Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 So IF this did happen, it would make sense that there is a legal circus going on with yet another party (ie the landowners) now claiming part or whole of its body.? Well, the legal stuff would be big news too! Headlines, "Bigfoot dead! Who owns the body, courts to decide!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Cisco, spot on, that thought was occuring to me too, reading skyla's post!! And MarkGlascow is our investigative reporter too, quietly behind the scenes? Were you not involved in getting some of the dirt on Ed Smith? ronn, no, let Cisco be excited, all our theories revolve around this particular property behind the home depot, that where RD said he was, he videotaped himself and only changed that story after the precise location leaked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Cisco..calmn down dude...LOL. There is one caveat to your theory...Dyer claims this all took place SOMEWHERE ELSE..nearby. Of course, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't mean squat because this whole story is a fairy tale. Ronn I thought about this too and the law is still applied equally. If he shot it on private land, the owner of that land would have the rights to the body. Just to be perfectly clear, the owner of the property would not have a "claim" to all or part of the body. The owner would have a right to all of the body, no questions asked. If RD claims the owner gave him permission to shoot or capture a Bigfoot, and then give ownership rights to RD, then the land owner would have given up a fortune. If RD shot the Bigfoot on public land, then the State of Texas owns the Bigfoot. Just like shooting deer on public land, without permission or a license, it's considered poaching and the carcass is confiscated. I think we can safely assume that RD did NOT have permission to hunt on the land and he did not have a valid Texas hunting license on the date of the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Ronn I thought about this too and the law is still applied equally. If he shot it on private land, the owner of that land would have the rights to the body. Just to be perfectly clear, the owner of the property would not have a "claim" to all or part of the body. The owner would have a right to all of the body, no questions asked. If RD claims the owner gave him permission to shoot or capture a Bigfoot, and then give ownership rights to RD, then the land owner would have given up a fortune. If RD shot the Bigfoot on public land, then the State of Texas owns the Bigfoot. Just like shooting deer on public land, without permission or a license, it's considered poaching and the carcass is confiscated. I think we can safely assume that RD did NOT have permission to hunt on the land and he did not have a valid Texas hunting license on the date of the shooting. I'm cool with that accessment. What if he was on Public Land? Someone here posted a *reserve* park(?) around 5 miles from the Home Depot. Of course, discharging a fire arm would prolly be a *no-no* there as well. Edited January 29, 2013 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Ronn I thought about this too and the law is still applied equally. If he shot it on private land, the owner of that land would have the rights to the body. Just to be perfectly clear, the owner of the property would not have a "claim" to all or part of the body. The owner would have a right to all of the body, no questions asked. If RD claims the owner gave him permission to shoot or capture a Bigfoot, and then give ownership rights to RD, then the land owner would have given up a fortune. If RD shot the Bigfoot on public land, then the State of Texas owns the Bigfoot. Just like shooting deer on public land, without permission or a license, it's considered poaching and the carcass is confiscated. I think we can safely assume that RD did NOT have permission to hunt on the land and he did not have a valid Texas hunting license on the date of the shooting. So what is Musky going to see after his long arguous blindfolded ear-bashing journey? They will arrive at some property and Rick will be knocking on the door saying 'erm we are here to see the body, can we come in pleeeeeeeease'. We both have 90 page NDA's and we promise not to touch'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) I think it's a foregone conclusion Musky will report that there was a body...either that or, less likely, Dyer will come up with some *CAWK & BULL Story* about Musky pulling a fast one (violating some aspect of the NDA) and they refuse to go forward. OR...one of the principals (other than Dyer) changed his mind. Personally, I think Musky is a Dyer SHILL...helping him pull off this hoax. Edited January 29, 2013 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The law applies equally to public or private land. 1. If he shot it on private land, the land owner owns the body. 2. If he shot it on public land, the State of Texas owns the body. In addition, he is also liable for hunting without a license which is punishable by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 COOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I think it's a foregone conclusion Musky will report that there was a body...either that or, less likely, Dyer will come up with some *CAWK & BULL Story* about Musky pulling a fast one (violating some aspect of the NDA) and they refuse to go forward. OR...one of the principals (other than Dyer) changed his mind. I agree with Ronn1. 9 pages, may include you can't breathe in the room. I think after Musky sees the "body" the news media should interview him. But, I bet that is part of the NDA! Well, a " no comment" could be news. I do not believe the news does not want a part of this hoax. I don't think RD wants CNN to air it. You know, if it is reported as "true" or "no comment" the 2008 hoax will rear its head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Someone here posted a *reserve* park(?) around 5 miles from the Home Depot. Of course, discharging a fire arm would prolly be a *no-no* there as well. Think that was me, and it is a big "no-no". Place looks to be very public and well guarded. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/state-parks/government-canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The law applies equally to public or private land. 1. If he shot it on private land, the land owner owns the body. 2. If he shot it on public land, the State of Texas owns the body. In addition, he is also liable for hunting without a license which is punishable by law. Do you think it could ever be possible that an animal that is unique and a new species, if found belongs to science? Maybe there is a new law being bashed out as we speak! You see, like I have said so many times, if this did happen, there are probably loads and loads of legal arguments going on. RD is probably battling it out with the landowners/Minnow/State of Texas/ and maybe many other parties. Its such an unusual event that I bet new laws are trying to be formed? I think it's a foregone conclusion Musky will report that there was a body...either that or, less likely, Dyer will come up with some *CAWK & BULL Story* about Musky pulling a fast one (violating some aspect of the NDA) and they refuse to go forward. OR...one of the principals (other than Dyer) changed his mind. Personally, I think Musky is a Dyer SHILL...helping him pull off this hoax. Whats a SHILL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Aw come on! Your contact was and still is purposefully vague and you have worked out the reason for this vagueness? YOu are guessing the reason in other words?? That is why I used the phrase 'In my mind'. No smoke and mirrors here Jacki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 They only got $250 LBS, to make this film, and they're not going to spend half their budget on costumes. Good point. If they shot the Bigfoot on September 6; why did they stay four more days? Another good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 ^^ plussed, I like no smoke and mirrors!! The news media being alerted actually occured to me quite some time ago, right after RacerX found the location. Wonder what a well placed call might do to this story? Wasn't that money grant money for the film? Who's to say that was the total of their budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Whats a SHILL? FromWikipedia:A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization. "Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts