JDL Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 georgerm, reading Peter's letter, I can see how this could happen. People don't often look up all of the conditional terms in a program and often program managers don't explain them.
norseman Posted February 6, 2014 Admin Posted February 6, 2014 And see, thats why I think this whole phemonena is built by human nature. Trying to figure out where bigfoot really fits is what is difficult The phenomena is absolutely a human construct. Just like sharks have no idea that they star on shark week or that race horses have no idea that human bet on them........ If a real animal is out there? Peter Byrne's taxes or Finding Bigfoot's TV ratings have nothing to with it. It's only our own perception that's swayed. Me banging on this keyboard doesn't make Squatch any more real but by the same token you banging on the keyboard doesn't make it any less real. With that said the burden of proof is on me and not you. Rene Dahinden never cheated on his taxes.........and I don't see any skeptics holding his reports or investigations in any higher regard than Peter Byrne's reports. Again, it's just human nature.
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 So a convicted criminal, didn't do anything wrong, yep that is pretty much standard for most convicts. I don't think he claimed that he wasn't at fault for what happened. Maybe I missed that in the posted email. Calling the man a convicted criminal to make your point. Nice touch. Again, what does this have to do with the Bigfoot phenomenon? ^Same story I hear almost every day. I have never met a criminal who didnt believe he did anything wrong. Now Byne is a convicted criminal in the USA and has defrauded those of us who are US citizens of our hard earned money we pay in taxes. Does anybody here think that is acceptable behaviour? I'd like to see where he claimed he didn't do anything wrong in the posted email. Can you show that to me, please? Convicted criminal stated yet again. Why am I not surprised? The man claims to have overlooked a stipulation, but he's a convicted criminal, so we shouldn't believe him. It just had to be intentional because he is a Bigfoot proponent! LOL! I'm not making a claim that he intentionally defrauded anyone, nor am I defending his actions if they were indeed as he claims. Then again, I'm not trying to bolster my position by kicking an elderly man when he's down. My point in this, and maybe wasnt made to clearly, is that proponents are always quick to overlook certain character faults, be it dishonesty, narcissism, addictions, or anything else when it pertains to the bigfoot saints . If Disotell or Meldrum committed the same scientific fraud who would be forgiven and who would be burned alive on this forum? Nobody claimed he was a saint, but he is human, and as such makes mistakes and, possibly, wrong choices. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
georgerm Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I don't think he claimed that he wasn't at fault for what happened. Maybe I missed that in the posted email. Calling the man a convicted criminal to make your point. Nice touch. Again, what does this have to do with the Bigfoot phenomenon? I'd like to see where he claimed he didn't do anything wrong in the posted email. Can you show that to me, please? Convicted criminal stated yet again. Why am I not surprised? The man claims to have overlooked a stipulation, but he's a convicted criminal, so we shouldn't believe him. It just had to be intentional because he is a Bigfoot proponent! LOL! I'm not making a claim that he intentionally defrauded anyone, nor am I defending his actions if they were indeed as he claims. Then again, I'm not trying to bolster my position by kicking an elderly man when he's down. Nobody claimed he was a saint, but he is human, and as such makes mistakes and, possibly, wrong choices. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. Well put again in precise English and logic.
Guest Darrell Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Peter Bryne committed fraud. That is fact right? He is now a convited felon in the USA. Again fact right? Because I work in the criminal justice field I see this type of thing all the time. Please do not attack me for stating facts, something that is most often over looked here on this forum. Peter Bryne did a nice job of playing the aristocrat of bigfootery with other peoples money while collecting public assistance from our government. I didnt take away his integrity, he threw it away himself and if you choose to side with that type of individual then thats your choice. Just dont make me the bad guy. At some point this phenomina needs to send the hucksters and crazies packing or you all will never accomplish anything.
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 My response had nothing to do with your job or what you see all of the time. I asked you to back up your claims in your earlier post. If you cannot, admit it and move on. I never sided with him, either. How you arrived at that I'll never know. Asking someone to substantiate their statements isn't attacking them, although it could be construed as such if they can't answer those questions, or if their original statements can't be substantiated. So, is it your professional opinion that this individual is a crazy huckster? Can you back that claim, or is it another blanket statement meant to bolster your opinion? I don't have to make anyone out as a bad guy. People generally do just fine at that on their own. I'll ask you once again: ^Same story I hear almost every day. I have never met a criminal who didnt believe he did anything wrong. Now Byne is a convicted criminal in the USA and has defrauded those of us who are US citizens of our hard earned money we pay in taxes. Does anybody here think that is acceptable behaviour? I'd like to see where he claimed he didn't do anything wrong in the posted email. Can you show that to me, please? Convicted criminal stated yet again. Why am I not surprised? The man claims to have overlooked a stipulation, but he's a convicted criminal, so we shouldn't believe him. It just had to be intentional because he is a Bigfoot proponent! LOL! I'm not making a claim that he intentionally defrauded anyone, nor am I defending his actions if they were indeed as he claims. Then again, I'm not trying to bolster my position by kicking an elderly man when he's down.
Guest DWA Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) When you lack the ammunition to attack the evidence: attack anything else. Uh, if that works for you. But I can't see "this guy did something much less serious than it sounds...so Bigfoot isn't real" ever precisely resounding with me. Edited February 7, 2014 by DWA
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Did you read the thread no one suggested this means Bigfoot doesn't exist. If this guy was taking government handouts designed for the poor while traveling around the world and sitting on over 85000$ than he's a bit of a scum bag. But that's all he might even be a cool dude I don't know him. It's like those guys in college who's parents pay their room and board but they collect food stamps that they trade for beer, smokes, whatever. It's crappy what they were doing but I was still friends with some of them.
Drew Posted February 7, 2014 Author Posted February 7, 2014 My response in red I don't think he claimed that he wasn't at fault for what happened. Maybe I missed that in the posted email. Yes he did, when he plead guilty to fraud. Calling the man a convicted criminal to make your point. Nice touch. Again, what does this have to do with the Bigfoot phenomenon? He is a prominent Bigfooter who lied to government officials, for 20 years. I'd like to see where he claimed he didn't do anything wrong in the posted email. Can you show that to me, please? He denies that he had overseas accounts with over 85,000 in them. 1. I have never had $85 in a bank account in my whole life. The most have ever had is $25,000 and as of now, in my 89th as I am now (with the 23rd August the first day of my ninetieth!) and so with little chance of recouping it, legal expenses have drained that to zero. Convicted criminal stated yet again. Why am I not surprised? The man claims to have overlooked a stipulation, but he's a convicted criminal, so we shouldn't believe him. It just had to be intentional because he is a Bigfoot proponent! LOL! I'm not making a claim that he intentionally defrauded anyone, nor am I defending his actions if they were indeed as he claims. Then again, I'm not trying to bolster my position by kicking an elderly man when he's down. Fraud by nature is intentional. You can't accidentally defraud someone. Did you not read the USDOJ posting? They list off several acts that were fraudulent in nature. (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. Nobody claimed he was a saint, but he is human, and as such makes mistakes and, possibly, wrong choices. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. 1
georgerm Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 It's just a matter of time before we get off our podiums, brush off, and walk away thinking a debate well done. Many of us have done less than honorable deeds in the past that resulted in a divorce, property damage, criminal in nature and the list goes on. We regret these mistakes and the memory wants to punish us one more time. Those who are perfect will have a rude awakening. Our debate has formed a mass of collective viewpoints which forms a truth and knowledge for each to take with them to help guide their future.
JDL Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 Having all of the facts now I conclude that he had no intent, that ignorance of the law is no defense, the prosecution wanted to put a check in the win column as a deterrent to the rest of the public, that Peter made honorable restitution, and that Peter made a sacrifice understanding that the cost of disputing the charges based on lack of intent was just too high. 1
Guest DWA Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 ^^^Which would say to many of us: whatever impact on the evidence might be imputed shouldn't in fact be.
georgerm Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 ^^^Which would say to many of us: whatever impact on the evidence might be imputed shouldn't in fact be. Can you put this in another way, since I'm too dense today to really know what you are saying.
dmaker Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 ^^ I think it means manure still stinks even if the cow didn't pay all his taxes.
Recommended Posts