Bigfoot: The Invisible Variety

[historian]

His link takes you to the entire, friggin' county code with every ordinance in it. What are you talking about? It's like you believe in imaginary creatures or something!

An ordinance does not have to be codified to be LAW!

1.01.140 Effect of code on past actions and obligations.

Neither the adoption of this code nor the repeal or amendments hereby of any ordinance, or part or portion of any ordinance of the county, shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee, or penalty at said effective date due and unpaid under such ordinances, nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinances relating to the collection of any such license, fee, or penalty, or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof, nor to affect the validity of any bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof required to be posted, filed or deposited pursuant to any ordinance, and all rights and obligations thereunder appertaining shall continue in full force and effect.

 

[historian]

I would like to be the first to say that I always knew that bigfoot existed. I was simply playing along this whole time.

I mean how could anyone doubt that the Big Stinky one is for real. Look at the YouTube videos people! I mean YOUTUBE. Does it get anymore reliable than that?????

Youtube is merely the most convenient location at which you can view the authentic documentaries. Your condescending attitude is typical of Skeptics, who have run out of all legitimate arguments.

 

[Locknar]

Not one Youtube video but two Youtube videos, one of them "enhanced". How can we possibly doubt Bigfoot's existence?!

We should give credit where credit is due. Now at least Historian/Neal is posting "proof" (or other documentation) that support his wild claims.

Sure, the "proof" is junk...but its a step up from his posting nothing but silly claims.

 

[Slimething]

An ordinance does not have to be codified to be LAW!

1.01.140 Effect of code on past actions and obligations.

<snipped legalese which is apparently a foreign language to historian>

Historian, you'd be dangerous if you knew how to read. One word for you: context. What does "this chapter" mean to you?

Back to the world of secret, unpublished, uncodified laws for you!

 

[DrewD]

Youtube is merely the most convenient location at which you can view the authentic documentaries. Your condescending attitude is typical of Skeptics, who have run out of all legitimate arguments.

Bolding mine.

Are you really suggesting that YouTube is a legitimate place for true documentation?

I don't think one needs anymore of an argument than to point out your own words.

 

[Apology]

1995: On August 28, 1995, a TV film crew from Waterland Productions pulled off the road into Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park and filmed what they claimed to be a sasquatch in their RV's Headlights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=intHl9JvLY4

The Freeman Footage
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ij6JL_dMNk

I have to tell you, Historian, that I lived near Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park for many years. When I watched the footage, I was unable to determine if it was indeed shot in the vicinity of Redwoods State Park. Indeed, it's impossible to clearly identify the trees in the footage as redwoods, let alone identify your blobsquatch as a Sasquatch.

Furthermore, I'll have you know that there are MANY practical jokers in the area that have nothing better to do than fake some Sasquatch video simply for giggles.

Finally, I spent a lot of time camping in very remote spots around the park and I never saw anything that even faintly resembled a Bigfoot. The "bear" that turned out to be a racoon in the light of day was much more believable, terrifying, and present. All hail Coonbear.

 

[DrewD]

CoonBear. That doesn't sound as bad as you know what.

 

[RayG]

I will say that Wikipedia is a joke.

Youtube is merely the most convenient location at which you can view the authentic documentaries.

RayG

 

[bruto]

An ordinance does not have to be codified to be LAW!

1.01.140 Effect of code on past actions and obligations.

Neither the adoption of this code nor the repeal or amendments hereby of any ordinance, or part or portion of any ordinance of the county, shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, nor be construed as a waiver of any license, fee, or penalty at said effective date due and unpaid under such ordinances, nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinances relating to the collection of any such license, fee, or penalty, or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof, nor to affect the validity of any bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof required to be posted, filed or deposited pursuant to any ordinance, and all rights and obligations thereunder appertaining shall continue in full force and effect.

So if you broke a law when it was in effect, it remains a violation even if the law is no longer in effect. That's what I'm pretty sure it says. What on earth do you think it says?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

1995: On August 28, 1995, a TV film crew from Waterland Productions pulled off the road into Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park and filmed what they claimed to be a sasquatch in their RV's Headlights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=intHl9JvLY4

You forgot to note that the film crew had been working on a Playboy TV special (which would answer the question "Why would a hoaxer give a Bigfoot costume an erection?" Of course, this assumes that the object allegedly seen in the video is an erection).

This article goes into more detail about the shooting of the video and notes:

Perhaps some more detailed notes should be kept. Not only did I talk to two of the Playmate participants within four days of the airing of the show, I also contacted the program staff and obtained an uncut version of the videotape shot in the motor home just prior to and leading thru the "Sighting Incident." The group was clearly in a party mode and a large percentage of the language was unfit for TV viewing.

Peter Byrne and his Bigfoot Research Project, also obtained information within a couple days and did in-depth research into the sighting. The difference between what we saw, Peter, Rene Dahinden and I, is that we found it to be quite false.

I even showed Dan Perez when he stayed at my place, that the subject could not have been very tall, as you had to look down at an extreme angle from the motor home windshield. Perez and I re-enacted that one by using his own motor home. If the creature were as tall as even 8 feet, it would have been looking straight into the drivers face. It was not...it was below the bottom edge of the windshield.

Perez commented to me then..."You're right...it couldn't have been that tall!" Also did a demo with the headlights, as it clearly shows in the video that they turn on the brights.

They later said in a couple interviews that the creature was no more than 9 feet from the front bumper of the motor home. Perez and I re-enacted that also. I stood there at the correct distance, measured by Dan and he turned on his bright lights. The beams hit me at exactly the same height as it did on the subject in the video. I am 5 feet 7 inches tall. It should have hit much lower on a creature 8 foot plus in height. Dan immediately agreed with me again. I then showed the video I had acquired from the studio to him several times, confirming what our experiments showed us. I also pointed out that just before the creature crosses from left to right, you can see something walk from right to left up in the top right hand corner of the screen. Again amazement and agreement that this video was definitely in doubt of being anything more than a hoax.

As all related material goes, it is all subject to opinion and none have ever been proven fact. I just wanted the facts to be known that Peter Byrne and I did investigate this incident and along with many who viewed our results, I feel this was just another hoax. ...Larry Lund posted Monday, April 29, 2002

More issues with the film can be found here.

The Freeman Footage
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ij6JL_dMNk

Check out this video. Just give that costume black fur and film it from a distance and you'd have a dead-ringer for what's seen in the Freeman footage.

 

[Apology]

Check out this video. Just give that costume black fur and film it from a distance and you'd have a dead-ringer for what's seen in the Freeman footage.

LOL! Not only do I agree with your point, that the costume could be adapted to duplicate the effect, but I'd like to further point out that the very same mushrooms depicted in the clip are available, growing in the wild, in the region of Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

LOL! Not only do I agree with your point, that the costume could be adapted to duplicate the effect, but I'd like to further point out that the very same mushrooms depicted in the clip are available, growing in the wild, in the region of Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park.

Ha! The Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park sounds "juicy." Perhaps it could be the site of the next HRPRO expedition...

 

[historian]

So if you broke a law when it was in effect, it remains a violation even if the law is no longer in effect. That's what I'm pretty sure it says. What on earth do you think it says?

Neither the adoption of this code,.... nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinances relating to the collection of any such license, fee, or penalty, or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof



It says that an ordinance is law as soon as it is voted on. The ordinance does not need to wait to be incorporated into the code, for it to be applicable. Which is simple logic that applies to any new ordinance.

 

[historian]

You forgot to note that the film crew had been working on a Playboy TV special (which would answer the question "Why would a hoaxer give a Bigfoot costume an erection?" Of course, this assumes that the object allegedly seen in the video is an erection).

This article goes into more detail about the shooting of the video and notes:

More issues with the film can be found here.


Check out this video. Just give that costume black fur and film it from a distance and you'd have a dead-ringer for what's seen in the Freeman footage.

You don't know how Larry Lund thinks. To him, everything is a hoax. That only thing remaining to be manufactured is the logic that he is going to apply. The only thing that Larry Lund came up with is a possibility that the estimate by someone in the trailer with possibly a playboy bunny in his lap, was mistaken. LL then used that mistaken estimate as the basis to declare the entire clip as a hoax. End of Story.

 

[catbasket]

Don't forget to take a walk in a dark and remote woods this weekend. If we don't hear from you again, we will assume that you ran into something other than Bigfoot.

I did. I dreamt I was in a Creekfreak thread

Do you really believe this invisible phase-shifting bigfoot stuff then? Beware - Creekfreak has become boring and the entire Interweb is watching you and waiting to shout [rule 12 violation].

 

[Slimething]

Neither the adoption of this code,.... nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinances relating to the collection of any such license, fee, or penalty, or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof



It says that an ordinance is law as soon as it is voted on. The ordinance does not need to wait to be incorporated into the code, for it to be applicable. Which is simple logic that applies to any new ordinance.

No, that is not what it says. You need remedial English classes, historian. That language is specific to a chapter. That's a big hint for you. I would help you out but, as you've waved reason and intelligence a fleeting goodbye, you're on your own.

 

[bruto]

Neither the adoption of this code,.... nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinances relating to the collection of any such license, fee, or penalty, or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof



It says that an ordinance is law as soon as it is voted on. The ordinance does not need to wait to be incorporated into the code, for it to be applicable. Which is simple logic that applies to any new ordinance.

It does not say that. It clearly applies to violations of the old version of the laws in that chapter, and license fees not currently applicable, and how they are to be treated after the adoption of the new law. What part of the phrase "past obligations" gives you trouble?

You really can't make up everything as you go along.

 

[historian]

It does not say that. It clearly applies to violations of the old version of the laws in that chapter, and license fees not currently applicable, and how they are to be treated after the adoption of the new law. What part of the phrase "past obligations" gives you trouble?

You really can't make up everything as you go along.

ATTENTION!

ALL CONTRADICTING SKEPTICS ARE DEAD WRONG, IN REGARD TO THEIR INTERPRETATION THAT THE SKAMANIA COUNTY ORDINANCE AGAINST HARMING A BIGFOOT, ARE SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, INVALID. SKAMANIA COUNTY ORDINANCES HAVE THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW. READ IT AND WEEP. END OF STORY!

1.01.170 Constitutionality.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the Skamania County code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the code. The board declares that it would have passed this code, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases had been declared invalid or unconstitutional, and if for any reason, the Skamania County code should be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the original ordinance or ordinances shall be in full force and effect. (Ord. 1979-07 § 17)


Gee, apparently some legislators somewhere, have the wherewithal to devote considerable to to enacting laws to protect people that do not look exactly like us. Although the revised ordinance is a mere misdemeanor if Bigfoot is found to not be hominoid, I will be volunteering my testimony for the Skamania County prosecutor, to elevate the violation as equivalent to assault with intent to kill, attempted murder, etc., since Bigfoot clearly demonstrate that they are people, in my presence. In other words, it will not be a misdemeanor. It will be a felony to harm a Bigfoot.

 

[Locknar]

ATTENTION!

ALL CONTRADICTING SKEPTICS ARE DEAD WRONG, IN REGARD TO THEIR INTERPRETATION THAT THE SKAMANIA COUNTY ORDINANCE AGAINST HARMING A BIGFOOT, ARE SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, INVALID. SKAMANIA COUNTY ORDINANCES HAVE THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW. READ IT AND WEEP. END OF STORY!

1.01.170 Constitutionality.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the Skamania County code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the code. The board declares that it would have passed this code, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases had been declared invalid or unconstitutional, and if for any reason, the Skamania County code should be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the original ordinance or ordinances shall be in full force and effect. (Ord. 1979-07 § 17)


Gee, apparently some legislators somewhere, have the wherewithal to devote considerable to to enacting laws to protect people that do not look exactly like us. Although the revised ordinance is a mere misdemeanor if Bigfoot is found to not be hominoid, I will be volunteering my testimony for the Skamania County prosecutor, to elevate the violation as equivalent to assault with intent to kill, attempted murder, etc., since Bigfoot clearly demonstrate that they are people, in my presence. In other words, it will not be a misdemeanor. It will be a felony to harm a Bigfoot.

BOLD is mine
So that is your take on what 1.01.170 means? Interesting.....

Now I have to say, I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you volunteer your testimony for the Country prosecutor...the look on his face I'm sure would be priceless.

Do you have a date & time for this? Location? Harvey, my invisiable giant rabbit, would love to be there to listen in.

 

[Slimething]

Worse than I thought. This guy can't comprehend anything he reads. I wonder if he carries a little card with him that he looks at every five seconds that says "breathe".