Female Bigfoot Rapes Man!

I have just finished David Paulides' "Tribal Bigfoot" and would highly recommend it. David is trending toward Bigfoot being at least part human and offers you information to back that trend up. I like the idea of Bigfoot being a hybrid human-? Also, the book includes sketches by police forensic sketch artist, Harvey Pratt. In this book, he has done some sketches without the hair, and Bigfoot lookes very human. Paulides thinks in terms of Indians while I see Negroid characteristics, particularly the broad, flattened noses. Now I will discuss the rape.
The rape took place near the logging town of Hyampom, California by the Trinity River in the late 1800s. Two man clearing teams were going into points along the proposed railroad line to cut the tree and clear the brush. They followed the line made by the surveyors. The two men in each team worked in opposite directions and came out on weekends to the main camp where they could rest and recreate with the local women who came into the camp. Theodore Spagopoulos was on one of the teams when a co-worker on one of the other teams went missing. All the teams looked for him during the next weekend, but he was not found. Four weeks later, a team was clearing a new spot for the railroad line, and the missing man was found in a pit. He was delirious and in very poor health. The two-man team constructed a litter and carried him out to the main camp. He explained that he had been kidnapped by a female bigfoot who put him into a pit and then forced him to have sex with her. She then licked the skin off the palms of his hands and the soles of his feet to stop him from getting out of the pit and walking away. Theodore Spagopoulos saw the man's hands and feet and saw that they were raw. The man died at the main camp before he could receive any care from a physician. Theodore maintained the rest of his life that this was a true story. See "Tribal Bigfoot" by David Paulides, pages 191-96. peternickerson@yahoo.com

Twenty-One Foot Bigfoot? Two Bigfoot Reports

Today, Christian from North Carolina called me to say that he had talked to a CIA agent who claims that the Agency has twenty-three Bigfoot in a cave, and that they are reaching the heights of 21 feet. As most of you know, tops for a Bigfoot is a mere 10 feet. Staying true to my unassertive self, I didn't ask him how the CIA was doing this, but I did call back, but Christian didn't pick up. I hope the CIA hadn't assasinated him for giving me this information! I did ask about the credibility of the agent, and Christian replied, " I know people pretty well and can usually tell if a person is lieing or not." If I were really quick on my feet, I would have responded, "How about your ability to tell if people are insane?" Christian emphasized several times that he really would like to sit down with me and talk and that phones were dangerous. I agree completely.
Two nights before his call, I was reading David Paulides' "Tribal Bigfoot" and came upon the part about the Indian woman on an Oklahoma reservation who saw a dead bigfoot being trucked off by military people with no badges. She was told something to this effect, "You didn't see anything and don't say anything. We know your name and we know where you live." Don't you love seeing your seized tax dollars being put to such good use? The Indian woman saw the truck go in the direction of a nearby military field.
I will try to find out from Christian how the CIA raised such tall Bigfoot, if he's willing to discuss that over the phone. Christian and I have both experienced the malevolence of government. If you haven't been there, you can't fully understand it. To return to the dead Bigfoot for another comment: Later David Paulides knocked on the door of the house that was sitauted right next to where Bigfoot was seized after being hit by a vehicle. A very unfriendly man answered and said something like this: "I didn't see anything, and if I had, I wouldn't tell you." Then he shut the door. Sounds like he had been adequately intimidated by our wonderful, caring government!
Last week, I was on some business in Chiefland, Florida which is only about 15 miles from the
Gulf. The land between Chiefland and the Gulf is still largely sparsely inhabited and very swampy. As I was walking into the Chiefland Walmart, I saw an older gentleman with white hair and beard sitting on a bench. I approached him with the Bigfoot question and in summary this is what he said: "No, I havent' seen a Bigfoot. But I did see a Bigfoot track. It happened in Happy Camp (California). I was a logger and we found our logging camp torn apart by a Bigfoot. I saw one footprint ( and he indicated with his hands a length that was well beyond a foot). This was in 1970. My name is Jim Giddings." I had a person waiting on me so I left with no further questions. But what a find!
I ended up going to Walmart three times that day, and on the third visit I asked my cashier the Bigfoot question. To my surprise she answered this in summary: " My mother-in-law ( it was something like Lawanda Jimenez - I misplaced the paper I used to write her name on) was riding her bike home from work and was going through Bouy Park just outside Chiefland and saw it sitting in a ditch. There was a large culvert there, and he was living in it. He was seen several times. This was four or five years ago." Another Bigfoot find although this one sounded tragic. Imagine liviging in a culvert. I want to go there and see if I can find the culvert.
If you have any Bigfoot stories, I'd like very much to hear them. Peter "Two-Guns" Nickerson, peternickerson12@yahoo.com or 352-359-0850.

At McDonald's, Deer Has No Place

I just came from McDonald's and the time before that I noticed a car waiting behind another car whose driver was waiting for the red light to change. The people in the car behind him were tooting and yelling obscenities at him for not moving. I yelled, "He's got a red light." It was obvious that he wasn't about to make a right hand turn.
Today at McDonald's, I parked next to a restored, red, Ford pickup. I deliberately left room on my side to open the door all the way as I am still having trouble with my meniscus repair and my left knee does not bend well. Just as I started to get out, the owner, a short, young guy, and his son got into the restored truck. I opened the door, and the guy immediately threw up his right arm and cried, "Just hit ...!" Then he realized I hadn't.
I replied as I struggled out of the car, " Didn't hit it, buddy. Don't have a fuss over nothing."
As the Navy Seal instructor said, " The mark of a man is not what he says but what he does and what he allows to happen in his presence." America needs more men like that.
On my way over to the library where I blog so certain people can't backload child porn into my computer as credibly as they could do at home, I passed a deer walking along the edge of the road in the middle of the day. I had passed the same deer last evening. She crossed the road in front of me which was no problem as I was going only about 45. Last year this deer was just a spotted fawn and she had a sib with her. Mother must have been killed. These two fawns would come out of a small patch of woods across the road to an estate that has horses and cattle. Last fall, I almost hit the second one as they flashed across the road. Fortunately, I was also driving slowly then. Then last winter, the other deer was apparently killed as I saw a large blood spot in the road at their crossing site. Today, the remaining deer was walking along the edge of the road on the estate side. She looked like she had no place to go which is very possible as the area is building up. Just let our animals and plants be destroyed for housing for the millions of illegals who are flooding into our country! Let's stand up and speak out, Americans! Since when did so many of us acquire spaghetti spines? peternickerson12@yahoo.com

Obama's Infanticide By Neglect - continued

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

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

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

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.