Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) LOL..Pot calling kettle black? *knock,knock* hello it's just me ...reallity....open the door please.... Edited February 22, 2013 by frosty
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Deleted Edited February 22, 2013 by ronn1
Guest DantheMan Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 BF not defined as an *animal* To be fair, Texas does not define "animal" in their hunting regs, I just checked
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) To be fair, Texas does not define "animal" in their hunting regs, I just checked Are you sure did you look under their Unicorn and undifined speicies special tags section of the hand book? Edited February 22, 2013 by frosty
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 To be fair, Texas does not define "animal" in their hunting regs, I just checked They can't bust him on this...what he *may have* is not yet covered under the existing statues. They can't go after him.
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 To me this all seems like some psychological experiment on BF believers. Basically it is a test of how people believe in something, even though they know the source is dubious, and will believe in it even as more evidence against their belief being true trickles out. All of it is being documented by a British film crew. Maybe your quote will end up in the film. I'm amazed at how many people are so sure that this time it is not a hoax. So many people seem to have inside info, Adam mentioned the indside info, then coincidentally brought up inside info of his own and the number of posts exploded with people theorizing. Just that could be a lesson on how things get so spun out of control so fast, I have to wonder if that wasn't Adam's point. They can't bust him on this...what he *may have* is not yet covered under the existing statues. They can't go after him. It's either an animal you do not need a license for, an animal you do need a license for, or a human. 2 of those things can get a person in trouble, and It would not surprise me that it would be investigated at minimum.
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Giving Adam a bit too much credit? That says a lot about what you yourself are saying. It's either an animal you do not need a license for, an animal you do need a license for, or a human. 2 of those things can get a person in trouble, and It would not surprise me that it would be investigated at minimum. No it doesn't exist and currently is not defined as anything at all.
Guest njjohn Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Ronn - what he's saying is it doesn't matter if there's a "thing" or not, just the public claim that you did without reporting it is illegal. The fact that he might not have a body of anything is irrelevant.
Guest DantheMan Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 They can't bust him on this...what he *may have* is not yet covered under the existing statues. They can't go after him. Are you a DA? I'm sure they could "go after" him. Getting it to stick could be an issue. Here's something to ponder.....if there is a body first of all, and there is a hint of human DNA, he could end up strapped to his own gurney, it did occur in Texas of all places.
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Ronn - what he's saying is it doesn't matter if there's a "thing" or not, just the public claim that you did without reporting it is illegal. The fact that he might not have a body of anything is irrelevant. Unless he has something..this is a fuss about nothing. Let's get real. Are you a DA? I'm sure they could "go after" him. Getting it to stick could be an issue. Here's something to ponder.....if there is a body first of all, and there is a hint of human DNA, he could end up strapped to his own gurney, it did occur in Texas of all places. Are you saying he may have a BF? Edited February 22, 2013 by ronn1
Guest miller44 Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) I've made reference to this in the Part1 thread, but since it's currently a topic of conversation. Interestingly it was writen before the Dyer situation ever came up. link: http://ca.news.yahoo...-153236354.html Article: Anyone seeking ultimate proof of the existence of Bigfoot should head south. In Texas, it is legal to shoot and kill this legendary giant ape, known in other parts of the world as Sasquatch or Yeti, which has never been discovered.According to an official with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, Bigfoot isn't listed as an endangered species, so you're free to kill as many as you want. "If the Commission does not specifically list an indigenous, nongame species, then the species is considered nonprotected nongame wildlife," David Sinclair, direction of the law enforcement division at Texas Parks and Wildlife, wrote in an email response to a curious Bigfoot believer. "A nonprotected nongame animal may be hunted on private property with landowner consent by any means, at any time and there is no bag limit or possession limit." John Lloyd Sharf of Salem, Ore., contacted Texas Parks and Wildlife to inquire whether Bigfoot was protected in Texas. As one of the 29 percent of Americans who believe Bigfoot inhabits the country's remote woodland areas and is just really difficult to find, Sharf was apparently motivated by the concern that the as-yet-undiscovered creature could face extermination in the state. "So, it is the case all individuals of an unknown species … could be exterminated without criminal or civil repercussions — essentially causing extinction?" Sharf said he replied to Sinclair. At Cryptomundo, a popular "cryptozoology" discussion forum and blog, Bigfoot believers are forming a plan of action to deal with what they see as the potentially disastrous outcome of this loophole in the Texas hunting laws, which would allow Bigfoot to be hunted to extinction before a living specimen could be studied. "I would advocate a small group of trained hunters, under close supervision and observing all necessary safety precautions shooting a SINGLE individual to provide a type specimen," wrote a user who goes by the name AreWeThereYeti. "Then, once the existence of Sasquatch was proven, immediate steps could be taken to attach an endangered/protected status to both the species and its habitat." Edited February 22, 2013 by miller44
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Way to go Violet and Jacki. Recognition you both deserve. HA! How funny! My name in lights at last *sigh*
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 Ok good night if i hear anything else I can pass along I will do so...I do think that LE in Vegas are gonna come knocking asking some hard questions Jeez Adam. Why didnt you do this research months ago *doh*!
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=585421128154420 As close to admittance as you're going to get before the documentary comes out?
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 https://www.facebook...585421128154420 As close to admittance as you're going to get before the documentary comes out? Sorry NevsTash. We have already discussed this statement. You need to read the thread from a few days ago. Its all about pedantics!
Recommended Posts