but I interviewed an awful lot of people who had had the shit scared out of them by something!" A little grist for your mill.
post #630 of 745
Thread Starter 
Great stuff Jan. I've never considered that at one time BF's were considered Indians by other native tribes. That's an interesting perception shift, and tells you a lot about how natives viewed the subject.

I disagree on the Patterson film, as you know. Its plausible that the drawing maps to the footage because both parties were looking at the same creature. I don't recall the Patterson arms being that long. Drawings are meant to approximate though, so an exaggeration of arm length is not unrealistic when the artists perceptions are taken into account "it had reallllly long arms" et al. Lots and lots of people have suggested the film is a fake. The interesting thing is that as more modern technology is thrown at it, the more it looks real. For example, it was not until a few years ago that someone figured out that the footage was being watched at the wrong camera speed, when slowed slightly to the different setting it looks much more natural. Lastly, in both instances they were females, considering there are only 2 possible sexes there are only 4 potential outcomes here -not many.

A video has popped up claiming to be footage from 1943 of a Wooly Mammoth. I'm sure a video expert could debunk it as almost certainly its fake but who knows, the movement is rather realistic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot