Huntster Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 7 hours ago, norseman said: Why would I go to prison for shooting a Pixie or a Gnome? Bigfoot doesn’t exist remember? It’s a fairy tale.......... You'll go to prison for intentionally killing a human. "Bigfoot" is a mythical creature. A title that has no meaning to lawyers and judges. Quote ........No, it may be illegal to shoot the 2nd Bigfoot. But the 1st? That’s discovery. Like Paul Du Chaillu, Petrus Camper or Nicolas Tulp. Discoverers of other great apes. This isn't 1855, and another human species is the very last thing in the universe that government wants "discovered", which is why they keep it covered up. I have little to no direct experience with primatology or anthropology, but I have deep, extensive experience with the courts and government. I can't acclaim that you are incorrect, but I can simply state my opinion and let you shoot the bigfoot and pray for you as you go through the aftermath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 21, 2023 Admin Share Posted May 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Huntster said: You'll go to prison for intentionally killing a human. "Bigfoot" is a mythical creature. A title that has no meaning to lawyers and judges. This isn't 1855, and another human species is the very last thing in the universe that government wants "discovered", which is why they keep it covered up. I have little to no direct experience with primatology or anthropology, but I have deep, extensive experience with the courts and government. I can't acclaim that you are incorrect, but I can simply state my opinion and let you shoot the bigfoot and pray for you as you go through the aftermath. Bigfoot is NOT a Homo Sapien. 8 ft tall and 800 lbs covered head to toe with hair. What’s the jail time for killing a Chimp on the National Forest? It’s not a recognized animal indigenous to North America. What are they doing with invasive species like Hogs? If Bigfoot is an indigenous species in North America? Then they have to be recognized as a species. They are not! At best they could get you with shooting an animal without a tag. Murder? No. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 21, 2023 Author Share Posted May 21, 2023 27 minutes ago, norseman said: Bigfoot is NOT a Homo Sapien. Correct. But that's not the same thing as saying they are not a Human. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 21, 2023 Admin Share Posted May 21, 2023 2 hours ago, hiflier said: Correct. But that's not the same thing as saying they are not a Human. Thats not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 2 hours ago, norseman said: Bigfoot is NOT a Homo Sapien. 8 ft tall and 800 lbs covered head to toe with hair........... In the case of Zana, an almas WAS a homo sapien. And if sasquatches are not, yet of the genus Homo, they are still human. Quote ........What’s the jail time for killing a Chimp on the National Forest?......... Dunno, but if you don't think the courts can jail you for that, consider yourself lucky that you don't have enough experience with the judicial system to know that they can. Quote .........What are they doing with invasive species like Hogs?.......... Depends on the state, since each has most control of hunting and fishing laws and regs, with the feds trying desperately to wrest as much control back as possible. Quote ..........If Bigfoot is an indigenous species in North America? Then they have to be recognized as a species. They are not! At best they could get you with shooting an animal without a tag. Murder? No. Even if they failed to get a conviction, just a basic, Superior Court run through the system can cost you bigly. My last run was in excess of $80K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 21, 2023 Author Share Posted May 21, 2023 3 minutes ago, norseman said: Thats not true. Of course it's true. Sapiens are modern Humans. Compared to us Denisovans and Neanderthals are consider a sub species. What would that make a Sasquatch? Answer? Could be Human without being Sapiens. But perhaps the question should be that after studying every detail and aspect of the nests and their location, who, or what, do YOU think made them? And you know that if you say Sasquatch I will, yet again, bring up the genus Home DNA test results point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 (edited) 9 minutes ago, norseman said: Thats not true. It is true. Killing a Neanderthal or Denisovan would be killing a human. Homocide. Homo-cide. Edited May 21, 2023 by Huntster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 2 minutes ago, hiflier said: ........who, or what, do YOU think made them? And you know that if you say Sasquatch I will, yet again, bring up the genus Home DNA test results point. Yup. The terms "sasquatch" and "bigfoot" are part of the game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 21, 2023 Author Share Posted May 21, 2023 7 minutes ago, Huntster said: It is true. Killing a Neanderthal or Denisovan would be killing a human. YES! But it would be killing different Human sub species, NOT a Homo Sapiens. https://www.livescience.com/how-many-human-species.html and this isn't the only website that makes a case for the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 21, 2023 Author Share Posted May 21, 2023 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Huntster said: Yup. The terms "sasquatch" and "bigfoot" are part of the game. QFT because they should be considered a Human subspecies. But only if it can be proved that they built the nests and that any non-degraded Human DNA could have shown they exist. But if the things don't exist then it would be a moot point because distinction for a Human subspecies wouldn't be present. Edited May 21, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 9 minutes ago, hiflier said: QFT because they should be considered a Human subspecies. But only if it can be proved that they built the nests and that any non-degraded Human DNA could have shown they exist. But if the things don't exist then it would be a moot point because distinction for a Human subspecies wouldn't be present. Zana proved that almastys existed. Recently, it was scientifically proven that she was homo sapien. Next week, if Norse sees a sasquatch near his barn and shoots it, he will prove that "sasquatches" exist. Afterwards, if they're unsuccessful in covering up the event and DNA analysis establishes that the sasquatch is homo sapien, Norse is headed to jail. This would be done with great sensation for the governmental purpose of preventing other such shootings. If the DNA result comes back as a Homo Sasquatchery (or whatever), Norse still goes through the system for the exact same reason s above, but also for punishing him for dragging government kicking and screaming into the absolute nightmare of including a Homo subspecies into the governance of the world with the rest of us, which is precisely what they've been trying to avoid fir the better part (or likely over) the past century. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 21, 2023 Admin Share Posted May 21, 2023 4 hours ago, Huntster said: It is true. Killing a Neanderthal or Denisovan would be killing a human. Homocide. Homo-cide. Show me the legal precedent of a Homo Sapien being convicted of murdering a Homo Erectus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 21, 2023 Admin Share Posted May 21, 2023 4 hours ago, Huntster said: In the case of Zana, an almas WAS a homo sapien. And if sasquatches are not, yet of the genus Homo, they are still human. Dunno, but if you don't think the courts can jail you for that, consider yourself lucky that you don't have enough experience with the judicial system to know that they can. Depends on the state, since each has most control of hunting and fishing laws and regs, with the feds trying desperately to wrest as much control back as possible. Even if they failed to get a conviction, just a basic, Superior Court run through the system can cost you bigly. My last run was in excess of $80K. Prove to me that Zana was a Almas and not just a run of the mill Homo Sapien woman. Great. With a dead Sasquatch I could raise 80k in about 30 seconds.👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 21, 2023 Author Share Posted May 21, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, norseman said: Show me the legal precedent of a Homo Sapien being convicted of murdering a Homo Erectus? 1 hour ago, norseman said: Prove to me that Zana was a Almas and not just a run of the mill Homo Sapien woman. Great. With a dead Sasquatch I could raise 80k in about 30 seconds.👍 Start a thread. This one is about Human DNA showing genus Homo being found at the nest site and what the implications are. It's amazing that so few have chimed in here and addressed that. And also whether or not anyone thinks Sasquatch built the nests. After all, Sasquatch is only a label. Start think seriously about this folks. Was even a tarp found in there? A tent? Any sign of Human activity or did Humans just come and go the same way that everyone else did in order to access the site? Any litter? A latrine? Tools for cutting huckleberry bushes? Nests in various stages if decay. Bear poop everywhere. Was there one shred of evidence outside of Human DNA in the soil to sy that modern people made the nests? There was still greenery on some of the twigs in the nest. No lean-to's other shelter of any kind? Did someone, or several someones just up and leave when they heard the timber cruiser threading his way through the thickets and wall of huckleberries? Did he hear anyone make a bunch of noise as they were leaving? The area immediately surrounding the nests was not cleared back. Why not? Having no tools didn't seem to stop the site being recently occupied. Very secretive people evidently. Found their way miles behind locked gates and said, "Gee, this looks like a good spot." as they thrash their way in and out of the overgrowth. So I don't care about Zana or Homo Erectus or the incessant ten year old (that I know of) debate about shooting one. I care about the nest site and what the evidence shows about who and what was there. Period. Can we all just get back on board with that, please? Edited May 21, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted May 21, 2023 Share Posted May 21, 2023 1 hour ago, norseman said: Show me the legal precedent of a Homo Sapien being convicted of murdering a Homo Erectus? There is no legal precedent in civilized history of two species of humans killing each other, and government is trying to prevent it from occurring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts