One more to vote on...

One more to vote on...

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 2nd, 2009, 11:53 pm #1

<script language="Javascript" src="http://www.network54.com/Votelet/54890? ... \n</script>
Quote
Like
Share

Randall Chapman
Randall Chapman

November 3rd, 2009, 3:55 pm #2

From the recent evidence that has come to light, I feel something more went on at Bluff Creek. Too many stills and evidence suggests otherwise. Too many unanswered questions.
Quote
Share

go200mph
go200mph

November 4th, 2009, 2:32 pm #3

<script language="Javascript" src="http://www.network54.com/Votelet/54890? ... \n</script>
It is what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You haven't convinced me that all of this is connected. Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were after making money and I beleive John Green and all of the others were in this for some of the same reasons. I could have thought up, in 40 years, a way to retrieve those bones from the slaughtered sasquatches that would have brought me untold wealth and fame. Why would they need to cover up the killing of an animal that science doesn't say exist. In 1967, there were no state or federal laws against killing a sasquatch. If they had turned out to be a tribe of hairy indians as some have claimed, the killing of whatever appeared on Patterson's film would in the mind of most reasonable people been considered an animal and the killing justified. You must remember, in 1967, in the South they were still not convicting white men of lynching black men, so killing a large, hairy, beast-like human in the wilderness of California would not be considered a big deal.

I respect the zeal with which you are approaching this matter, but you are very close to being slanderous in your accusations and for your own protection, I would definitely have more evidence than what you have, before you find yourself in court answering questions, not asking them. Again, we live in America and he doesn't have to prove his innocense. You are obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is quilty and without a body and more evidence than you have presented, you haven't met that criteria. Your online polls even show that many of the voters need to see more evidence. I would hate to see you drug into a legal proceding and spend huge amounts of your hard earned money on stinking lawyers over something that may never be proven.

The last question I have for you is, if you are so convinced with your evidence, why would John Green's sworn affidavit and polygraph test persuade you that what you are seeing in the evidence didn't, in fact, happen. I myself have lied on a polygraph test about smoking weed and it didn't tell the polygrapher I was lying, so they aren't fool proof. And the good Lord knows that thousands of people lie under oath, what does sworn affidavits prove. If your evidence is as good as you claim, nothing should dissaude you from getting at the truth, definitely not the testimony of a man you have already called a liar.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 4th, 2009, 3:08 pm #4

Only this community has a hard time digesting the shown evidence...one thing I am not worried about is being invited to court by any of these accused men...

We have been discussing this since last January I believe...if you haven't kept up then you have missed out on quite a bit of information which I will not spend the time to go back through...to much...to time consuming for me at this time...

Signing affidavits would prove innocence in most eyes but yet if the information is untruthful it is no different then being sworn in court and finding out you are lying which is why JG will not sign affidavits...maybe you or some don't know or can't see by film evidence what went on at Bluff Creek in 1967 but JG does...Gimlim and quite a few of us have a good understanding...also...there is evidence that hasn't been provided to us publicly...

I could go on and on but do yourself a favor and listen to the November program at Artist First...

Quote
Like
Share

RubyRed
RubyRed

November 4th, 2009, 11:01 pm #5

It is what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You haven't convinced me that all of this is connected. Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were after making money and I beleive John Green and all of the others were in this for some of the same reasons. I could have thought up, in 40 years, a way to retrieve those bones from the slaughtered sasquatches that would have brought me untold wealth and fame. Why would they need to cover up the killing of an animal that science doesn't say exist. In 1967, there were no state or federal laws against killing a sasquatch. If they had turned out to be a tribe of hairy indians as some have claimed, the killing of whatever appeared on Patterson's film would in the mind of most reasonable people been considered an animal and the killing justified. You must remember, in 1967, in the South they were still not convicting white men of lynching black men, so killing a large, hairy, beast-like human in the wilderness of California would not be considered a big deal.

I respect the zeal with which you are approaching this matter, but you are very close to being slanderous in your accusations and for your own protection, I would definitely have more evidence than what you have, before you find yourself in court answering questions, not asking them. Again, we live in America and he doesn't have to prove his innocense. You are obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is quilty and without a body and more evidence than you have presented, you haven't met that criteria. Your online polls even show that many of the voters need to see more evidence. I would hate to see you drug into a legal proceding and spend huge amounts of your hard earned money on stinking lawyers over something that may never be proven.

The last question I have for you is, if you are so convinced with your evidence, why would John Green's sworn affidavit and polygraph test persuade you that what you are seeing in the evidence didn't, in fact, happen. I myself have lied on a polygraph test about smoking weed and it didn't tell the polygrapher I was lying, so they aren't fool proof. And the good Lord knows that thousands of people lie under oath, what does sworn affidavits prove. If your evidence is as good as you claim, nothing should dissaude you from getting at the truth, definitely not the testimony of a man you have already called a liar.
but you have a right to your opinion...
Quote
Share

RubyRed
RubyRed

November 6th, 2009, 9:31 pm #6

Only this community has a hard time digesting the shown evidence...one thing I am not worried about is being invited to court by any of these accused men...

We have been discussing this since last January I believe...if you haven't kept up then you have missed out on quite a bit of information which I will not spend the time to go back through...to much...to time consuming for me at this time...

Signing affidavits would prove innocence in most eyes but yet if the information is untruthful it is no different then being sworn in court and finding out you are lying which is why JG will not sign affidavits...maybe you or some don't know or can't see by film evidence what went on at Bluff Creek in 1967 but JG does...Gimlim and quite a few of us have a good understanding...also...there is evidence that hasn't been provided to us publicly...

I could go on and on but do yourself a favor and listen to the November program at Artist First...
from the comments he posted, IF he'd actually seen any of the transparency, photographic animation evidence presented which prompted the questions about what was told 40 years ago in the first place. Also, I think the world of you MH for allowing his post. But IF I'd used that tone of voice in any of my posts, I'd have been reprimanded. I agree with "Go" when he said about people lying and getting away with it. To me, it's too late for sworn statements or polygraph tests, because people tell lies and sometimes they get away with it.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

November 6th, 2009, 9:44 pm #7

I want folks to be able to openly state their opinions as long as they abide by the forum rules...don't slam any of the forum members, the GCBRO or any GCBRO members...other then that it's pretty much open...I have my opinion as well as everyone else and it's not healthy to have one biased opinion...of course I'm always right but you already knew that didn't you RR...LOL

Very seldom do we have a post that is not approved for reasons mentioned above..we do not edit any posts...we may not approve it but we will not edit...
Quote
Like
Share

RubyRed
RubyRed

November 9th, 2009, 1:25 am #8

Ain't ever easy! But know this, we DO appreciate you for what you do in moderating this board. You don't ban people for disagreeing with you and have shown more respect than others in similar situations might have! Keep up the good work, Mr. Moderator!
Quote
Share

asstipmnfg04
asstipmnfg04

July 27th, 2016, 4:18 pm #9

I want folks to be able to openly state their opinions as long as they abide by the forum rules...don't slam any of the forum members, the GCBRO or any GCBRO members...other then that it's pretty much open...I have my opinion as well as everyone else and it's not healthy to have one biased opinion...of course I'm always right but you already knew that didn't you RR...LOL

Very seldom do we have a post that is not approved for reasons mentioned above..we do not edit any posts...we may not approve it but we will not edit...
http://buyperiactin.trade/ - periactinhttp://buy-robaxin.stream/ - robaxin goldhttp://buypropecia.link/ - buy propeciahttp://overthecounterviagra.top/ - via grahttp://synthroid-generic.bid/ - synthroidhttp://methotrexate-online.bid/ - methotrexate online
Quote
Share

Tammyred
Tammyred

January 14th, 2017, 4:47 am #10

I want folks to be able to openly state their opinions as long as they abide by the forum rules...don't slam any of the forum members, the GCBRO or any GCBRO members...other then that it's pretty much open...I have my opinion as well as everyone else and it's not healthy to have one biased opinion...of course I'm always right but you already knew that didn't you RR...LOL

Very seldom do we have a post that is not approved for reasons mentioned above..we do not edit any posts...we may not approve it but we will not edit...
<a href="" rel="nofollow">http://advair-hfa.trade/>advair hfa inhaler</a> <a href="" rel="nofollow">http://genericcymbalta.link/>check out your url</a> <a href="" rel="nofollow">http://buyarimidex.club/>arimidex pills</a> <a href="" rel="nofollow">http://buysynthroid12.top/>buy synthroid</a> <a href="" rel="nofollow">http://atarax-online.party/>bonuses</a>
Quote
Share