Picking up on whether Illnois babies who survived an abortion attempt and were born alive should receive medical care or simply ignored until they died, we are about to have a vote. Remember that baby-killer Obama has already said he will vote "Present" which in Illinois amounts to a "no" without the honesty: Presiding Officer, Senator Karpiel : "The question is, shall
Senate Bill 1093 pass. Those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed, vote Nay. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Madam Secretary. On this question, there are 34 voting Aye, 6 voting Nay, 12 voting Present. And Senate Bill 1093, having received the required constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate Bill 1094. Senator O'Malley. Read the bill, Madam Secretary."
I have used strong language in this post but it is honest. Obama voted for the killing of young Americans by neglect. Fortunately, he was defeated, and Obama needs to be continued to be defeated because he is not for Americans, he is not for America. He is a Muslim Marxist with a cosmic vision of things that has no regard for the flesh and blood individual nor does it have any regard for the suffering it would bring about as you have just seen in his speech against Illinois Senate Bill 1093. He does not live on earth; he lives in La-La Land!
You are not on the path of love if you say nothing about a man who would let babies die by neglect. You are not moral if you saw the heinous immorality of a person and said nothing against that immorality. peternickerson12@yahoo.com
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Obama's Infanticide By Neglect - continued
Let's pick up the trail verbatim from what Obama was saying yesterday about not belaboring the point: "I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about a -- a bill that deal with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child[ there he goes again with the "fetus" talk!] was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue [ No, Obama, this is not an abortion issue, but a new-born baby issue. But you keep on lieing so you can show the abortion crowd that you are their strongest supporter, so strong that you would have a new-born baby born during an abortion attempt die by neglect. You will guarantee a sure kill for every abortion even if it has to be the murder of a new-born child. No go home and play with your children. You don't care about ours, that's plain to see.] And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present." [ Which means no since Illinois requires yeses to overcome presents. Nice day's work, Obama, and I'll bet the suffering babies don't bother your conscience a bit.]
Presiding Officer, Senator Karpiel: "Further discussion? If not, Senator O'Malley, to close."
Senator O'Malley: "Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen [ and monsters like Barack Obama] of the Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this is a passionate issue [So where's your passion, Senator?]. And -- however, I don't think it's challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was described. The Constitution does not say that a child must be born viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois [tied with Lousianna for being the most corrupt state] and, frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect these rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, rescue, and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate your support "[Bravo! Senator, for standing up to the rights up not only new-born children but by extension any American whom Obama might think is not
"viable."] peternickerson12@yahoo.com
Presiding Officer, Senator Karpiel: "Further discussion? If not, Senator O'Malley, to close."
Senator O'Malley: "Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen [ and monsters like Barack Obama] of the Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this is a passionate issue [So where's your passion, Senator?]. And -- however, I don't think it's challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was described. The Constitution does not say that a child must be born viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois [tied with Lousianna for being the most corrupt state] and, frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect these rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, rescue, and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate your support "[Bravo! Senator, for standing up to the rights up not only new-born children but by extension any American whom Obama might think is not
"viable."] peternickerson12@yahoo.com
Monday, April 26, 2010
Obama's Infanticide By Neglect continued.
Let us now pick up the verbatim transcript in the Illinois Senate regarding SB 1093:
Senator O'Malley: "Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circunstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane [ Do you see what great courage the Senator displays in describing infanticide by neglect as "less than humane?" Here's a man for all seasons!] and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States."
Presiding Officer, Senator Karpiel: "Senator Obama."
Senator Obama: "Well, it turned out-- that during testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns [ Can you imagine- pro-abortionists actually "concerned" about new-borns being neglected until they died? What a display of heart.] that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses [ a new-born infant is not a fetus, Obama] or children [No, infants, Obama] who are delivered in this manner.
Unfortunately, this bill goes a little further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive
constitutional scrutiny [Wow! You know a lot about the Constitution don't you?]. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus [ Here Obama deliberately lies about whom is being discussed, hoping to wiggle out of the rightful charge of supporting infanticide by neglect and
hoping the attract the attention of the pro-choicers whom he wants to support him over Hillary Clinton, his greatest adversary in the 2008 presidential primaries.] as a person that is protected
by the equal protection clause or some other elements in the Constitution, what we are really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a --a child, a nine-month-old--child that was delivered to term [What is this- some game in which if you are born after nine months in the womb, you have rights, but if you are born before that, you have no rights and can be ignored until you finally die?]. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place [Obama, this has nothing to do with abortions but births!] I mean, it-- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then it would be an antiabortion statute [No, it wouldn't because abortions kill fetuses, that is, unborn children while this proposed bill would provide medical care to born children totally separated from their mothers. How weak!].
For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional [There you go again, misusing the Constitution.] The second reason that it would be unconstitutional [ It wouldn't.] is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child or fetus, however you may want to decribe it [There you go again, calling a newborn a previable fetus. And why do you refer to human beings as "that" and "it?" It must be because you value human beings so highly.] Viability is the line that has to be drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion [There he goes again, talking about abortions when the bill is concerned with new-borns] can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necesssary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality [Don't we try to keep all humans alive as long as possible?]. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion [Birth, Obama, not abortion.], we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional [Is everything except what Obama wants unconstitutional?] and it was struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I --I won't, as I said, belabor the point. TO BE CONTINUED.
Again, let me make the point that you are not on the path of love if you say nothing about someone who wanted to keep allowing infanticide by neglect to happen. You are on the path of love. peternickerson12@yahoo.com
Senator O'Malley: "Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circunstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane [ Do you see what great courage the Senator displays in describing infanticide by neglect as "less than humane?" Here's a man for all seasons!] and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States."
Presiding Officer, Senator Karpiel: "Senator Obama."
Senator Obama: "Well, it turned out-- that during testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns [ Can you imagine- pro-abortionists actually "concerned" about new-borns being neglected until they died? What a display of heart.] that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses [ a new-born infant is not a fetus, Obama] or children [No, infants, Obama] who are delivered in this manner.
Unfortunately, this bill goes a little further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive
constitutional scrutiny [Wow! You know a lot about the Constitution don't you?]. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus [ Here Obama deliberately lies about whom is being discussed, hoping to wiggle out of the rightful charge of supporting infanticide by neglect and
hoping the attract the attention of the pro-choicers whom he wants to support him over Hillary Clinton, his greatest adversary in the 2008 presidential primaries.] as a person that is protected
by the equal protection clause or some other elements in the Constitution, what we are really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a --a child, a nine-month-old--child that was delivered to term [What is this- some game in which if you are born after nine months in the womb, you have rights, but if you are born before that, you have no rights and can be ignored until you finally die?]. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place [Obama, this has nothing to do with abortions but births!] I mean, it-- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then it would be an antiabortion statute [No, it wouldn't because abortions kill fetuses, that is, unborn children while this proposed bill would provide medical care to born children totally separated from their mothers. How weak!].
For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional [There you go again, misusing the Constitution.] The second reason that it would be unconstitutional [ It wouldn't.] is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child or fetus, however you may want to decribe it [There you go again, calling a newborn a previable fetus. And why do you refer to human beings as "that" and "it?" It must be because you value human beings so highly.] Viability is the line that has to be drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion [There he goes again, talking about abortions when the bill is concerned with new-borns] can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necesssary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality [Don't we try to keep all humans alive as long as possible?]. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion [Birth, Obama, not abortion.], we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional [Is everything except what Obama wants unconstitutional?] and it was struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I --I won't, as I said, belabor the point. TO BE CONTINUED.
Again, let me make the point that you are not on the path of love if you say nothing about someone who wanted to keep allowing infanticide by neglect to happen. You are on the path of love. peternickerson12@yahoo.com
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Obama's New-Born Babies' Death Panel
In the last post, I gave the Illilnois Senate floor transcript that featured Senator O'Malley introducing a bill to have a second doctor, not the abortionist, give medical care to a baby born alive after an unsuccessful abortion attempt. Now I will continue, and you will see from the transcript how Barack Obama wants an abortion to be a sure kill even if it means murdering a newly-born child by withholding medical care from him until he finally gives up and dies. I may make comments but they will be in brackets not parentheses. Here begins the rest of the transcript: Presiding Officer ( Senator Karpiel) "Any discusssion? Senator Obama."
"Senator Obama: "Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for questions?"
Presiding Officer (Senator Karpiel) : "He indicated he will."
Senator Obama: " This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everyone knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during this committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion [through inducing labor with a chemical] where the - fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still
temporarily alive [ temporarily alive because no medical care or any kind of care whatsoever is being given] outside the womb [ more than that, Obama, outside the mother!]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief time they were still living [ you mean, Obama, that brief time they lived without any care]. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in this bill?" [Do you see how artful Obama is? A very feminine quality, like a geisha girl.]
Presiding Officer (Senator Karpiel): Senator O'Malley.
TO BE CONTINUED Until then follow the path of love to God and let me add that to be silent about someone who wants to neglect new-borns until they die is not being on the path of love.
"Senator Obama: "Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for questions?"
Presiding Officer (Senator Karpiel) : "He indicated he will."
Senator Obama: " This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everyone knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during this committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion [through inducing labor with a chemical] where the - fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still
temporarily alive [ temporarily alive because no medical care or any kind of care whatsoever is being given] outside the womb [ more than that, Obama, outside the mother!]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief time they were still living [ you mean, Obama, that brief time they lived without any care]. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in this bill?" [Do you see how artful Obama is? A very feminine quality, like a geisha girl.]
Presiding Officer (Senator Karpiel): Senator O'Malley.
TO BE CONTINUED Until then follow the path of love to God and let me add that to be silent about someone who wants to neglect new-borns until they die is not being on the path of love.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bigfoot Grave? Black Panther Sighting, Bobcat Attacks, Obama's Death Panel
A huge mound of dirt was found in a thicket that had to be hacked into. This happened on Alder Creek in Oregon as written by Peter Byrne in "The Search For Bigfoot." The mound was four feet high, twelve feet long and ten feet wide. The dirt looked like it had been rotor-tilled. The mound was so far off the beaten track that the men had to use a machete to cut their way into the thicket. Sometime later, they tried to go back to it, bringing shovels I hope, but were unable to find it. That sounds a little suspicious, but I have lost trails before in the woods and have had to fight panic for a while until I finally found the trail. I believe this could have been a bigfoot grave and remember reading about a number of giant skeletons being dug up on an island in the Okeefenokee Swamp, the largest wild land east of the Mississippi. These were probably Bigfeet remains. Anyone in the Gainesville to Lake City area, Florida, interested in partnering up with me to share gas expenses and company - it's dangerous out there alone and not half the fun- please call me, Pete Nickerson at 352-359-0850.
I got an interesting couple of stories at McDonald's in Alachua City earlier this week. I asked the panther question to a young man, a student at Santa Fe University majoring in construction I learned. He had been hunting on the north end of the Ichetucknee Spring Park on private land and was up in a tree. A black panther zoomed across a shooting lane and was gone. He saw the long black tail. This young man also was hunting in a tree that had another tree leaning against it when he saw a bobcat which are very plentiful in this area beginning to climb the leaning tree. The bobcat continued climbing, approaching the hunter so he raised his rifle and put the sights on the little cat. The cat continued coming toward him until he was only feet away. Then he stopped and gathered himself to leap at the hunter. The hunter had to shoot him at that point.
I've read about bobcats starving in the deep snows of the North attacking humans, but this is the first story of an attempted attack that I've been told about.
Now le't go to some unpleasant business, but it is absolutely necessary that you know about this unless you want to live a life of misery such as Cubans and North Koreans "enjoy."On March 30, 2001 the Illinois Senate had its secretary read Senate Bill 1093. It was the third reading of the bill, and the transcript does not show that bill, just that the Secretary read it for the third time. Then the Presiding Officer, Senator Karpiel, says, "Senator O'Malley."
Senator O'Malley says, "Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate.
Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion procedures which, in the medical judgement of the attending physician, has a reasonable likliehood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill automatically provides that a live born child as a result of an - -of--of an abortion procedure shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. I'd be pleased to answer any questions there may be."
Now, dear reader, what normal human being wouldn't want for a newly-born baby, totally separate from his mother, to be provided medical attention? Unfortunately, there is such a person, and I will write from the Senate transcripts the utterly evil-sick objections of Barack Obama in the next post. God save America!
I got an interesting couple of stories at McDonald's in Alachua City earlier this week. I asked the panther question to a young man, a student at Santa Fe University majoring in construction I learned. He had been hunting on the north end of the Ichetucknee Spring Park on private land and was up in a tree. A black panther zoomed across a shooting lane and was gone. He saw the long black tail. This young man also was hunting in a tree that had another tree leaning against it when he saw a bobcat which are very plentiful in this area beginning to climb the leaning tree. The bobcat continued climbing, approaching the hunter so he raised his rifle and put the sights on the little cat. The cat continued coming toward him until he was only feet away. Then he stopped and gathered himself to leap at the hunter. The hunter had to shoot him at that point.
I've read about bobcats starving in the deep snows of the North attacking humans, but this is the first story of an attempted attack that I've been told about.
Now le't go to some unpleasant business, but it is absolutely necessary that you know about this unless you want to live a life of misery such as Cubans and North Koreans "enjoy."On March 30, 2001 the Illinois Senate had its secretary read Senate Bill 1093. It was the third reading of the bill, and the transcript does not show that bill, just that the Secretary read it for the third time. Then the Presiding Officer, Senator Karpiel, says, "Senator O'Malley."
Senator O'Malley says, "Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate.
Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion procedures which, in the medical judgement of the attending physician, has a reasonable likliehood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill automatically provides that a live born child as a result of an - -of--of an abortion procedure shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. I'd be pleased to answer any questions there may be."
Now, dear reader, what normal human being wouldn't want for a newly-born baby, totally separate from his mother, to be provided medical attention? Unfortunately, there is such a person, and I will write from the Senate transcripts the utterly evil-sick objections of Barack Obama in the next post. God save America!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Obama and Infanticide, Panthers, And Bigfoot
I have located Illinois Senate Bill 1093 but not Bill 1095 yet. You may recall that my hippie sister said that Obama would never say the things I read to her, and that what I was reading had to be untrue. Unfortunately he said those things in reference to Senate Bill 1093, that is, he referred to children born after abortion attempts, children who were completely separate from their wonderful mothers, as "previable fetuses." He also said that caring for these little American citizens would be "unconsititutional" as it was interfering with a woman's right to have an abortion. In other words, Obama believes that an abortion should be a guranteed kill, even if you have to kill a living person to accomplish that. Do you see how evil-sick that is? After I found and read Senate Bill 1093, I called my sister and left her a message saying, that Obama wasn't stupid. He's worse than that. I will have the verbatim details of the bill and Obama's remarks and others' in another post.
The truth about the Florida panther took a big step forward with Jamie Adam's column in "Woods 'N Water" magazine in March. Jamie is retired and was both a game warden and a high sheriff in Florida. He is now on the Primos (hunting) staff and has been writing a column for the above-mentioned magazine for many years. I look forward to reading, but I have been critical ab out him not telling the truth about the distribution of the Florida panther (all over Florida except for the developed areas obviously). I had been told that he was afraid of loosing his state retirement if he spoke out. People, you have to live in Florida to know that is a real consideration. But this March, he finally stepped forward and wrote, "... the Florida panther is a classic example of what I'm talking about. I know for a fact that our native panthers have been seen all over Florida, not only by hunters (who know full well what they have seen close up) , but also by our own wildlife officers patrolling Florida's woods." He then goes on to blame "the feds in their continuing quest to dominate the panther situation." He says "These are not our state biologists." In that he is wrong unless they've changed their tune. They and game wardens -con servation wardens- are still telling people they're crazy is they claim to see a panther outside of the panther preserve along Alligator Ally. But Jamie's writing is going to be a big help in completely eliminating that cracker talk, and I hope that before he goes to the Happy Hunting Ground he will find the courage to tell the public about the black color phase of the Florida panther. Government has such a difficult time dealing with reality because reality shows we need less government not more.
Finally, regarding Bigfoot, I have this quote from the famous George Schaller, vice-president of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Science and Exploration Program: "The many Sasquatch tracks need to be explained. Casts of such tracks, together with the cast of a body imprint with large heels clearly outlined found in 2000, represent the most compelling evidence to date."
This is found on page 12 of Jeff Meldrum's book, "Sasquatch."
I am looking for anyone in the Gainesville to Lake City area who would be interested in sharing gas expenses to look for Bigfoot. Please call me at 352-359-0850. The little settlement of Tayor in the Osceola Forest was mentioned in the Bigfoot Research Organization's website as having a series of sightings. Considering the expanse of wild woods - the largest east of the Mississippi - it only makes sense for that area to have Bigfeet. The observer saw a Bigfoot crossing a dirt road where rocks went across the road. That begs the question of whether he deliberately crossed on rocks to hide his tracks. I think that there are individual Bigfeet who do try to conceal their tracks which is why I walked the sides of dirt roads looking for tracks just off the road. He could easily jump the roads. Have any Bigfoot stories? Please call me. Pete Nickerson.
The truth about the Florida panther took a big step forward with Jamie Adam's column in "Woods 'N Water" magazine in March. Jamie is retired and was both a game warden and a high sheriff in Florida. He is now on the Primos (hunting) staff and has been writing a column for the above-mentioned magazine for many years. I look forward to reading, but I have been critical ab out him not telling the truth about the distribution of the Florida panther (all over Florida except for the developed areas obviously). I had been told that he was afraid of loosing his state retirement if he spoke out. People, you have to live in Florida to know that is a real consideration. But this March, he finally stepped forward and wrote, "... the Florida panther is a classic example of what I'm talking about. I know for a fact that our native panthers have been seen all over Florida, not only by hunters (who know full well what they have seen close up) , but also by our own wildlife officers patrolling Florida's woods." He then goes on to blame "the feds in their continuing quest to dominate the panther situation." He says "These are not our state biologists." In that he is wrong unless they've changed their tune. They and game wardens -con servation wardens- are still telling people they're crazy is they claim to see a panther outside of the panther preserve along Alligator Ally. But Jamie's writing is going to be a big help in completely eliminating that cracker talk, and I hope that before he goes to the Happy Hunting Ground he will find the courage to tell the public about the black color phase of the Florida panther. Government has such a difficult time dealing with reality because reality shows we need less government not more.
Finally, regarding Bigfoot, I have this quote from the famous George Schaller, vice-president of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Science and Exploration Program: "The many Sasquatch tracks need to be explained. Casts of such tracks, together with the cast of a body imprint with large heels clearly outlined found in 2000, represent the most compelling evidence to date."
This is found on page 12 of Jeff Meldrum's book, "Sasquatch."
I am looking for anyone in the Gainesville to Lake City area who would be interested in sharing gas expenses to look for Bigfoot. Please call me at 352-359-0850. The little settlement of Tayor in the Osceola Forest was mentioned in the Bigfoot Research Organization's website as having a series of sightings. Considering the expanse of wild woods - the largest east of the Mississippi - it only makes sense for that area to have Bigfeet. The observer saw a Bigfoot crossing a dirt road where rocks went across the road. That begs the question of whether he deliberately crossed on rocks to hide his tracks. I think that there are individual Bigfeet who do try to conceal their tracks which is why I walked the sides of dirt roads looking for tracks just off the road. He could easily jump the roads. Have any Bigfoot stories? Please call me. Pete Nickerson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)