Jump to content
masterbarber

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities? (2)

Recommended Posts

hiflier
14 minutes ago, Huntster said:

If I was posting this in the Tar Pit, I'd color it up with some appropriate language

 

Which I would love to see there, bud. I would print it out and tape it to my fridge :)

 

And YA Twist, he most certainly DOES. Hope you've been enjoying those instructions in the "niceties".  Bet you have a few of your own too but with Hunster it's a finely honed craft. Barely got out of there with my skin a coupla years back :O :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

He may be an a__, but he's our a__!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, Twist said:

^^^ I’ve read some of his Tar Pit comments, he like coloring things up!   😂😂

 

I own a big box of crayons.

58 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

He may be an a__, but he's our a__!

 

Poop. I'm outta' love stamps............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

LOL!  But I've learned a lot about a lot of different stuff from him. Using language.....uh.......shall we say, um, precisely?.........is only one of those things :)

 

Hunster, Covered your "love stamp". Good Grief, pace yourself. Can't let Inc1 go away empty handed now can we? Besides, I needed a little April Fool's Day fun ;) 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
18 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Keep in mind? In one state out of fifty.....

 

The following is from the brief synopsis at :  https://www.atg.wa.gov/hunting-law:


"All hunters in the state must have a current hunting license along with tags and permits for the species they plan to hunt."

 

I haven't looked into all 50 states, but I would think that they all have similar disclaimers.  Again, I'm relatively sure that Bigfoot belong to a species, albeit what species they belong to is still unknown, at least to mainstream Science.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
16 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

 

The following is from the brief synopsis at :  https://www.atg.wa.gov/hunting-law:


"All hunters in the state must have a current hunting license along with tags and permits for the species they plan to hunt."

 

I haven't looked into all 50 states, but I would think that they all have similar disclaimers.  Again, I'm relatively sure that Bigfoot belong to a species, albeit what species they belong to is still unknown, at least to mainstream Science.

 

I shoot ground squirrels on my ranch with no tag or license. I trap pack rats as well with nothing. Got to take it all with a grain of salt.

 

Of course it’s still unknown..... it’s never been discovered, therefore it’s never been officially named. Historically the “discoverer” was the guy that named it.

 

I.e. I just shot it so I name it.......... “Homo Magnumsimia”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

i.e the Wide-Eyedicus Fullofleadicus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
8 hours ago, norseman said:

I shoot ground squirrels on my ranch with no tag or license. I trap pack rats as well with nothing. Got to take it all with a grain of salt........

 

It's not likely that F&W enforcement officers in WA would bother you for shooting ground squirrels or trapping rats on your own property, but in Alaska the certainly could, and if they didn't like you, they would. That never would be a problem for me, though, because I carried a hunting/fishing/trapping license here my entire life. One never knows when one might need to kill something. Now I have a free permanent, lifetime hunting/fishing/trapping ID card as long as I remain a stste resident. 😀 All I need is a species specific harvest ticket, and those are also free and relatively easy to get statewide during the general seasons. 

 

But not for sasquatches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
3 hours ago, Huntster said:

But not for sasquatches.

 

Seems more and more like the safe route is through official channels. I still think a strong general effort that has a logical game plan is realistic. It's not like hunting where the object of the hunt is a moving target. Officials are more or less stuck where they are. One might say fish in a barrel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Thinking about possible reasons for the official denial of a harvest permit for a sasquatch?:

 

1) "They don't exist". Then why the refusal to harvest one for the advancement of science?

 

2) "You might shoot an idiot in a suit". Nit if we hunt an extremely remite area like we clearly propose, and if our intent is kept out of the public sphere until we're finished, and even then we have no intent to publicize our effort, as wedocument in outpr proposal.

 

3) "These creatures may be extremely rare". How do you know that? Are you admitting their existence" Do you know things that haven't been made public?

 

4) "These creatures may ge human". How do you know that? Are you admitting their existence" Do you know things that haven't been made public?

 

5) "If these creatures exist, we don't want their existence widely publicized". Nor do we. Our proposal clearly documents our intent to surrender the carcass to an appropriate scientific entity for study, and we will be contractually bound to maintain operational and completion silence, and we submit ourselves to criminal and civil prosecution if we violate the terms of the requested permit.

 

6) ? Anybody want to insert an excuse here for me to address?............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

As I said before. Imagine if the 411 books can be attributed mostly to Sasquatch predation or other activities. 1600 people lost in just National parks in the last 100 years. Not counting National Forests, State forests or rural private lands. Potentially we could be talking about tens of thousands of people.

 

And we want them to come forward and admit they knew what was really going on all along?

 

This would be akin to the CIA coming forward and saying that they knew about 911 all along. Or the US Navy coming forward and saying they knew all along about the Pearl Harbor attack. Or the CIA coming forward and saying that aliens are real and they abduct people on a constant basis.

 

It would be pandemonium. Major heads would roll. Federal power and control would be extensively questioned......

 

”A primitive race of hominids reside in our hinterlands and despite our best efforts to eradicate them, they still reside there and prey on our citizens with impunity”.

 

Yah. That’s not happening with a FOIA request. It’s like trying to catch a Grizzly bear with a butterfly net. And if your lucky they will see you as not a threat and ignore you. If you piss them off by asking the right questions and get media support? They may turn up the heat. You may find yer dog tacked to yer garage door or lord knows what.

 

I prefer flying under the radar. And I will not attempt to lock horns until I have concrete evidence that will back my play with the nation watching. Otherwise it may be me tacked to the garage door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

Thinking about possible reasons for the official denial of a harvest permit for a sasquatch?:

 

1) "They don't exist". Then why the refusal to harvest one for the advancement of science?

 

2) "You might shoot an idiot in a suit". Nit if we hunt an extremely remite area like we clearly propose, and if our intent is kept out of the public sphere until we're finished, and even then we have no intent to publicize our effort, as wedocument in outpr proposal.

 

3) "These creatures may be extremely rare". How do you know that? Are you admitting their existence" Do you know things that haven't been made public?

 

4) "These creatures may ge human". How do you know that? Are you admitting their existence" Do you know things that haven't been made public?

 

5) "If these creatures exist, we don't want their existence widely publicized". Nor do we. Our proposal clearly documents our intent to surrender the carcass to an appropriate scientific entity for study, and we will be contractually bound to maintain operational and completion silence, and we submit ourselves to criminal and civil prosecution if we violate the terms of the requested permit.

 

6) ? Anybody want to insert an excuse here for me to address?............

 

"We don't respond to a 'random person'."

"We'd tell you but we don't like being tacked to our respective garage doors." :O  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
13 minutes ago, hiflier said:

"We don't respond to a 'random person'."

 

I'm not random. I've specifically sent your agency a request for aspecial use permit. If it is being denied, I need a reason to bring to the courts.

 

We'd tell you but we don't like being tacked to our respective garage doors." :O  ;) 

 

Mr. Bureaucrat? Meet my hammer and tacks...........

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

We can't issue a hunting permit for an animal that doesn't exist, due to Department policy.

 

We must follow the policy which says that we can only issue hunting permits for animals in this list. If it's not on this list, we cannot issue a permit. Bigfoot's are not on the list.

 

 

Please contact the legislature and have them amend the list to include Bigfoot, then we will gladly issue you a hunting permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I'm not random. I've specifically sent your agency a request for aspecial use permit. If it is being denied, I need a reason to bring to the courts

Tough to dance around that one.

 

Mr. Bureaucrat? Meet my hammer and tacks...........

Kind of the way I've been looking at it too. Something tells me they don't feel too threatened though. The thing is, emails are to test the waters. Seemed to be the best, most inexpensive method for doing just that. Between the WA DNR and my own F&W I have 8 emails out. All but one has asked whether Sasquatch/Bigfoot exists or not. After a couple more follow ups in my own state I will consider the waters tested.

 

Is this a program that should continue by hammering all of the F&W agencies in the rest of the 48 states? Not if I want to risk being shot down as a spammer. So I need to stay with the current two ones: WA because they had DNR at the nesting site and my own state agency because I can actually physically walk into that office.

 

Conundrum:

 

1)  Been weighing whether call my state agency ahead of time that I want to set up a meeting with someone and ask them to set aside a time for me to make sure someone will be there when I show up.

 

2) Been weighing just showing up and risk someone telling me everyone's in the field and no one is there to address my question or that at the moment they are tied up with important F&W stuff. And then telling me I should have called ahead.

 

One may show respect and maintain a good rapport and the other may not.

 

@gigantor: you made me smile because that process could take years, not that any other process wouldn't also take years. I could conceivably be writing emails for many years. So far I think it has been easy for 'them' to disregard what I have sent so far- even though on their respective websites it states that a reply would be forthcoming in a few business days. That sounds good even though they don't so far seem to abide by that particular declaration.

 

One thing that I think is important here is that we all get to see how this inquiry is being treated. I know most of you aren't surprised by it but personally I think it has been valuable to watch it actually occur first hand to one of your own members instead of just some hearsay story off the internet.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...