Bigfoot: The Invisible Variety

[bruto]

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.

I have no idea (and no interest, really) exactly what law exists in that county protecting bigfoot. I contend that your reading of the clause previously cited was mistaken, and did not mean what you think it means. It's a much narrower question. I think you'd find if you ask anyone who has dealt with this stuff that your reading was in error, and does not thinkmean what you think it means.

The paragraph you just cited above applies explicitly to laws that are held to be invalid or unconstitutional. It does not apply to laws that are repealed, or superseded unless the entire ordinance is declared unconstitutional, in which case, the previous ordinance is declared to have persisted. It's a common, garden variety, boilerplate separability clause, present in practically every complex ordinance in existence. It says simply that the whole ordinance will not fall if a part is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, and that if the whole ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, it will not result in a period of lawlessness on the subject of the ordinance. That's all it says.

If, by some chance, you should convince the courts that non-hominid bigfeet deserve greater protection, it would be a very big stretch indeed to invoke that separability clause, because a revision of a law, even if it's a revision because the law is lousy, insufficient, poorly thought out or just plain wrong, is not a finding that it is either unconstitutional or invalid. Since the United States Constitution forbids retroactive laws, the only way you could win on this would be if a previous law declared harming a non-hominid bigfoot to be a felony, and if then you were able to prove that the revision to make it a misdemeanor was not just a bad idea, but unconstitutional or invalid, which is not at all the same thing as just "bad."

Your reading of these things is really idiosyncratic, to say the least.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

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.

You're forgetting that Bigfoot researchers Peter Byrne and Rene Dahinden shared Mr. Lund's opinion. I just wish that the "enhanced" version didn't jump around/seeming cut away from the feet so much; I'd love to see the claimed white lines on its feet for myself. He also noted 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."

Mr. Lund confirmed that the 7-8 feet tall height estimates given for "Bigfoot" by others examining the film (like Dr. Meldrum) were wrong when he did his height test. He then did another test on the estimated distance and found that he matched the height of the subject when filmed from that distance through a camper window (He's 5 foot 7). This was also based on the angle of the windows in the camper, where there is no room for mistaken esitmates. In other words, he showed that the distance given by the "witnesses" was correct. Let's not forget that discovering the height given for a filmed Bigfoot being found to be incorrect was what led to the Ivan Marx cripplefoot film being acknowledged as a hoax.

Also, the people who filmed this definitely had the money and the resources needed to pull off a Bigfoot costume (along with a motive: to get publicity for a Playboy special in mainstream news outlets that wouldn't touch the story otherwise). Not that the I find the baggy suit to be impressive. In fact, it kinda reminds me of the baggy, full-body werewolf costume used to make this Bigfoot comedy video.

If we watch the original version of the film, we can hear the terrible "acting" that was cut out of the version that you linked to. A bunch of people in a vehicle (presumably without weapons) see what they think is a bear and decide to go "get it?" And when "Bigfoot" is revealed, nobody sounds scared at all. Lots of swearing, but no trace of fear in their voices. Compare it to the reactions of the people in this Bigfoot TV prank (here's a shorter version for people with slower connections). Notice how the people in that actually sound frightened, unlike those in the Redwoods video.

 

[historian]

bruto, ORDINANCE IS LAW. That is my point. The mistaken point that the contradicting skeptics thought that they could rally behind, is that non-codified ordinance is not law. The most recent paragraph states that the codified law can be completely tossed, but the ordinances still are both valid and are law, regardless of whether they were every codified or not. In my wildest dreams, I do not expect any skeptic to concede defeat on this point of law. Hence, socially disfunctional behavior..

 

[Locknar]

bruto, ORDINANCE IS LAW. That is my point. The mistaken point that the contradicting skeptics thought that they could rally behind, is that non-codified ordinance is not law. The most recent paragraph states that the codified law can be completely tossed, but the ordinances still are both valid and are law, regardless of whether they were every codified or not. In my wildest dreams, I do not expect any skeptic to concede defeat on this point of law. Hence, socially disfunctional behavior..

Speaking of which, how is your search for actual documentation on this going? Any luck finding an offical County/State site?

 

[historian]

Also, the people who filmed this definitely had the money and the resources needed to pull off a Bigfoot costume (along with a motive: to get publicity for a Playboy special in mainstream news outlets that wouldn't touch the story otherwise).

These are typical skeptic mind games. If the filmers had no money, then the skeptic would have said that the filmers needed the money, so they hoaxed it. Everyone has a motive, unless they are already in a casket and 6 feet below ground. Having a motive does not equate to the film being an automatic hoax.

If we watch the original version of the film, we can hear the terrible "acting" that was cut out of the version that you linked to. A bunch of people in a vehicle (presumably without weapons) see what they think is a bear and decide to go "get it?" And when "Bigfoot" is revealed, nobody sounds scared at all. Lots of swearing, but no trace of fear in their voices.

