Friends of Bigfoot


A Discussion of the Killing Issue

Note: Here is another posting that appeared on an Internet forum. I feel important issues were discussed, and thought I would also include it here. The misspellings and grammatical errors, which are apparent, have been left intact. -Cliff Jones, Sr.

"Sasquatch and the question of weapons" by Mike

I am new to this forum but a long time Sasquatch enthusiast. In having had several of my own encounters with these animals over the years, the question of appropriate caliber choices has been one of intense study. As a former Law Enforcement Officer and being a life long Hunter of both bear and deer, with emphasis placed on bear now days, There are things that must be considered before this question can be reasonably addressed!

The first of which is assessing the actual need to be armed if an encounter with these animals should occur. I make a habit out of being suitably armed whenever I go out into the woods in areas where I frequently hunt bears. As it happens, bear and Sasquatch tend to use the same areas but bears will leave when the other arrives. Bears being unpredictable, I am armed in preparation for a bad bear encounter. The Sasquatch encounter that I had in 92 was much less of a concern, and there were three of them with which I had to contend! I was armed at that time as well, but not intentionally due to Sasquatch being present, rather because I knew the bears would be there and thick to boot!

I am perfectly satisfied that a "type specimen" of a Sasquatch is needed for science to establish their existence and then letting nature take it's course as being the only logical conclusion to the entire question of their existence. With that, I am also willing to take on the responsibility of bringing in said "type specimen", and have made preparations to deal with any eventual opportunity that may arise in that regard.

The issue of shot placement is vital to obtaining a clean and humane kill on an animal that deserves our utmost respect, Sasquatch certainly do. Using a caliber in rifle or handgun that is up to the task is of course, the only intelligent means but placement of the shot is going to be paramount in order to eliminate any suffering that the animal may otherwise be put through. In studying the skull reconstruction that Dr. Krantz created in attempts to learn what the skull configuration on these animals are, reveals that getting to the brain with a bullet is not going to be so easy if we are to preserve as much of the tissue intact as possible. We are limited as to the angle and sure kill zone that a head shot offers, but a bullet that gets there will provide an instant kill without concern for suffering.

Another area that would provide for instant death is the spinal column, providing that thier skeletal make up is as similar to humans as is suspected. Shot placement there, out of neccessity, would have to be placed high and precisely centered to achieve the desired effect.

The pelvic girdle is the remaining target zone and ranks third, as it should, as this is clearly a last resort for stopping a charge and is the largest target zone. A shot delivered here would have the effect of taking out the legs, so that the animal could not keep advancing at will, but could keep coming if its desire to get to you were strong enough, by pulling itself along with it's arms and hands. It would still need a "coup de grace" shot to the brain to finish it.

The .44 magnum handgun with a proper load would suffice for an expert handgun hunter/shooter as would the newer and larger bore revolvers of recent times; 454 casul, 480 Ruger etc. The rifle and caliber that I have personally selected for my use in bear hunting and the other supposed task, is lever action rifle in 45-70, using hand loaded ammunition. This rifle and ammo combination is extremely powerful and capable of handling large and dangerous game of most any kind, including the big bears up north.

I do not wish to project the image that I believe that everyone should be out there trying to hunt down and bring in a Sasquatch. I do not believe that there are actually many people that would be capable of handling such a thing in a proper way and have the resources to do it right! I think that these animals need recognition and protection, and am against taking these animals for any but scientific purposes.

The idea of using sprays and traquilizers on an animal who's physical capability and metabolism we know nothing about, seems to me, to be risky at best. I should think that an enraged Sasquatch with an eye full of pepper spray would be very much more likely to want to pull you apart like a "play-dough doll"!!! I think it best to be either well armed, or not armed at all, or even perhaps stay out of harms way entirely!

We must all remember that we are dealing in theory and speculation where these animals are concerned, and have no room for being wrong when dealing with such a huge and powerful animal that could be capable of combining that with anger and take out its frustration on an un-prepared individual or group. I think too, that we should consider the potential threat that a wounded,unrecovered Sasquatch may represent!

These are my thoughts on a very controversial subject, I in no way intend for them to generate ill-will or other such emotion, and ask that all who read this do so with an open mind in the interest of furthering science and the protection of this magnificent animal.

Posted on May 10, 2002, 4:38 PM

"Perhaps there is something you missed." by Cliff J

Quoting you, Mike, "The issue of shot placement is vital to obtaining a clean and humane kill on an animal that deserves our utmost respect, Sasquatch certainly do."

I respectfully submit that there is a possible flaw in your logic here. You make the assumption that it is, indeed, an animal.

I would like to see the DNA or tissue samples, etc., that has brought you to this conclusion, since you are apparently concerned with science.

It is my position that society at large, and science specifically, are too lazy or do not have the patience to study a being whose status, whether animal or partially human - or fully human, for that matter - in a way which does not risk the individual.

Some humans are covered with hair. There are several medical abnormalities, which cause this.

Other humans have the condition known as giantism.

Still other communities of human beings around the world are extremely secretive and have eluded the 'first', 'second', or even 'third worlds' for centuries. I recently saw a documentary of this very thing - a tribe of aboriginal people who had never seen a white person, and eluded even the neighboring tribal communities. The video of this first meeting was a remarkable thing to witness.

Science is well advanced enough that if it had the will, it could find a way to study and document the existence of these beings, and avoid killing or injuring one in the process.

Science does not necessarily have to be devoid of morality, and to kill something that is so human in appearance for no other reason than to prove it exists, is in my opinion, not true science at all.

Posted on May 10, 2002, 8:14 PM

"DNA Result? Higher Unknown Primate!" by Mike

Thankyou for offering your opinion. My conclusion is based on the DNA results from hair samples that I gathered in 1992 during a two and a half week long, on-going encounter with three Sasquatch. That encounter was documented and the late Dr. Krantz was involved in the investigation, ultimately providing scientific evidence that the hair samples provided were from an Unknown Higher Primate.

I am not in a position to speak of wether scientists are competent as a whole, but would agree that thier participation is certainly limited. My experience with Sasquatch has led me to the un-shakable conclusion that they are a flesh and blood animal. I think that conclusions drawn regarding the fact that they are somehow Human, are premature and quite possibly very wrong. That is not to say that speculationa nd conjecture are not healthy contributers to this investigation! We need theories and conclusions in order to root out the facts that will lead us to an eventual conclusion on these animals. I offer my opinions based on both my personal experience and the information gleaned from 30 years of reading about this subjsct. Wether my opinions are accepted or not isn't the issue, that they are being put forth in an attempt to further this entire investigation along, is what counts! Don't you think?

Posted on May 11, 2002, 7:32 AM

"DNA results" by Cliff

I still maintain that it would be premature to 'take a specimen', and that we should err on caution's side before risking the death or injury of someone who may be our cousin.

Perhaps if you could scientifically guarantee that the individual you are to 'harvest' is the exact individual whose hair you had tested in 1992?

Otherwise, you are making very wide-sweeping assumptions, in my opinion.

Posted on May 11, 2002, 11:23 AM

"Human?" by Mike


You seem quite adament that Sasquatch are very possibly "human" or at least closely related enough to be referred to as "cousins", yet I have not discovered credible evidence in 30 years of research that even remotely supports such claims! Could you please provide a source where I can review the information that has led you to support this conclusion?

As to the act of "harvesting" Sasquatch, I think that you use the term out of context as one does not "harvest" animals for scientific research or study, but rather, to "harvest" an animal is more in line with providing or obtaining food. I have no intentions of eating Sasquatch or Bigfoot type animals.

Your concerns of providing a type specimen may well be over shadowed by the the fact that for the length of recorded history regarding this animal, no solid proof appears to exist and a type specimen would either substantiate your conclusion that Sasquatch are indeed "human" or at least a close relative, or show that it is in fact, a separate and unique species altogether, deserving of consideration for protective status and further scientific study and analysis.

We have evidence of nearly every concievable type where this animal is concerned, and to no conclusion! The fact, wether sad or not to some, is that type specimens are needed and will eventually be provided. That this has become a "moral" issue for some is obvious and to those who wrestle with that, I can only suggest that "thats life"! I suppose that we could stand still while considering the moral implications of many things, but common sense must eventually rule out and progress must go on.

Posted on May 12, 2002, 5:26 AM

"Common Sense" by Cliff J


You and I will apparently have to remain in agreement that our definitions of "common sense" are very different.

I very much appreciate, however, the civil and polite way in which this discussion has proceeded.

I used the term "harvest" because that is a term I have heard others who want to kill a bigfoot use.

As far as evidence of the humanity or possible humanity of this being, we can only use what clues we have at present.

I am referring to the fact that the hands and feet have a very human look. They walk on two feet. Eyewitness accounts have stated human-like expressions of both fear and surprise and curiousity.

Other accounts lead me to believe their intelligence could be equal to or even exceed our own, although that intelligence is directed in a different way than ours, obviously.

There are many accounts of human beings who have in one way or another been abandoned to the elements and have grown to adulthood with no point of reference to our behavioral norms, and have adopted animal-like behavior. But this did not turn them into animals.

My theory, and this is only a theory, is that perhaps centuries or more into the past, persons with genetic abnormalities such as mentioned above (hypertrichosis, acromegaly, giantism, or others we do not even know about) were shunned by society at large and abandoned. Today, these individuals are relegated to special instituions or circuses.

But if, in ages past, these people somehow survived, and it was a common practice to ostracize them, then it would not be too much of a stretch that they would have met up with each other, and even bred and formed a parallel social order.

This parallel group would have had the deeply engrained consciousness of rejection by 'normal' society, and would have eventually grown to have elusiveness as a major part of their social behavior.

We have ample evidence that we humans adapt in a physical way very quickly to our environment. Recently a study came out that shows the average American skeleton has adapted to become taller, and that happened in just the last century.

What other adaptations would have developed if a branch of humankind were to have split off a thousand or more years ago?

In any case, it is something I call morality that says our need to understand does not exceed their need to live, and I have no confidence at all that the act of taking the life of one individual to prove to the world their existence will have any bearing on their survival as a race, species, or whatever you wish to call them.

Best regards,
Cliff Jones

Posted on May 12, 2002, 1:00 PM

"Another thought!" by Mike


After having given some thought to your theory of Giantism, I have come to a couple of areas of concern there.

That phenomenon ocurs in humans due to an abnormal pituitary gland as I understand it, and the immense amount of complications associated with that medical condition usually result in a short life span and many physical limitations as well, crippling and such things. That would appear to be contrary to the physical abilities that these animlas appear to display; can you offer an explaination for this?

If that is the case, how can you be sure that "Giantism" is a solid explaination? That, and I have trouble with catagorising these animals as "human". I have seen no evidence that would even remotely substantiate such claims, perhaps I'm missing some information in that regard? I also have seen no evidence that would substantiate that these animals are of "supernatural" origin as some suggest! Any clarification on either of these subjects would be appreciated.

Posted on May 11, 2002, 10:41 AM

"Giants, etc..." by Cliff J


This is what I said: "My theory, and this is only a theory, is that perhaps centuries or more into the past, persons with genetic abnormalities such as mentioned above (hypertrichosis, acromegaly, giantism, or others we do not even know about) were shunned by society at large and abandoned."

This was hardly an attempt to produce a "solid explanation," as you put it. I was only theorizing a scenario which would explain how bigfoot may have come into existence.

I mentioned those conditions as examples, and included "others we do not even know about." Our present-day examples of giantism may not be the only way this condition has occurred. There are numerous accounts and legends from many civilizations of giants, and these were not sickly, weak, or short-lived. Some even speculate they built the large stone structures around the world that so many wonder about. I do not know.

The Bible even speaks of them, and I personally find that adds a lot of weight to these accounts. It speaks of a man born covered with red hair, as well, and this man was not sickly, but rather, a very healthy outdoorsman and hunter (see Genesis 25).

As far as speculation by some that they are of supernatural origin, that is not my interest, since such could never be proven, nor injured, I would suppose.

Posted on May 13, 2002, 3:21 PM

© 2009 Friends of Bigfoot. Site developed by L7soft.