http://www.hunttv.com/

Scroll down and press play.

Hope this hasn't been posted.

Fake. But thanks for posting it.

Yeah I'm inclined to agree with Yetihunter. Looks nothing more than a suit you could buy in a fancy dress shop. Either he has nothing better to do or someone played a prank on him.

The guy in the video said he was freaked out by what he saw...personally I'm freaked out that there's such thing as a 'hunting channel' =/

Why's that? Hunting is an enjoyable activity for millions. I thoroughly enjoy the culinary delights of game I've harvested and prepared by my own hands.



As to the odd footage, it could be a multitude of things. Most likely, it's another hunter wearing camouflage known as a "ghillie suit."

without a dought
fake
i also love that the cam didnt start filming it untill it was just leaving view xD

Lol I'm almost 99% sure that is infact....................*drum roll*

a hunter in a ghillie suit.Looks exactly like the ones we use playin Airsoft.That's all it is.Either they set it up and walked past it themselves,or another hunter,unknow to them, walked by with a ghillie suit on later.I also noticed how the right arm is strangely never seen in the shot.Perhaps they didn't want us to see the gun resting on his shoulder?

Actually...bigfeet are known to carry around firearms. They have seen humans using them to hunt, and figured out that is is much easier to shoot deer rather than chase them down.

Looks like a person with a backpack on.

Really doesn't look strange at all to me.

doesnt it make you feel safe that in america people like that can legally own assult rifles

That's asinine. You can't see any rifle, let alone the evil black rifle as the media portrays "assault" rifles.

I concur, i believe last time i talked to one they were planning a coo to overtake a catfish farm for a little extra cash to invest in some real estate and some wider seats for the ATV"s they also took from some hunters....

I have also learned that a few are using mind control tactics on the local animals to give them time to get away before the camera's start filming them in the woods... Here is actual video of such a mind controlling tactic they have used... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4cd_1205152679

I concur. Because hunters and ghillie suits exist.

Er the statement still holds true dude in america i saw a guy who owns his own anti-aircraft battery thats asinine

You've now managed to change the subject. An "aniti-aircraft battery" isn't an assault rifle. Apple and oranges.

I was using it as a extreme example of the same kooky law that allows owner ship of assault rifles come on you must have the worlds toughest ducks to justify hunting a animal with those things

A normal citizen of the united states can not own a functional anti-aircraft battery.


What are you calling an assault rifle? there are only a few places in a few states where you can own a fully automatic weapon.

and the purpose of owning a handgun or an "assault rifle" is NOT for hunting. Those rights are guarenteed so that there is always potential resitance to the government.

May i ask what the actual purpose is?

This is silly. I utilize my own for various purposes, from hunting to recreation to the ever-present possibility of self defense.

Now you're going to tell me I could do those same things with single-shot or bolt action rifles. Then I'm going to tell you society can't legislate intent.

I keep an "assault" baseball bat near my front door. I really do. And should the need arise, I would certainly "assault" any intruder that desperately needed assaulting. Is my baseball bat evil, too?

Neo is right. A fully automatic weapon is what an assault rifle should be defined as. Semi automatic repeating rifles are allowed by the law. They are fun to shoot and they should be allowed. Someone once said, "An armed society is a polite society." The only reason that wouldn't seem right now is because only the "bad guys" are armed. My 2 cents.

Yeah, I tend to agree...it just appears to be a hunter or someone moving through the frame.

And, I suppose the motion detector didn't kick on until it was just about out of the frame, which on first impression makes you think something is there.

A dude going out there with a monkey suit on is taking his live into his own hands.

And YES, knowing that 'assault' rifles are legal does indeed make me feel safe in America. And until one can guarantee that criminals will never get their hands on guns, I'll not think any differently.

i wish i had an insult rifle about now
i'll be all insulting all over the place

yeah suspicious that it only shows the man in the monkey suit leaving frame
i'd like to get a closer look at the suit

Someone should start a gun rights thread.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that you have the right to bear arms for protection against criminals. That's what the police are for. Your second amendment right to bear arms is, at its core, so that the government always has at least a little to fear from its citizens, and to resist an unjust goverment.

The founding fathers were well aware that a democratic republic is a very flawed system that is doomed to fail, as all governments do, eventually. The right to bear arms is so that the citizenry can protect themselves from an unjust government, to resist tyrany, and to possibly periodically instutite violent overthrow of that government when it has run its course.

Of course, this kind of changes when the military aren't carrying the same muskets that the citizens can buy, and we've balked at extneding the right to own BARs and M16s to the citizens, but the idea that we should be able to mount some resistance to an unjust government is what the 2and amendment is all about, not hunting or private self defense.

I mostly agree, Neo, except for one aspect. Let me quote a source:

"Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.

First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die. "

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freema...le.asp?aid=1758

Incorrigible, that's pretty slanted.

The article suggests that police want people to own guns...but the police officers in my family and that I am close to say the opposite...when they show up at a call, the last thing they want is people with guns, even if they are the "good" guys, around.

YOUR protection is not overly important in the grand scheme of things. It is to YOU, but not in the same scale as when you consider the safety and liberty of an entire society. In my mind, gun people will NEVER win me over with the argument that they need their guns to protect themselves from criminals. the vast, vast, vast majority of people in the united states will never be the victim of a violent crime. Of the tiny percentage that are, only a few that are armed will be near enough to use their guns. And of that tiny number, only some will be sucessfull.

We like to make a big deal out of when a gun owner protects him/herself from a criminal. I would be very interested in seeing how many innocent people were killed by gun accidents as compared to the number of violent crimes stopped by a gun bearing citizen.

In my mind, the right to protect property and life is important, but it is not even on the same page as the right to keep a government honest (heh, honest government...funny) because it's people have the ability, no matter how small, to resist.

All this said, I do own a few guns. I would use them to protect the lives of my family. But I don't think of them as the first line of defense. If someone breaks into my house while we are home, there's my alarm, my dogs, then the police, and then if we are all huddled in the bedroom frightened, I'll load up and shoot anyone who comes through the door with bad intentions.

F'n thing. i was honestly hoping for SO much more when i read the title of the thread.

Sorry, didn't mean to post a slanted take on the subject. Let me try another source:

Courts Have Held that Police Have No Obligation to Protect

"Courts have held that governments are not liable for their failures to protect. Specifically, "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.) So, Maryland law enforcement can release violent people back into society (see Pinder vs. Johnson for another case of gross failure of law enforcement that resulted in the deaths of three children) and Maryland officials have no responsibility for that negligence.

Moreover, other jurisdictions have held similarly:
". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen . . ."

Reference: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)"

http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

The point I'm trying to make is that I am ultimately responsible for my personal safety.

Clearly, that's to keep people from suing the police department if something goes wrong and they are injured by a criminal while police are enroute or on scene, or whatever. The police also serve the government and are the executive branch's (state, local, federal) method for enforcing the laws that the legislature makes and the courts interpret.

I understand your point, and it's a good one. Ultimately, the police work for the executive branch, NOT you and I. Even though we pay for them.

My point is

Your personal safety is not reason enough to keep guns legal when they kill so many people accidently every year. But those deaths are worth the principle of being able to resist the government.

And I fully concur the major underlying reason the 2nd Amendment was recognized so prominently by the Founders is exactly for that reason, to keep the government in check, if must needs be.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

One of my favorite quotes, and the one I use when people advocate lessening our freedoms to protect us from terrorists.

If we don't wiretap, people will die in terrrorist attacks
If we dont' torture, people will die in terrorist attacks
If we don't suspend habeaus corpus..
If we don't etc. etc.

No, that's the PRICE OF FREEDOM.

Freedom costs in blood. If you aren't willing to pay, you don't deserve freedom. Sometimes it seems we are not willing, and we are more willing to give up our freedoms for safety. Then we have neigher and deserve neither.

Sadly, the masses are complacent so long as their soma is delivered on time. I see people voting away their freedoms left and right, and granting representatives carte blanche to do the same. Ugh!

Yes, but with the blood of "Patriots AND Tyrants", not just patriots.

Torturing the guy who planted the nail-bomb in an elementary school to stop it, is NOT 'going to the level" of the guy who PLANTED the bomb to begin with.

Yes it is, it is sick and inhumane to advocate that kind of violence on anyone. You are just a guilty as they are if you torture.

(quote)
In the process of fighting monsters be sure that you dont become one yourself

What do you think today's "soma" is?
Sports? Television? Video Games? Religion?



You are incorrect on several levels. I'll examine two:

First, we already know that torture is not an effective means of interrogation. Torture makes people say what they know you want to hear, and that often isn't the truth. That's why so many people throughout history have admitted to horrible crimes that they were not guilty of. To stop the torture.

Second, we, as a society, stand for and believe in certain things. Among them are the rights of all people, regardless of color, ethnicity, religion, etc. We believe in innoncent until proven guilty. We believe that torture is wrong. We believe that the government can not imprison you without due process. We believe that the government can not listen in on your private conversations. The list goes on. If we give up those rights because we are scared of shedding our own blood, then we do not deserve them to begin with.

I'm going to be blunt and direct and I hope nobody is insulted. Understand that I hold our enemies in the highest contempt, and I mourn the loss of every American life. However, the cost we paid in life on 9/11 is WORTH THE FREEDOMS WE HAVE AND IF WE HAVE TO PAY LIKE THAT AGAIN, IT WILL BE WORTH IT.

I won't support giving up our liberty to save my or any other american life. The blood that refreshes the tree of liberty IS indeed the blood of patriots and tyrants. PATRIOTS too. That's you and I. If we aren't willing to shed blood to keep our freedom, we don't deserve it. That doesn't just mean going to war. It means taking the chance that our personal freedoms will be taken advantage of by our enemies and we'll be hit again.

the freedoms we have are worth that price. If you don't think so, you don't deserve those freedoms because you don't understand what they are worth.

anyways

here is a song called Sasquatch Song by canadian legend Stompin' Tom Connors
http://www.zshare.net/audio/882722137522d6/

I think that in rare and exceptional cases if person is guilty then its excusable (I STILL DISAGREE) but barely, the only two human beings i think deserve and deserved to be tortured are Osama Bin-Laden and Adolf Hitler.

Deserving something is subjective and even if someone "deserves" to be tortured, our society stands for some things, and torture is the antithesis of nearly all of them.

Update 2 on Easton Bowhunting footage

This is going to come out terrible but here's a screen grab I got off my bigscreen tv, after setting it to stop stretching the video:




Somewhere, someone will do a better job than that.

I noticed a few things while going through the video frame by frame. While the arms look "hairy" the head and neck do not. They look more like a material, like maybe sweatshirt material would look. I'm not sure you can make it out in my picture above, but the front of the head area seems to be outlined, or framed, like it would be if that were a hood. This is much easier to see in the frame just previous to the one I got, but my tv wouldn't freeze on that one for some reason.. a technology whiz I am not.

In case you missed it, that means I've officially reversed myself on whether we are seeing the front or the back of the figure..

The area in the "hood" is dark even when in the light, which it seems to be right at the beginning, but I suppose if it's a person in there, he could be wearing a ski mask if it's really cold out. Or his face might be painted if he's a dedicated hunter, I suppose.

Of course, the figure is not as large when it isn't being stretched across the screen. The shoulder still looks big, and the forearm looks longish as it rakes through the tall grass there.. but if it's a guy, he might have something in his hand.

So where am I on this now? More confused than ever.. now I don't think it necessarily has to be a hoax. I could see it as a guy just wandering into the frame for a second, seeing the camera and moving out of the way quickly.

I think Easton Bowhunting could aid the process by making the actual screen captures available if they wanted to help figure out what it was. The tv image was much clearer than the videos on the net, and I have to think the actual pictures straight out of the camera would be clearer still.

http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/off...ng-footage.html

Update part one with another screen capture:
http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/off...ng-footage.html

I have an explaination for the long arm and dark face.Ghillie Suit
Several ppl including me have already said this and it seems maybe some of you don't know wat a ghillie suit is or at least looks like.
Here's a pic of a typicla ghillie suit.

Look familiar?
I'm guessing a hunter just happened to walk by not noticing the camera and set it off.Looks to me like it was a home-made suit though,since it doesn't conceal his outline very well(it doesn't look "furry").

Thank you for the illustrations. I believe I mentioned this idea earlier in the thread.

Just makin sure ppl understood wat a ghilie suit was.Seems a few of them didn't

I also understand that ghilie suits exist and can be proven to exist, while ape monsters in the north american woods can not. Logically, the answer to the question "what was that thing" should be something that exists.

It was a dragon.

Sleep paralysis.

My grandma
(she gets out sometimes )

The rotten video won't work for me.

haha that video is so fake

Amen brother! But you know what we DO deserve?


Pictures of that goofy skunk ape! THATS what i really wanna see.

... How dumb would you have to be to walk around in that during hunting season. As soon as I moved I would put on a bright orange vest or something. You're asking to be shot walking in that. xD



If a random blonde chick starts lurking outside your front door, be not afraid, for she seeks but a lean cut of venison. *drools*

Seems fake to me. I hate when a "new video" of bigfoot/sasquatch/skunk ape whatever you want to call it comes out and its some BS like this.