Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/16/2024 in all areas

  1. Nope. I don't pay attention to those. Yeah, probably not. They can downvote me.
    1 point
  2. Carnivals. Government isn't making money from that. The clowns are.
    1 point
  3. Don't see 3 cats every day…… Last pic of deer on the camera couple days before.
    1 point
  4. I'm awake .. and urging a little caution in your assumptions. Lets suppose for a second that gov't in its various forms does know of bigfoot existence. If they already know from DNA that BF is some kind of person, not a dumb animal, then all fish and game agencies, state and federal, are outside their jurisdiction. The only agency that MIGHT have any authority would be the Bureau of Indian Affairs within Department of Interior .. and even that requires assumptions to assert which may not be true. Lets suppose, just for the sake of Tuesday afternoon goofiness, that bigfoot are indeed people. What if we already have a treaty with them and one of the stipulations is "no disclosure?" That would explain a whole lot of otherwise wackadoodle government behavior, huh? That treaty would then require that gov't couldn't admit that such a treaty existed. (Nah, I don't really believe it, but we gotta consider all the angles .. I think?) Have a good 'un ... I'm going back to sleep.
    1 point
  5. Thanks for the caution but I have tossed caution out the window a long time ago as most here well know. Why? Because caution carries implications I'd rather not be associated with. And because all the caution (or lack of it?) in the world is useless if the creature is, first and foremost, never proved to even exist. It means all assumptions remain on the table- caution be damned. The real point being we ALL know how to settle this. But we all ALSO know no one's going to. Norseman says putting a bullet in one will settle it. It hasn't so far in a hundred years-if not way more than that. USFWS has implied the creature doesn't exist by saying "hunting "Bigfoot" is a recreational activity". I thought putting Bigfoot in quotation marks was pretty clever, if not outright hilarious. But even if the Sasquatch exists? Then hunting it could STILL be a recreational activity, right?. See how that works? Typical government yes/no-speak. No one here really cares though so I don't know why I even bother to point stuff like this out. I am, after all, just a random person.....and apparently not a very cautious random person at that. Do I care? Nope. And I wish more folks also didn't.
    -1 points
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...