The major thrust in this piece, that Sasquatch is so completely human it would be murder to shoot one.
The DNA analysis states that Sasquatch is a human hyrbid, with unknown genetic material.
Sasquatch is stated to only be 12000-23000 years old.
That is damn near impossible for most folks to believe.
Unless of course you are up on your Edgar Cayce, who stated mankind was advanced far past our present day in this time period, practicing genetic hybridizations of Animal/Humans.
I can think of three instances where sex between a Sasquatch and a human were reported to have produced offspring.
This would give credence to Melba Ketchum's DNA conclusians about Sasquatch being a mostly human hybrid.
2. Pictures taken during the John Wesley Powell expeditions in the 1800's. The pictures were taken of men who claimed to be the descendents of a Piout Indian woman who was raped by a Sasquatch.
I'm ashamed I haven't read the thread. I've meant to, I have. BUT,,,,,,,,,,,that thread is 170 pages long!
I'm all about threads of infinite importance and all, but some of us have got to work 60+ hours, we have kids, we got errands. And when it's all said and done, we have Game of Thrones. LOL
Okay for real though, I've read "War and Peace", and that didn't intimidate me as much as your 170 page thread.
Why don't ya all chop a topic out every once in a while and start a smaller thread with it?
And or I"ll try to tackle your novel of a thread in the near future. But I like to start a thread with the idea I can finish it in one sitting and your thread does not look like that is going to happen for a while.
In English law, murder has two "parts" each with their own qualifications. Those parts are the "guilty act" and the "guilty mind" (actus reus and mens rea). I remember all those years ago doing law at school that Coke's definition of the guilty act of murder involved the unlawful killing of "any reasonable creature". It said nothing about "human". To have the actus reus of murder held up in court in the case of a killed sasquatch, all that would be necessary is to prove that the sasquatch is/was reasonale/rational. This has stuck with me for more than one reason. The first is that the murdered entity need not be human, merely "reasonable" — the second is a corrolary of the same point: the murdered entity need be rational. Do "NWO" types absolve themselves of their culpability for murder by declaring (with characteristic elitism) that rank and file humans aren't rational (or they wouldn't put up with them) and thus don't qualify as possible murder targets? Murder is not a "strict liability" crime, which is to say the act is not guilty unless the mind is itself guilty. Thus if they don't believe a wage-slave human is a reasonable target for murder, the mind isn't guilty and so the act isn't guilty.
Just a few thoughts. I just wanted to say that actually, by the common law definition of murder (in force in the US and Canada, save Louisiana (and probably Quebec)), there is nothing stopping the shooting of a sasquatch being a murder. The sasquatch doesn't need to be related to humans at all . This might be the common-sense viewpoint, but it is rarely the case that a pedantic point of law actually agrees with common sense.
Last edited by Seikou-Kishi, 2nd April 2015 at 17:20.
what if you were to, say... kill a grey? ( if that's even possible?)
I would love to hear your 50 shades version of Sasquatch, if indeed you even believe there is a similar connection. I've been wishfully thinking you might jump in this conversation for a long time. :-)
I'm ashamed I haven't read the thread. I've meant to, I have. BUT,,,,,,,,,,,that thread is 170 pages long!
yes, a very long read.
sorry not to break it up into consumable chapters or separate threads,
but frankly, with this bizarre subject, it can't be the destination, it must be the ride.
at this point, started so innocently back then, the 'ride' has become more astounding and gravity shaking.
best experienced in chronologic fashion, than disparate parts.
it's all there.
from the fascination with the possibilities of a clear, full-frontal image of a 'bigfoot,'
to the realization that these entities are more human than ever assumed
and that they possess or can manipulate inter-dimensional realms we may never uncover or understand.
our best bet to get to the bottom of all of this -- mike paterson's work.
he's on it.
and we're all over it : )
just so I understand, you don't believe there is a connection to your 'elemental' alien perspective and sasquatch?
I was speaking of a very specific type of "alien" when I spoke about the greys. I believe sasquatch are "non-human humans", one might say (making no taxonomic claim here). Unless they're "human humans", lol.
I was speaking of a very specific type of "alien" when I spoke about the greys. I believe sasquatch are "non-human humans", one might say (making no taxonomic claim here). Unless they're "human humans", lol.