More skeptic mind games. You haven't hung around many actors, apparently. They always sound like they are acting, whether they are in fact acting or not. This is typical actor behavior. This also was obviously not scripted. The order of comments made by each party inside of the vehicle, appeared to be absolutely legitimate. The rapid fire of each party's comment, also points to it's legitimacy. The vehicle is obviously a very safe place for them to be. Combine that with safety in numbers, and there is no reason for them to be frightened. What makes this extremely believeable compared to hoaxed films like the Memorial Day footage, is that it takes these actors quite a while to concluded that the subject is a sasquatch. In typical hoaxed videos, someone shouts sasquatch or bigfoot, RIGHT OFF THE BAT in order to identify it for the viewer. A second reason that points toward the video as being legitimate, is that the camera is not in the extreme front of the vehicle and pointing through the windshield. Instead, it is filming people inside of the vehicle. So combine this with Larry Lund being associated with the films claimed hoax status, and I firmly believe that the Redwoods footage is absolutely legitimate. Peter Byrne's participation does not add legitimacy to a claimed debunking either. Sleuthing is not his area of expertise, plus he cannot deal with anything that is not 24/7 flesh and blood.

 

[Locknar]

You haven't hung around many actors, apparently. They always sound like they are acting, whether they are in fact acting or not. This is typical actor behavior.

<snip>

Wow....Bigfoot, legal, and now acting expert; is there no limit to your abilities???

ETA: As to the rest of your comments, it is unclear which version of the video you are commenting on; the link you provided, or the more link that AMM did.

 

[bruto]

bruto, ORDINANCE IS LAW. That is my point. The mistaken point that the contradicting skeptics thought that they could rally behind, is that non-codified ordinance is not law. The most recent paragraph states that the codified law can be completely tossed, but the ordinances still are both valid and are law, regardless of whether they were every codified or not. In my wildest dreams, I do not expect any skeptic to concede defeat on this point of law. Hence, socially disfunctional behavior..

Your comprehension is deficient. That is simply not what the paragraph says. It says two things:

first, that if the current ordinance is tossed altogether, it is effectively considered not to have been enacted, and therefore whatever ordinances or laws were in existence before it was passed will be deemed not to have been repealed or superseded, thus insuring that there is not a period when no law is applicable at all;

and second, that if a part of the current ordinance is tossed, the remainder is not inavalidated as a result. It's simple, common, everyday legislative boilerplate. If you pass a zoning ordinance, and someone determines that the part that regulates building height is invalid, you can't say, "whoops, no zoning ordinance, now I can build a junkyard three feet from the road." It's called separability. It's found in leases and contracts, as well as legislation.

The existence of non-codified ordinances, which do indeed exist, is irrelevant to my discussion of the meaning of those passages. Most planning and zoning ordinances are non codified, being so cumbersome and filled with administrative trivia that they constitute a volume of their own, and they are usually prepared and legislated separately from other laws, and administered and enforced separately as well. Non codified ordinances are not contained in the code of the cities or districts in which they are in effect, and thus might not appear in web pages containing only those codes, but are always in the public record somewhere. [Edited to add] Another reason for non codified ordinances is in applications, such as zoning and planning, where changes and amendments are frequently made. In such cases, the ordinance, when it is adopted and voted on by the legislature (or town meeting, etc.) will contain wording to the effect that changes not affecting the substance of the law can be made without requirement of legislative approval. Again, a common feature of certain kinds of ordinances, so that they you don't need a town meeting, legislative session or referendum, every time you decide to change a yard requirement or the allowable height of microwave towers, etc. They still must be made a part of the public record, however. You would expect to find somewhere in either the ordinance or the code, or both, a note that omission of such an ordinance from the code does not constitute repeal or invalidity. This has nothing to do with what occurs if the ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid!

So if all you meant to say when this part of the discussion began was that it is possible for an ordinance to exist but not to appear in the general code of the jurisdiction, yes, that is correct. This does not, by itself, of course, prove that such an ordinance exists, only that, like bigfoot himself, it might. And it emphatically does not mean that you interpreted the passages you quoted correctly.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

ETA: As to the rest of your comments, it is unclear which version of the video you are commenting on; the link you provided, or the more link that AMM did.

He's referring to the link I provided. The enhanced version of the Redwoods video edits out the scenes in the camper.

 

[historian]

So if all you meant to say when this part of the discussion began was that it is possible for an ordinance to exist but not to appear in the general code of the jurisdiction, yes, that is correct. This does not, by itself, of course, prove that such an ordinance exists, only that, like bigfoot himself, it might. And it emphatically does not mean that you interpreted the passages you quoted correctly.

1984 is the date on the ordinance. Not too many personal computers out there in that year. No reason to put that ordinance on the internet. Bigfoot researchers have been aware of this legislation and the reason behind it, since it's inception. Just because you failed to get the memo on it, certainly does not mean that it does not exist. It is common knowledge on the west coast. I am totally confident that the revised ORDINANCE No. 1984-02, exists exactly as copied onto this thread. Since they spent the time to revise it, obviously Skamania County felt very strongly about it. Might have someting to do with being 99% covered with forest, and being rich with Bigfoot. Obviously, the existence of that ordinance, does not bode well for those that play the mind game of "prove it", "prove it", "prove it, because this is pretty darn good circumstantial evidence that there is at least one legislative authority that has passed laws to protect the bigfoot. Other attempts include Whitehall, New York & current Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon, as I recall. So it just keeps getting better and better for the Bigfoot, and worse and worse for those skeptics who continue to cling to internet sparing matches as perhaps their last desparate hope of maintaining their mistaken beliefs. Oh, and try and get a good nights sleep with millions of 8 foot plus tall bigfoot wandering around outside in the dark. Thank goodness for indoor plumbing. Perhaps there is a bigfoot connection there.

 

[Locknar]

He's referring to the link I provided. The enhanced version of the Redwoods video edits out the scenes in the camper.

Ah

Overall, I'd have to go with your comments. They see what they think is a bear, then wanna go chase after it? Likewise, the lack of fear or sense of "wonder", etc. Sure seems like a setup/prank to me.

 

[Locknar]

1984 is the date on the ordinance. Not too many personal computers out there in that year. No reason to put that ordinance on the internet. Bigfoot researchers have been aware of this legislation and the reason behind it, since it's inception. Just because you failed to get the memo on it, certainly does not mean that it does not exist. It is common knowledge on the west coast. I am totally confident that the revised ORDINANCE No. 1984-02, exists exactly as copied onto this thread. Since they spent the time to revise it, obviously Skamania County felt very strongly about it. Might have someting to do with being 99% covered with forest, and being rich with Bigfoot. Obviously, the existence of that ordinance, does not bode well for those that play the mind game of "prove it", "prove it", "prove it, because this is pretty darn good circumstantial evidence that there is at least one legislative authority that has passed laws to protect the bigfoot. Other attempts include Whitehall, New York & current Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon, as I recall. So it just keeps getting better and better for the Bigfoot, and worse and worse for those skeptics who continue to cling to internet sparing matches as perhaps their last desparate hope of maintaining their mistaken beliefs. Oh, and try and get a good nights sleep with millions of 8 foot plus tall bigfoot wandering around outside in the dark. Thank goodness for indoor plumbing. Perhaps there is a bigfoot connection there.

BOLE is mine
The motivation behind this was to stop the droves of hunters that were roaming the woods, blasting away at each other thinking it was "Bigfoot".

As to your other comment; no problem there. I've already won my duel with the cowardly one...they are simply to ashamed to show themselves after such a humiliating loss. Though, I'm happy to give "Bigfoot" a rematch anytime...should you be able to arrange it.

 

[bruto]

1984 is the date on the ordinance. Not too many personal computers out there in that year. No reason to put that ordinance on the internet. Bigfoot researchers have been aware of this legislation and the reason behind it, since it's inception. Just because you failed to get the memo on it, certainly does not mean that it does not exist. It is common knowledge on the west coast. I am totally confident that the revised ORDINANCE No. 1984-02, exists exactly as copied onto this thread. Since they spent the time to revise it, obviously Skamania County felt very strongly about it. Might have someting to do with being 99% covered with forest, and being rich with Bigfoot. Obviously, the existence of that ordinance, does not bode well for those that play the mind game of "prove it", "prove it", "prove it, because this is pretty darn good circumstantial evidence that there is at least one legislative authority that has passed laws to protect the bigfoot. Other attempts include Whitehall, New York & current Governor Ted Kulongoski of Oregon, as I recall. So it just keeps getting better and better for the Bigfoot, and worse and worse for those skeptics who continue to cling to internet sparing matches as perhaps their last desparate hope of maintaining their mistaken beliefs. Oh, and try and get a good nights sleep with millions of 8 foot plus tall bigfoot wandering around outside in the dark. Thank goodness for indoor plumbing. Perhaps there is a bigfoot connection there.

I, for one, do not have any reason to doubt that there have been resolutions, ordinances, or whatever, in various places, to protect unproven but potentially existent creatures from harm. Bigfoot is not unique in this. The existence of a bigfoot ordinance does not even begin to support the existence of a bigfoot. These ordinances prove nothing, reveal nothing and demonstrate nothing except for the persistence of hope and hype. Perhaps you "recall" Whitehall, NY because I mentioned it in an earlier post. It's a symbolic resolution with no penalties, not a proper ordinance anyway, an openly admitted publicity ploy for a down-at-heels tank town whose main industry is gone, main street nearly abandoned, economy down the toilet, hoping to get the kind of woo-woo tourist mileage out of Bigfoot that Port Henry to the North does from Champ. Someone once thought they saw one there, and since Champ would be a hard sell at the creek end of the lake, (especially south of the canal locks), why not bigfoot?

This issue is a non-starter, historian.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

These are typical skeptic mind games. If the filmers had no money, then the skeptic would have said that the filmers needed the money, so they hoaxed it.

Or maybe they'd say that the filmers actually had the money to pull off such a hoax. After all, it doesn't cost an outrageous amount of money to build a good-looking Bigfoot/wookiee costume.

Having a motive does not equate to the film being an automatic hoax.

Yeah, but I've heard far too many proponents argue that something couldn't have been a hoax since the person had "no reason to do something like that" to let that slip by.

Besides, why be suspicious about possible motive when you can be suspicious about the crew having discussed Bigfoot the night before the film was shot?

You haven't hung around many actors, apparently.

Heh heh. If you only knew...

They always sound like they are acting, whether they are in fact acting or not. This is typical actor behavior.

Do you have any proof of your (laughably false) claim?

This also was obviously not scripted. The order of comments made by each party inside of the vehicle, appeared to be absolutely legitimate. The rapid fire of each party's comment, also points to it's legitimacy.

You've obviously never heard of "UFO Abduction," an obscure 80's indie movie that was reedited and successfully passed-off as being real footage of aliens abducting a family (and was later remade as "Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County"). Its supporters made arguments just like yours, as seen in this news segment on the film.

The vehicle is obviously a very safe place for them to be. Combine that with safety in numbers, and there is no reason for them to be frightened.

Then why were the people in the TV prank that I linked to scared out of their minds, despite being in a similar situation?

In typical hoaxed videos, someone shouts sasquatch or bigfoot, RIGHT OFF THE BAT in order to identify it for the viewer.

I've seen comedy videos that do this, but have never seen such a thing in a film that was seriously attempted to get passed off as the real thing. Perhaps you could link me to some?

Oddly enough, the Memorial Day Footage hoax meets this requirement (full text here), but you (rightly) say that it's a hoax.

A second reason that points toward the video as being legitimate, is that the camera is not in the extreme front of the vehicle and pointing through the windshield. Instead, it is filming people inside of the vehicle.

So poor camera angles are evidence of legitimacy? You might want to watch this and rethink the above statement.

Peter Byrne's participation does not add legitimacy to a claimed debunking either. Sleuthing is not his area of expertise, plus he cannot deal with anything that is not 24/7 flesh and blood.

The same can be said about Dr. Jeff Meldrum, and yet he thinks the video is real. I don't recall the late Rene Dahinden believing in a "paranormal Bigfoot" anbd yet he thought the film was a hoax.

 

[RayG]

Any luck finding an offical County/State site?

This it?

http://www.bigfootinfo.org/articles/article.php?id=6

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

SECTION 3. Defense. In the prosecution and trail of any accused Sasquatch killer the fact that the actor is suffering from insane delusions, diminished capacity, or that the act was the product of a diseased mind, shall not be a defense.

That's never going to hold up. Why would anyone write that?

 

[bruto]

That's never going to hold up. Why would anyone write that?

I suppose they can write what they want. I don't suppose it will ever be tested, will it?

 

[LTC8K6]

Since it doesn't appear to be an actual, law, I guess you're right in more than one way.

 

[bruto]

Historian, while citing parts of the Skamania County Code, you seem to have been a bit selective. See if you can mis-read or mis-interpret the following passage, taken from the Skamania County Code ( section1.01.30):

This code consists of all the regulatory and penal ordinances and certain of the administrative ordinances of Skamania County, Washington. (Ord. 1979-07 § 3)

Bolding mine.

 

[Normal Dude]

I never thought I would be saying this, but this thread has taken a turn for the wierd..er.

 

[kitakaze]

Nothing to worry about. They fix their own meals while in another dimension, and normally confine their food intake to the 4th dimension presence of your food stash. I have little 4th dimension people in my home at this moment. If I don't leave fresh fruit out, they get a little grumpy after a week of starvation or so. That is why your grandmother always kept a bowl of fresh fruit available, in the middle of the kitchen table. Which was to feed the little invisible 4th dimension people that often live hidden in our homes.

Neal, this is your post from the bigfoot newbie questions thread
which I will not respond to there so as to not contribute to a derail.

I asked you before if these interdimensional being speak with you from time to time, either conventionally or telepathically. Do they?

Also, since I am a bigfoot researcher with far more experience than you and my work has been respected and acknowledged by far more people than you, I don't mind telling you that fruit on the table/interdimensional peoples correlation is guano.