bigfoot is real I have the proof

Its called protecting my intrest if he is who he says he is then he should have no problem useing a lawyer .
 
Creekfreak said:
Its called protecting my intrest if he is who he says he is then he should have no problem useing a lawyer .
Click to expand...
Your wanting a lawyer to review a NDA is fine....but why would PetersCreek need a lawyer as well? It is unnecessary and does nothing to protect your interests.

This could be unnecessary stalling on your part. Or, it could be you simply do not understand business law in terms of NDAs. Your local library would should have books on this topic.

So which is it?
 
I don't get it. What lawyer are you going to get to look at it? You admitted that you make $100 a week as a bouncer and other than that you're 'foot-hunting (or trolling the internet c/o Windows 95). How are you going to afford a lawyer? I don't believe you have any intention of following through but I'll just leave it with the old saying: I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Locknar said:
Your wanting a lawyer to review a NDA is fine....but why would PetersCreek need a lawyer as well? It is unnecessary and does nothing to protect your interests.

This could be unnecessary stalling on your part. Or, it could be you simply do not understand business law in terms of NDAs. Your local library would should have books on this topic.

So which is it?
Click to expand...

I don't think he's saying they need separate lawyers, just that PetersCreek, if legitimate, shouldn't have any qualms (other than irritation and impatience) with having a lawyer review the document to ensure that nobody is gonna get forked. Of course, throwing away money on a lawyer might be better than throwing away money trying to catch a sample of Bigfoot's dingleberries.
 
AudioFreak said:
I don't think he's saying they need separate lawyers, just that PetersCreek, if legitimate, shouldn't have any qualms (other than irritation and impatience) with having a lawyer review the document to ensure that nobody is gonna get forked. Of course, throwing away money on a lawyer might be better than throwing away money trying to catch a sample of Bigfoot's dingleberries.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, it would really be up to Creek to do that. Creek will not trust him with his picture, but would trust him to pick out a lawyer???
 
Creekfreak said:
PC . Send me your agreement and I will have a lawyer look at it if it is agreeable to me you will have to provide a lawyer also to make this a legal binding agreement . Fair enough ?
Click to expand...

This looks like just another evasive tactic...heap unreasonable conditions upon the test that you know/hope/pray I won't accept in an effort to take the heat off. And of course, I do not accept your terms as stated.

You are quite free to consult a lawyer as you wish and feel is necessary to protect your interests. However, you are profoundly incorrect about yet one more thing. I do not need a lawyer to represent me in order to make a simple license agreement binding. That is far from the industry norm. But please, by all means, if you feel that I'm wrong on this, please cite the relevant statute(s) under Florida law.

With your misstatement out of the way, I'll add that there simply is no other compelling reason for me to retain a lawyer in this matter. I have no financial stake in your photograph, whether it proves genuine or not. You, on the other hand, stand to make quite the tidy sum if your image turns out to be the dead-certain cinch that you claim it is. Retaining a lawyer would be a modest investment toward securing that huge payoff for yourself, while I would simply pay my legal fees out of pocket with no hope of recovery.

Not-so-nice try.
 
Last edited:
Locknar said:
If that is the case, it would really be up to Creek to do that. Creek will not trust him with his picture, but would trust him to pick out a lawyer???
Click to expand...

Oh, you know what, upon further review I am wrong. Creek says: "I will have a lawyer look at it if it is agreeable to me you will have to provide a lawyer also to make this a legal binding agreement . Fair enough ? "

The answer being, Creek, NO! That's not fair enough. Why would he want to spend one cent on your bull? He's going WAY out of his way just to offer his services and give you the benefit of the doubt and provide some credibility to your claims. Quit this crap with your sense of entitlement. As I've said before, pony up or shut up.
 
I work with NDAs all the time. Lawyers are not required. Creekfreak is stalling, as usual.

Sorry that this forum wasn't full of the suckers that you thought it would be.
 
Yep.

I am also quite used to NDAs- or confidentiality agreements, CAs, if you preffer. Pretty routine in my job. And these are contracts between international mining companies. Unless we're talking about a pretty big bunch of zeros before the dot (way much more than Creekfreak could ever hope to get with his pic), quite often lawyers are not required, just a standard contract where both sides agree with the terms. Even when we modify the terms we usually do not call lawyers. We do it ourselves. Lawyers sometimes will just make the proccess slower and more bureaucratic.

In this particular case, all Creekfreak would need is something like "PetersCreek wil not make any commercial use of Creekfreak's photo and agrees not to divulgue and/or distribute copies of the original file provided by Creekfreak or the original file itself, under the penalty of [add sum in preferred currency here]".

Simple, eh?
 
You can read what I have to say about the original and the 'enhanced' copy where the picture is located. I'm tired, heading to bed, everyone can go at it on what is posted.

Thanks
Darkwing
 
Sorry Dark but your assesment is worng I can see it plain as day even with this moniter you are mistaken my good man . All you have to do is adjust the blues in the photo and the eyes will show up again sorry but you are worng on this one .
 
Sorry Dark but your assesment is worng I can see it plain as day even with this moniter you are mistaken my good man . All you have to do is adjust the blues in the photo and the eyes will show up again sorry but you are worng on this one .
Click to expand...

What did the other expert say, creek?

I don't want his name or anything, just a general idea of what he said about the photo, to compare with DW's assessment of it.
 
The photos I sent dark are of the same spot and it is clear that there are no bigfoots in it the next day . He has made a mistake on this and I will prove it if I have to go back and take more . Also before you all go off the handle here the man that did the enhancing has not made a statement as of yet . He has told me that nothing was added and that he did not have to do much to it for the eyes to show up . I tryed it myself on a freinds computer useing photoshop and I was even able to make the eyes show up without adding anything just by adjusting the blues . And one more thing you cannot compare the rotor wash of snow to a salt marsh come on thats apples and oranges . The choper was over water and the trees where blocking the wash and so was the bank so this means nothing . One thing I will agree with dark on is he has not said that the creature was added so his reputation is still safe . This is not over yet guys I am going the distance with this everything will be proven in time . Calling it a hoax is not in the best intrest of anyone at this point becouse I am not done yet. And as far as proveing there was a fire washes research was unfounded I have given you the news paper that ran the story I dont think they would print a lie about a fire that threatend many homes .Dark has his reasons for posting what he thinks to be true but like Ive said this is not over by a long shot
 
read my last statement this is not over and I am not lieing . All that has been proven here is that Dark and I disagree on his assessment .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom