California sued for denying existence of Bigfoot - Page 3

HarryHenderson · 23rd February 2018, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

It will work out great for the Bigfooters if the court throws out the lawsuit without a trial. They can say that it is confirmation of a government conspiracy to suppress the knowledge of the existence of Bigfoot.

^^^ I think this is probably the heart of the matter. Both the publicity of filing it (which they claimed publicly when they "filed") and then its forthcoming dismissal are the true intentions here. Both instances being perfect cheap set-ups for more publicity. From the now debunked school of any publicity is good publicity. But it's what brain damaged morons with too much money and an insufferable dedication to pulling the wool over the rest of the world's eyes would do.

I'm not sure it's always clear what a serious perversion it is in trying to become (in)famous by deliberately convincing the universe of something that's both patently untrue and long known to be so. Roger Patterson was so dedicated to its art as to actually pull it off and 50 years later we're still talking about him, good, bad or indifferent. 50 years from now Todd Standing won't even be a footnote in a failed Pendant Publishing book of failed footnotes.

JayUtah · 24th February 2018, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

This petition is for an ordinary mandate.

Thank you; that fills a lot of gaps in my understanding.

Quote:

The mere acknowledgement of a species does not itself compel CDFW to investigate Bigfoot.

Nor does it suddenly convey scientific validity on Petitioner's allegedly otherwise valid research. I suspect that ordered relief must actually have some rational chance of curing the Petitioner's injury.

Quote:

CDFW can’t do laboratory studies without a specimen.

And I suspect they already have a fine laboratory for conducting mandated studies on whatever species are brought to it. So it would seem the agency is complying with the law. I don't read the law as requiring a special lab for each species, real or imaginary.

Quote:

Petitioner claims injury and denial of rights not related to the cause of action and requests relief that Respondent is not legally required to perform and which the court could not grant anyway under an ordinary mandate. The court will give the petition the boot. It won’t get past arguing the legal validity of the petition.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens. I can see why no other lawyers want in on this; it looks like a legal train wreck to me. Petitioner seems to claim denial of a right that doesn't exist: no one is entitled a false reputation. If the scientific community doesn't take her seriously, that's not the state's problem.

fuelair · 24th February 2018, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

^^^ I think this is probably the heart of the matter. Both the publicity of filing it (which they claimed publicly when they "filed") and then its forthcoming dismissal are the true intentions here. Both instances being perfect cheap set-ups for more publicity. From the now debunked school of any publicity is good publicity. But it's what brain damaged morons with too much money and an insufferable dedication to pulling the wool over the rest of the world's eyes would do.

I'm not sure it's always clear what a serious perversion it is in trying to become (in)famous by deliberately convincing the universe of something that's both patently untrue and long known to be so. Roger Patterson was so dedicated to its art as to actually pull it off and 50 years later we're still talking about him, good, bad or indifferent. 50 years from now Todd Standing won't even be a footnote in a failed Pendant Publishing book of failed footnotes.

In all seriousness it more likely that they are stupid enough to actually believe the **** they disgorge from their "brains" and mouths!!!!

HarryHenderson · 24th February 2018, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

In all seriousness it more likely that they are stupid enough to actually believe the **** they disgorge from their "brains" and mouths!!!!

Which IMO is probably the single biggest Bigfoot question skeptics as a group still have serious trouble with. Do Bigfooters truly believe all the insanity or are they just playing a big game? I think it's split probably 50/50 here. I've been clear that I think they're all knowing ~~liars~~ role players in a weird game that has only a single impossible way to actually win. Unless their goal is just to make us believe they're really out there looking for Bigfoot in backwater Oklahoma but they're not. Okay. Do they get an Oscar®?! And no doubt there's true believers, but the big wigs of Bigfootdom making all the noise absolutely know there's no F&B beast. Meldrum, Moneymaker, Standing, Gimlin, Bilbo Fayfay etc. And yes there is a beast, but you'll never see it.

DevilsAdvocate · 24th February 2018, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I suspect that ordered relief must actually have some rational chance of curing the Petitioner's injury.

The petitioner must have a beneficial interest in the performance of the act being compelled beyond an interest held by the public at large. They have to be personally affected. They must have a direct and substantial interest that the writ of mandate would protect. A writ should not be issued to vindicate abstract claims or where the writ would be unavailing. The writ must promote substantial justice. That means it has to remedy some injustice faced by the petitioner.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

And I suspect they already have a fine laboratory for conducting mandated studies on whatever species are brought to it. So it would seem the agency is complying with the law. I don't read the law as requiring a special lab for each species, real or imaginary.

CDFW's Wildlife Investigations Laboratory was established in 1941, and is mandated by Fish and Willdife Code Section 1008 to conduct wildlife disease investigations. A writ should not control discretionary decisions in ministerial duties unless the decisions are arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. For example, an agency fixes small pot holes in a rich neighborhood while doing nothing about much larger pot holes in a poor neighborhood.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Petitioner seems to claim denial of a right that doesn't exist: no one is entitled a false reputation. If the scientific community doesn't take her seriously, that's not the state's problem.

It is even simpler than that. The petitioner needs to point to a law that “specifically” says the agency must do something, demonstrate that the agency isn’t doing it, explain how he or she is impacted by the agency not doing it, and request a writ to compel the agency to do what the law specifically says. The rights of the petitioner are only relevant to the duty specifically required by law in establishing the petitioner’s interest and the effect of the writ to remedy the complaint.

If she were to cite the First Amendment as a cause of action to her free speech claim, that would be different, but it would also be invalid…and ridiculous.

HarryHenderson · 25th February 2018, 05:37 PM

Short of his outright confession I'm not sure how much clearer it could be that this case isn't actually about arguing for the existence of a real species in a real courtroom with a real judge. It's about the 'publicity and opportunity' that can be generated by being allowed to pretend you are. Every time somebody files a lawsuit there's a seeming instant credibility given to the plaintiff because why would he file a suit if he didn't have a case?! There's a lot of reasons and most of them aren't righteous. Todd Standing paid some flunky $500 to write it up and (say) a $250 filing fee. $750 for $750,000 worth of publicity. He's gotta do it like that if he wants Hollywood to notice him. Creativity counts.

INT. STEVEN SPIELBERG'S OFFICE - DAY

As TODD enters STEVEN'S office he grabs several papers out of a file folder held in his other hand and throws them down on his desk.

TODD
(pointing at papers)
Look what I did Steve-O, I had the courts working overtime to stifle my barrage of lawsuits for fear the masses would revolt if they knew the truth...(beat)...that I'm a filmmaker, not a scientist.
(laughs out loud)

STEVEN
(back turned to TODD)
Yes, pretty impressive. Can I get you some gefilte fish?

DevilsAdvocate · 25th February 2018, 06:40 PM

I wonder if California will sue for attorney’s fees after the petition is denied. They might. The link to Standing could establish that the petition was filed for an improper purpose. A writ of mandate is an extraordinary option only used when no other remedy is available.

The petition could be construed as frivolous because it makes no mention of the Petitioner even attempting to notify the Respondents of the existence of Bigfoot. It does not say when or how the Respondents denied the existence of Bigfoot. It does not say she ever contacts the Respondents. It makes no mention of her previous sighting where she contacted “authorities” who told her it was a bear. It could be argued that this demonstrates that there has been no attempt to remedy the matter and that the petition was therefore filed for some other improper purpose.

The only thing in the petition is this enigmatic statement:

Quote:

Petitioner asserts that Respondents committed an abuse of process by not treating her fairly, which includes Respondents’ not putting any decision or otherwise concerning Sasquatch in writing to her.

I don’t even know what that means.

Nakani · 26th February 2018, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

His photo of a bigfoot next to the helicopter was great!
Ah, the days when hoaxers were entertaining.

For those who weren't around to experience Creekfreak, enjoy.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=96467

Thanks for the link, I'm on page eighteen and am hooked. My favorite part so far is his plan to hard mount spotting scopes to his Bigfoot hunting boat. Anyone who has looked through a pair of binoculars and tried to keep them steady, would know that is one of the stupidest ideas ever.

Nakani · 28th February 2018, 05:32 PM

Judge: That is a compelling story but unfortunately we can't accept it as evidence.

Todd wheeling around like Matlock circa 1986: Your honor this witness is an ex police officer.

Courtroom: GASP!murmermurmer*He was a cop*murmermurmer*He wouldn't lie*murmer*Why WOULD he lie?*murmer

Judge: Order! Order!... Well in light of this new development I have no choice but to declare Bigfoot real.
Swings his gavel
Bang, DWA wakes up on the floor.

Drewbot · 1st March 2018, 09:31 AM

Reading back on that old Creekfreak thread, i feel like The Sarge (William Parcher), Griff (LTC8KC) & Zab (Drew), from the Big Red One.

Are we the only ones left?

Resume · 1st March 2018, 09:48 AM

This genius weighs in.
http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=4

Originally Posted by WSA

Oh, the pitfalls of binary thinking! (Or as I like to refer to it as: The Number One Crippler of Young Adults). And here it is again.

As I've proposed up-thread, the tertiary is a completely satisfactory and possible outcome here. Obviously, a type specimen leads to an administrative concession of existence (at least in the state or province where the species is found...you could still expect state governments to claim, "Well, it might exist THERE, but there is no proof it exists HERE...) but the door needs to be left open for the possibility that the species could get provisional recognition through civil actions like this and still not have a type specimen G. and s. classification. I've yet to have anyone clearly explain to me why this is not possible. Fact is, it is possible. The law is full of those types of conclusions, as I've already mentioned.

William Parcher · 1st March 2018, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by DWA on Bigfoot Forums

I've yet to have anyone clearly explain to me why this is not possible.

I wouldn't want to try to explain anything to this guy. Not even orange juice coming from oranges.

Originally Posted by DWA

Fact is, it is possible. The law is full of those types of conclusions, as I've already mentioned.

Guy thinks that the law and zoology sleep in the same bed?

Spektator · 1st March 2018, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Reading back on that old Creekfreak thread, i feel like The Sarge (William Parcher), Griff (LTC8KC) & Zab (Drew), from the Big Red One.

Are we the only ones left?

I'm still standing, but I've never posted much.

Drewbot · 2nd March 2018, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Spektator

I'm still standing, but I've never posted much.

OK, you can be Vinci. (Di Cicci)

JayUtah · 2nd March 2018, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Resume

This genius weighs in.

Wow. I certainly don't see where any state anywhere has made an "administrative concession" of the existence of a biological species. That's not something governments do, in my experience. It looks like he's trying to equivocate from administrative notice that an already-known species may or may not occupy its jurisdiction, a completely separate question.

HarryHenderson · 2nd March 2018, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Wow. I certainly don't see where any state anywhere has made an "administrative concession" of the existence of a biological species. That's not something governments do, in my experience. It looks like he's trying to equivocate from administrative notice that an already-known species may or may not occupy its jurisdiction, a completely separate question.

The mindless disconnect coming from their real or contrived pretension that it's an 'already-known' species. "But I saw it, why doesn't the government believe me?"

William Parcher · 3rd March 2018, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Claudia Ackley on Facebook

Its is starting now. I have been followed by either a black or white SUV and two men come to my house one stands outside of his truck and one comes to my door. The other day I was coming home and as I was turning a left into my driveway a black looking police car drove up and just stared me down and he was wearing a red and black plaid shirt and he gave me the worst look anyone could ever give so at that point he starts moving forward well I'm going to turn around to follow him and at that point he sped off in front of my house to the point where the wheels turned.

This truck was following me about 2 feet behind my car and what I did is I made a very quick turn to the point where I turned my car around and followed him and this was his license plate. When he noticed what I did and I was right behind him taking pictures of his car he sped off about 90 miles an hour in my little small town.

Includes photos of Men in Black and extremely super duper sneaky vehicle.

http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=5

William Parcher · 3rd March 2018, 09:05 PM

The Man in Black appears to be grabbing her peephole. Although it is a still photo, I would describe what he is doing as being "goochie goochie goo".

Resume · 4th March 2018, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Includes photos of Men in Black and extremely super duper sneaky vehicle.

http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=5

Yeah that jayjeti guy is one of bigfootery's best and brightest. He's a very active poster on NL's SRA forum. Perhaps the only poster.

Cervelo · 4th March 2018, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Includes photos of Men in Black and extremely super duper sneaky vehicle.

http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=5

It is amazing how people of this mindset react when their fantasy world bumps into reality. They just start creating their own reality.

JayUtah · 4th March 2018, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Cervelo

It is amazing how people of this mindset react when their fantasy world bumps into reality. They just start creating their own reality.

Indeed, and their own reality always resembles bad spy novels and bad action movies.

Resume · 4th March 2018, 12:57 PM

He can't stop himself.
http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=5

Originally Posted by WSA

What is the expression Norseman? 'When a man holds a hammer, everything he sees looks like a nail"? You might be holding the "existence" hammer.

Look, I realize your sine qua non, plus ultra is to get a body to confirm existence. It is not mine (not that I would treat that as bad news, on the contrary) and it is not necessarily the motivation of all who post and read here. There are ways out of that, if you want it. My post above was just an explanation of how some might move to looking at it through a different lens, and allow us to write a different menu for predicted outcomes. It is neither an outcome that confirms existence, or disproves it. It is a useful approach, a third way. It takes us above and beyond the zero-sum debate that seems to eat up most of the discussion around here. The reason I know it is useful is because neither the hard-core proponents or the dyed-in-the-wool opponents find it an entirely satisfying outcome. That tells me something.

So this: The state of California declares there is insufficient evidence to declare if BF does, or does not, exist with any degree of reasonable certainty, BUT, given the compelling evidence for existence, the possibility cannot be entirely dismissed when matters of its citizens' safety and welfare are concerned. While this court is not able to grant all the relief requested by the Petitioner, it is ORDERED...

Channeling his inner DWA.

HarryHenderson · 4th March 2018, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Cervelo

It is amazing how people of this mindset react when their fantasy world bumps into reality. They just start creating their own reality.

I don't think they start it then though, "creating their own reality" is how they got there in the first place.

Night Walker · 4th March 2018, 10:44 PM

Consistent failure to persuade zoologists or anthropologists to investigate Sasquatch phenomena may be explained by the fact that most of the available evidence consists of eyewitness testimony, which scientists are not trained or accustomed to deal with. The professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony, and who take it very seriously, are lawyers. Since lawyers also dominate the political scene, where the purse strings of scientific research are held, the best way to achieve a scientific investigation may be to convince the lawyers first. To this end, a campaign for a judicial or legislative inquiry into the existing Sasquatch evidence is advocated.

Green, J. (1989). The Case for a Legal Inquiry into Sasquatch Evidence. Cryptozoology, 8, 37–42.*

Resume · 4th March 2018, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Night Walker

Consistent failure to persuade zoologists or anthropologists to investigate Sasquatch phenomena may be explained by the fact that most of the available evidence consists of eyewitness testimony, which scientists are not trained or accustomed to deal with. The professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony, and who take it very seriously, are lawyers. Since lawyers also dominate the political scene, where the purse strings of scientific research are held, the best way to achieve a scientific investigation may be to convince the lawyers first. To this end, a campaign for a judicial or legislative inquiry into the existing Sasquatch evidence is advocated.

Green, J. (1989). The Case for a Legal Inquiry into Sasquatch Evidence. Cryptozoology, 8, 37–42.*

Misspelled pseudoscience.

Pixel42 · 4th March 2018, 11:16 PM

The other professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony are psychologists.

GT/CS · 5th March 2018, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Reading back on that old Creekfreak thread, i feel like The Sarge (William Parcher), Griff (LTC8KC) & Zab (Drew), from the Big Red One.

Are we the only ones left?

Here’s a list of the players in the PGF 411 thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...posted&t=42523

Dabop · 5th March 2018, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by Night Walker

Consistent failure to persuade zoologists or anthropologists to investigate Sasquatch phenomena may be explained by the fact that most of the available evidence consists of eyewitness testimony which scientists are not trained or accustomed to deal with. The professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony, and who take it very seriously, are lawyers. Since lawyers also dominate the political scene, where the purse strings of scientific research are held, the best way to achieve a scientific investigation may be to convince the lawyers first. To this end, a campaign for a judicial or legislative inquiry into the existing Sasquatch evidence is advocated.

Green, J. (1989). The Case for a Legal Inquiry into Sasquatch Evidence. Cryptozoology, 8, 37–42.*

Quote:

At the same time, numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent — a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony.

http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-com...testimony.html

Between the ones in it for the $$/notoriety and the ones who arent quite all there so to say, and the ones that saw 'something shaggy briefly dozens of meters away', better would be actual real evidence- of which we have exactly..... none

Drewbot · 5th March 2018, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Here’s a list of the players in the PGF 411 thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...posted&t=42523

Remember when Historian (Neil) accused people of being NSA moles, whose job was to spread falsehoods about the existence of Bigfoot, so people would stop looking?

What thread was that?

William Parcher · 5th March 2018, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Remember when Historian (Neil) accused people of being NSA moles, whose job was to spread falsehoods about the existence of Bigfoot, so people would stop looking?

What thread was that?

He probably said that in all the threads he posted in including ones that weren't about Bigfoot. These should be representative...

JREF is a front for the NSA:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=104712

Invisible Bigfoot: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=94981

JayUtah · 5th March 2018, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Pixel42

The other professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony are psychologists.

And some such as Elizabeth Loftus have transformed our understanding of the reliability of eyewitness testimony, especially as it pertains to the law. The law requires human testimony because photographs can't be cross-examined, not because lawyers trust human testimony. In fact, a proper lawyer is more interested in obtaining a favorable outcome for his client than in the abstract pursuit of truth. He has a duty to promote evidence toward that end despite its objective reliability, and to do his best to discredit evidence against that end. A lawyer will happily argue the existence of Bigfoot regardless of whether he personally believes in it, if there's a professional arrangement for him to do so.

William Parcher · 5th March 2018, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Claudia Ackley

This truck was following me about 2 feet behind my car and what I did is I made a very quick turn to the point where I turned my car around and followed him and this was his license plate. When he noticed what I did and I was right behind him taking pictures of his car he sped off about 90 miles an hour in my little small town.

This is of course a lie. She made up this story. The vehicle did not drive 90 mph through her little town after seeing her perform a position switcheroo.

She's not incorrect or deluded or exaggerating. She's a fabricator. This is almost certainly also true about her Bigfoot encounter stories. She made them up. She didn't see a bear in a tree and then think she was seeing Bigfoot. She just made it up.

Todd Standing does the same thing. He's not mistaken or deluded - he's a liar. He creates the fake Bigfoots in his photos. So there is no mistake involved.

Claudia and Todd are submitting a lawsuit that is based on their lies. Not mistakes or delusion or gullibility. This is genuine flat out lying. They are doing this with the confidence that they will not actually be punished for bringing lies in front of the California judiciary.

Carlotta · 8th March 2018, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

His photo of a bigfoot next to the helicopter was great!
Ah, the days when hoaxers were entertaining.

For those who weren't around to experience Creekfreak, enjoy.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=96467

You're the one that posted that!! I just came up for air after at least a week! Best thread ever! Creak was so much more interesting than most of the loons.

I had followed the saga the first time around, when you could still see most of the pictures. Fun times! And no I never posted then, just lurked.

The Shrike · 9th March 2018, 08:40 AM

Bungle in the Jnugle!

Back when bigfootery was fresh and fun.

Drewbot · 9th March 2018, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Bungle in the Jnugle!

Back when bigfootery was fresh and fun.

It was impossible to click on that thread without saying it out loud...

Bungle in the Jeh-nuggle.

Spektator · 9th March 2018, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Bungle in the Jnugle!

Back when bigfootery was fresh and fun.

Wasn't it "Bnugle in the Jungle?"

William Parcher · 9th March 2018, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Spektator

Wasn't it "Bnugle in the Jungle?"

No, Shrike has it correct.

Spektator · 9th March 2018, 11:28 AM

Well, memory is unreliable. I do recall how insistent Creekfreak could get when insisting he had evidence! He had witnesses! A judge! Tens of hunters who'd had close-up encounters!

And when asked to let us speak to his witnesses, he became coy. He would name no witnesses because this isn't a courtroom.

Didn't he have the peculiar habit of preceding each punctuation mark with a blank space? Or am I thinking of someone else?

William Parcher · 9th March 2018, 11:37 AM

He was suspended once for threatening violence. Then banned for advocating suicide.

Let's stay on topic with the California lawsuit.

dmaker · 9th March 2018, 11:40 AM

Sweaty Yeti has a habit of using ellipses where he should use a comma.

23rd February 2018, 08:56 PM	#81
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,807	Originally Posted by William Parcher It will work out great for the Bigfooters if the court throws out the lawsuit without a trial. They can say that it is confirmation of a government conspiracy to suppress the knowledge of the existence of Bigfoot. ^^^ I think this is probably the heart of the matter. Both the publicity of filing it (which they claimed publicly when they "filed") and then its forthcoming dismissal are the true intentions here. Both instances being perfect cheap set-ups for more publicity. From the now debunked school of any publicity is good publicity. But it's what brain damaged morons with too much money and an insufferable dedication to pulling the wool over the rest of the world's eyes would do. I'm not sure it's always clear what a serious perversion it is in trying to become (in)famous by deliberately convincing the universe of something that's both patently untrue and long known to be so. Roger Patterson was so dedicated to its art as to actually pull it off and 50 years later we're still talking about him, good, bad or indifferent. 50 years from now Todd Standing won't even be a footnote in a failed Pendant Publishing book of failed footnotes.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

24th February 2018, 12:44 PM	#83
fuelair Suspended Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,679	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson ^^^ I think this is probably the heart of the matter. Both the publicity of filing it (which they claimed publicly when they "filed") and then its forthcoming dismissal are the true intentions here. Both instances being perfect cheap set-ups for more publicity. From the now debunked school of any publicity is good publicity. But it's what brain damaged morons with too much money and an insufferable dedication to pulling the wool over the rest of the world's eyes would do. I'm not sure it's always clear what a serious perversion it is in trying to become (in)famous by deliberately convincing the universe of something that's both patently untrue and long known to be so. Roger Patterson was so dedicated to its art as to actually pull it off and 50 years later we're still talking about him, good, bad or indifferent. 50 years from now Todd Standing won't even be a footnote in a failed Pendant Publishing book of failed footnotes. In all seriousness it more likely that they are stupid enough to actually believe the **** they disgorge from their "brains" and mouths!!!!
fuelair Suspended Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 57,679

24th February 2018, 04:42 PM	#84
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,807	Originally Posted by fuelair In all seriousness it more likely that they are stupid enough to actually believe the **** they disgorge from their "brains" and mouths!!!! Which IMO is probably the single biggest Bigfoot question skeptics as a group still have serious trouble with. Do Bigfooters truly believe all the insanity or are they just playing a big game? I think it's split probably 50/50 here. I've been clear that I think they're all knowing ~~liars~~ role players in a weird game that has only a single impossible way to actually win. Unless their goal is just to make us believe they're really out there looking for Bigfoot in backwater Oklahoma but they're not. Okay. Do they get an Oscar®?! And no doubt there's true believers, but the big wigs of Bigfootdom making all the noise absolutely know there's no F&B beast. Meldrum, Moneymaker, Standing, Gimlin, Bilbo Fayfay etc. And yes there is a beast, but you'll never see it.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

24th February 2018, 08:13 PM	#85
DevilsAdvocate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,864	Originally Posted by JayUtah I suspect that ordered relief must actually have some rational chance of curing the Petitioner's injury. The petitioner must have a beneficial interest in the performance of the act being compelled beyond an interest held by the public at large. They have to be personally affected. They must have a direct and substantial interest that the writ of mandate would protect. A writ should not be issued to vindicate abstract claims or where the writ would be unavailing. The writ must promote substantial justice. That means it has to remedy some injustice faced by the petitioner. Originally Posted by JayUtah And I suspect they already have a fine laboratory for conducting mandated studies on whatever species are brought to it. So it would seem the agency is complying with the law. I don't read the law as requiring a special lab for each species, real or imaginary. CDFW's Wildlife Investigations Laboratory was established in 1941, and is mandated by Fish and Willdife Code Section 1008 to conduct wildlife disease investigations. A writ should not control discretionary decisions in ministerial duties unless the decisions are arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. For example, an agency fixes small pot holes in a rich neighborhood while doing nothing about much larger pot holes in a poor neighborhood. Originally Posted by JayUtah Petitioner seems to claim denial of a right that doesn't exist: no one is entitled a false reputation. If the scientific community doesn't take her seriously, that's not the state's problem. It is even simpler than that. The petitioner needs to point to a law that “specifically” says the agency must do something, demonstrate that the agency isn’t doing it, explain how he or she is impacted by the agency not doing it, and request a writ to compel the agency to do what the law specifically says. The rights of the petitioner are only relevant to the duty specifically required by law in establishing the petitioner’s interest and the effect of the writ to remedy the complaint. If she were to cite the First Amendment as a cause of action to her free speech claim, that would be different, but it would also be invalid…and ridiculous.
	__________________ Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

25th February 2018, 05:37 PM	#86
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,807	Short of his outright confession I'm not sure how much clearer it could be that this case isn't actually about arguing for the existence of a real species in a real courtroom with a real judge. It's about the 'publicity and opportunity' that can be generated by being allowed to pretend you are. Every time somebody files a lawsuit there's a seeming instant credibility given to the plaintiff because why would he file a suit if he didn't have a case?! There's a lot of reasons and most of them aren't righteous. Todd Standing paid some flunky $500 to write it up and (say) a $250 filing fee. $750 for $750,000 worth of publicity. He's gotta do it like that if he wants Hollywood to notice him. Creativity counts. INT. STEVEN SPIELBERG'S OFFICE - DAY As TODD enters STEVEN'S office he grabs several papers out of a file folder held in his other hand and throws them down on his desk. TODD (pointing at papers) Look what I did Steve-O, I had the courts working overtime to stifle my barrage of lawsuits for fear the masses would revolt if they knew the truth...(beat)...that I'm a filmmaker, not a scientist. (laughs out loud) STEVEN (back turned to TODD) Yes, pretty impressive. Can I get you some gefilte fish?
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

24th February 2018, 11:54 AM	#82
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 16,032	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate This petition is for an ordinary mandate. Thank you; that fills a lot of gaps in my understanding. Quote: The mere acknowledgement of a species does not itself compel CDFW to investigate Bigfoot. Nor does it suddenly convey scientific validity on Petitioner's allegedly otherwise valid research. I suspect that ordered relief must actually have some rational chance of curing the Petitioner's injury. Quote: CDFW can’t do laboratory studies without a specimen. And I suspect they already have a fine laboratory for conducting mandated studies on whatever species are brought to it. So it would seem the agency is complying with the law. I don't read the law as requiring a special lab for each species, real or imaginary. Quote: Petitioner claims injury and denial of rights not related to the cause of action and requests relief that Respondent is not legally required to perform and which the court could not grant anyway under an ordinary mandate. The court will give the petition the boot. It won’t get past arguing the legal validity of the petition. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens. I can see why no other lawyers want in on this; it looks like a legal train wreck to me. Petitioner seems to claim denial of a right that doesn't exist: no one is entitled a false reputation. If the scientific community doesn't take her seriously, that's not the state's problem.

25th February 2018, 06:40 PM	#87
DevilsAdvocate Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,864	I wonder if California will sue for attorney’s fees after the petition is denied. They might. The link to Standing could establish that the petition was filed for an improper purpose. A writ of mandate is an extraordinary option only used when no other remedy is available. The petition could be construed as frivolous because it makes no mention of the Petitioner even attempting to notify the Respondents of the existence of Bigfoot. It does not say when or how the Respondents denied the existence of Bigfoot. It does not say she ever contacts the Respondents. It makes no mention of her previous sighting where she contacted “authorities” who told her it was a bear. It could be argued that this demonstrates that there has been no attempt to remedy the matter and that the petition was therefore filed for some other improper purpose. The only thing in the petition is this enigmatic statement: Quote: Petitioner asserts that Respondents committed an abuse of process by not treating her fairly, which includes Respondents’ not putting any decision or otherwise concerning Sasquatch in writing to her. I don’t even know what that means.
	__________________ Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

26th February 2018, 02:55 PM	#88
Nakani Muse Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Acho Dene Koe Posts: 732	Originally Posted by GT/CS His photo of a bigfoot next to the helicopter was great! Ah, the days when hoaxers were entertaining. For those who weren't around to experience Creekfreak, enjoy. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=96467 Thanks for the link, I'm on page eighteen and am hooked. My favorite part so far is his plan to hard mount spotting scopes to his Bigfoot hunting boat. Anyone who has looked through a pair of binoculars and tried to keep them steady, would know that is one of the stupidest ideas ever.

28th February 2018, 05:32 PM	#89
Nakani Muse Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Acho Dene Koe Posts: 732	Judge: That is a compelling story but unfortunately we can't accept it as evidence. Todd wheeling around like Matlock circa 1986: Your honor this witness is an ex police officer. Courtroom: GASP!murmermurmerHe was a copmurmermurmerHe wouldn't liemurmerWhy WOULD he lie?murmer Judge: Order! Order!... Well in light of this new development I have no choice but to declare Bigfoot real. Swings his gavel Bang, DWA wakes up on the floor.

1st March 2018, 09:31 AM	#90
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,344	Reading back on that old Creekfreak thread, i feel like The Sarge (William Parcher), Griff (LTC8KC) & Zab (Drew), from the Big Red One. Are we the only ones left?
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,344	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

1st March 2018, 09:48 AM	#91
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 15,882	This genius weighs in. http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=4 Originally Posted by WSA Oh, the pitfalls of binary thinking! (Or as I like to refer to it as: The Number One Crippler of Young Adults). And here it is again. As I've proposed up-thread, the tertiary is a completely satisfactory and possible outcome here. Obviously, a type specimen leads to an administrative concession of existence (at least in the state or province where the species is found...you could still expect state governments to claim, "Well, it might exist THERE, but there is no proof it exists HERE...) but the door needs to be left open for the possibility that the species could get provisional recognition through civil actions like this and still not have a type specimen G. and s. classification. I've yet to have anyone clearly explain to me why this is not possible. Fact is, it is possible. The law is full of those types of conclusions, as I've already mentioned.
	__________________ In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church. Bill Donohue

1st March 2018, 10:10 AM	#92
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,667	Originally Posted by DWA on Bigfoot Forums I've yet to have anyone clearly explain to me why this is not possible. I wouldn't want to try to explain anything to this guy. Not even orange juice coming from oranges. Originally Posted by DWA Fact is, it is possible. The law is full of those types of conclusions, as I've already mentioned. Guy thinks that the law and zoology sleep in the same bed?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

1st March 2018, 03:42 PM	#93
Spektator Watching . . . always watching. Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Southeastern USA Posts: 1,625	Originally Posted by Drewbot Reading back on that old Creekfreak thread, i feel like The Sarge (William Parcher), Griff (LTC8KC) & Zab (Drew), from the Big Red One. Are we the only ones left? I'm still standing, but I've never posted much.

2nd March 2018, 06:57 AM	#94
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,344	Originally Posted by Spektator I'm still standing, but I've never posted much. OK, you can be Vinci. (Di Cicci)
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,344	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

2nd March 2018, 11:21 AM	#95
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 16,032	Originally Posted by Resume This genius weighs in. Wow. I certainly don't see where any state anywhere has made an "administrative concession" of the existence of a biological species. That's not something governments do, in my experience. It looks like he's trying to equivocate from administrative notice that an already-known species may or may not occupy its jurisdiction, a completely separate question.

2nd March 2018, 02:27 PM	#96
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,807	Originally Posted by JayUtah Wow. I certainly don't see where any state anywhere has made an "administrative concession" of the existence of a biological species. That's not something governments do, in my experience. It looks like he's trying to equivocate from administrative notice that an already-known species may or may not occupy its jurisdiction, a completely separate question. The mindless disconnect coming from their real or contrived pretension that it's an 'already-known' species. "But I saw it, why doesn't the government believe me?"
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

3rd March 2018, 08:58 PM	#97
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,667	Originally Posted by Claudia Ackley on Facebook Its is starting now. I have been followed by either a black or white SUV and two men come to my house one stands outside of his truck and one comes to my door. The other day I was coming home and as I was turning a left into my driveway a black looking police car drove up and just stared me down and he was wearing a red and black plaid shirt and he gave me the worst look anyone could ever give so at that point he starts moving forward well I'm going to turn around to follow him and at that point he sped off in front of my house to the point where the wheels turned. This truck was following me about 2 feet behind my car and what I did is I made a very quick turn to the point where I turned my car around and followed him and this was his license plate. When he noticed what I did and I was right behind him taking pictures of his car he sped off about 90 miles an hour in my little small town. Includes photos of Men in Black and extremely super duper sneaky vehicle. http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=5
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

3rd March 2018, 09:05 PM	#98
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,667	The Man in Black appears to be grabbing her peephole. Although it is a still photo, I would describe what he is doing as being "goochie goochie goo".
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

4th March 2018, 08:49 AM	#99
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 15,882	Originally Posted by William Parcher Includes photos of Men in Black and extremely super duper sneaky vehicle. http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=5 Yeah that jayjeti guy is one of bigfootery's best and brightest. He's a very active poster on NL's SRA forum. Perhaps the only poster.
	__________________ In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church. Bill Donohue

4th March 2018, 09:11 AM	#100
Cervelo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,449	Originally Posted by William Parcher Includes photos of Men in Black and extremely super duper sneaky vehicle. http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=5 It is amazing how people of this mindset react when their fantasy world bumps into reality. They just start creating their own reality.
Cervelo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,449

4th March 2018, 10:39 AM	#101
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 16,032	Originally Posted by Cervelo It is amazing how people of this mindset react when their fantasy world bumps into reality. They just start creating their own reality. Indeed, and their own reality always resembles bad spy novels and bad action movies.

4th March 2018, 12:57 PM	#102
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 15,882	He can't stop himself. http://bigfootforums.com/topic/59316...awsuit/?page=5 Originally Posted by WSA What is the expression Norseman? 'When a man holds a hammer, everything he sees looks like a nail"? You might be holding the "existence" hammer. Look, I realize your sine qua non, plus ultra is to get a body to confirm existence. It is not mine (not that I would treat that as bad news, on the contrary) and it is not necessarily the motivation of all who post and read here. There are ways out of that, if you want it. My post above was just an explanation of how some might move to looking at it through a different lens, and allow us to write a different menu for predicted outcomes. It is neither an outcome that confirms existence, or disproves it. It is a useful approach, a third way. It takes us above and beyond the zero-sum debate that seems to eat up most of the discussion around here. The reason I know it is useful is because neither the hard-core proponents or the dyed-in-the-wool opponents find it an entirely satisfying outcome. That tells me something. So this: The state of California declares there is insufficient evidence to declare if BF does, or does not, exist with any degree of reasonable certainty, BUT, given the compelling evidence for existence, the possibility cannot be entirely dismissed when matters of its citizens' safety and welfare are concerned. While this court is not able to grant all the relief requested by the Petitioner, it is ORDERED... Channeling his inner DWA.
	__________________ In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church. Bill Donohue

4th March 2018, 01:58 PM	#103
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,807	Originally Posted by Cervelo It is amazing how people of this mindset react when their fantasy world bumps into reality. They just start creating their own reality. I don't think they start it then though, "creating their own reality" is how they got there in the first place.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

4th March 2018, 10:44 PM	#104
Night Walker Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 244	Consistent failure to persuade zoologists or anthropologists to investigate Sasquatch phenomena may be explained by the fact that most of the available evidence consists of eyewitness testimony, which scientists are not trained or accustomed to deal with. The professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony, and who take it very seriously, are lawyers. Since lawyers also dominate the political scene, where the purse strings of scientific research are held, the best way to achieve a scientific investigation may be to convince the lawyers first. To this end, a campaign for a judicial or legislative inquiry into the existing Sasquatch evidence is advocated. Green, J. (1989). The Case for a Legal Inquiry into Sasquatch Evidence. Cryptozoology, 8, 37–42.*
Night Walker Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 244

4th March 2018, 10:54 PM	#105
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 15,882	Originally Posted by Night Walker Consistent failure to persuade zoologists or anthropologists to investigate Sasquatch phenomena may be explained by the fact that most of the available evidence consists of eyewitness testimony, which scientists are not trained or accustomed to deal with. The professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony, and who take it very seriously, are lawyers. Since lawyers also dominate the political scene, where the purse strings of scientific research are held, the best way to achieve a scientific investigation may be to convince the lawyers first. To this end, a campaign for a judicial or legislative inquiry into the existing Sasquatch evidence is advocated. Green, J. (1989). The Case for a Legal Inquiry into Sasquatch Evidence. Cryptozoology, 8, 37–42.* Misspelled pseudoscience.
	__________________ In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church. Bill Donohue Last edited by Resume; 4th March 2018 at 10:55 PM.

4th March 2018, 11:16 PM	#106
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Malmesbury, UK Posts: 10,497	The other professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony are psychologists.
	__________________ "If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

5th March 2018, 12:53 AM	#107
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Inland NW Posts: 4,900	Originally Posted by Drewbot Reading back on that old Creekfreak thread, i feel like The Sarge (William Parcher), Griff (LTC8KC) & Zab (Drew), from the Big Red One. Are we the only ones left? Here’s a list of the players in the PGF 411 thread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...posted&t=42523
	__________________ Normal in a weird way.

5th March 2018, 05:08 AM	#108
Dabop Muse Join Date: May 2015 Location: Oz Posts: 739	Originally Posted by Night Walker Consistent failure to persuade zoologists or anthropologists to investigate Sasquatch phenomena may be explained by the fact that most of the available evidence consists of eyewitness testimony which scientists are not trained or accustomed to deal with. The professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony, and who take it very seriously, are lawyers. Since lawyers also dominate the political scene, where the purse strings of scientific research are held, the best way to achieve a scientific investigation may be to convince the lawyers first. To this end, a campaign for a judicial or legislative inquiry into the existing Sasquatch evidence is advocated. Green, J. (1989). The Case for a Legal Inquiry into Sasquatch Evidence. Cryptozoology, 8, 37–42.* Quote: At the same time, numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent — a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony. http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-com...testimony.html Between the ones in it for the $$/notoriety and the ones who arent quite all there so to say, and the ones that saw 'something shaggy briefly dozens of meters away', better would be actual real evidence- of which we have exactly..... none
Dabop Muse Join Date: May 2015 Location: Oz Posts: 739	__________________ It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader 'When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.' George Carlin

5th March 2018, 05:43 AM	#109
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,344	Originally Posted by GT/CS Here’s a list of the players in the PGF 411 thread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...posted&t=42523 Remember when Historian (Neil) accused people of being NSA moles, whose job was to spread falsehoods about the existence of Bigfoot, so people would stop looking? What thread was that?
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,344	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

5th March 2018, 08:37 AM	#110
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,667	Originally Posted by Drewbot Remember when Historian (Neil) accused people of being NSA moles, whose job was to spread falsehoods about the existence of Bigfoot, so people would stop looking? What thread was that? He probably said that in all the threads he posted in including ones that weren't about Bigfoot. These should be representative... JREF is a front for the NSA: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=104712 Invisible Bigfoot: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=94981
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

5th March 2018, 09:24 AM	#111
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 16,032	Originally Posted by Pixel42 The other professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony are psychologists. And some such as Elizabeth Loftus have transformed our understanding of the reliability of eyewitness testimony, especially as it pertains to the law. The law requires human testimony because photographs can't be cross-examined, not because lawyers trust human testimony. In fact, a proper lawyer is more interested in obtaining a favorable outcome for his client than in the abstract pursuit of truth. He has a duty to promote evidence toward that end despite its objective reliability, and to do his best to discredit evidence against that end. A lawyer will happily argue the existence of Bigfoot regardless of whether he personally believes in it, if there's a professional arrangement for him to do so.

5th March 2018, 09:42 AM	#112
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,667	Originally Posted by Claudia Ackley This truck was following me about 2 feet behind my car and what I did is I made a very quick turn to the point where I turned my car around and followed him and this was his license plate. When he noticed what I did and I was right behind him taking pictures of his car he sped off about 90 miles an hour in my little small town. This is of course a lie. She made up this story. The vehicle did not drive 90 mph through her little town after seeing her perform a position switcheroo. She's not incorrect or deluded or exaggerating. She's a fabricator. This is almost certainly also true about her Bigfoot encounter stories. She made them up. She didn't see a bear in a tree and then think she was seeing Bigfoot. She just made it up. Todd Standing does the same thing. He's not mistaken or deluded - he's a liar. He creates the fake Bigfoots in his photos. So there is no mistake involved. Claudia and Todd are submitting a lawsuit that is based on their lies. Not mistakes or delusion or gullibility. This is genuine flat out lying. They are doing this with the confidence that they will not actually be punished for bringing lies in front of the California judiciary.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. Last edited by William Parcher; 5th March 2018 at 09:43 AM.

8th March 2018, 03:59 PM	#113
Carlotta Thinker Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 178	Originally Posted by GT/CS His photo of a bigfoot next to the helicopter was great! Ah, the days when hoaxers were entertaining. For those who weren't around to experience Creekfreak, enjoy. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=96467 You're the one that posted that!! I just came up for air after at least a week! Best thread ever! Creak was so much more interesting than most of the loons. I had followed the saga the first time around, when you could still see most of the pictures. Fun times! And no I never posted then, just lurked.
Carlotta Thinker Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 178

9th March 2018, 08:40 AM	#114
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,623	Bungle in the Jnugle! Back when bigfootery was fresh and fun.
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,623

9th March 2018, 09:13 AM	#115
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,344	Originally Posted by The Shrike Bungle in the Jnugle! Back when bigfootery was fresh and fun. It was impossible to click on that thread without saying it out loud... Bungle in the Jeh-nuggle.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 6,344	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic