You are on Bigfoot Ballyhoo

This Site Comes to You From Oregon, USA

This Site Dedicated to the Late Dale Saxton
Use the Search Tool to read about Saxton.

Bigfoot Ballyhoo began publishing Oct. 30, 2009. The site is very large. Use the search tool to find information. For example type Columbus Day Storm to read about the animal found under a fallen tree. Type in Dr. D.S. Gould to read about his findings on this animal. And type in Debbie to read about her efforts to get a DOI file of the Columbus Day Animal opened to the public. Enjoy the site and comment. ... Linda Newton-Perry

"For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills." Ps. 50:10 King James Bible

WE TELL PEOPLE WHERE BIGFOOTS HAVE BEEN SEEN!

Important: We have no way of knowing if the sightings etc. are true or not. We encourage 'bigfoot talk' and so we take information with a grain of salt. You know how people are where bigfoot is concerned or at least you should!

SCROLL DOWN PAGE FOR MUCH INFORMATION AND
CHECK OLDER POSTS

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Differing Opinions on xxxxxx Photo

Search Amazon.com for photos Anonymous said...


Xxxxxx Photo comments from an attorney. Debbie from the Rand Corp says that the xxxxxx photo can't be posted because the same image is under sealed file by the DOI. That is untrue. I am an attorney and if an individual has a photo then they can post that photo whenever and wherever they want. Period! I'm not sure where Debbie got her law degree but she is giving very poor advice. There is NO conflict of interest and the xxxxxx photo CAN BE POSTED...legally.

____________
 
Rian Crawford comments on above comment:


Anonymous if you are truly a attorney then you would know about showing a classified photo even if it's in private hand is not legal. You can go willy nilly on a website because of ignorance of the law. This has been researched carefully by many people who have various degrees in law. The photo the Vanfossens hold cannot be legally viewed as long as the image on the photo is classified. You might think they the government won't enforce this law but your just dead wrong. We followed this photo thing from the start and all 4 attorneys in our firm concluded yes the photo is protected by the classification of the government. The file is closed at this time and thus all photos are too. Giving bad legal advise to a person is not a option in our firm. All of us know Debbie from Rand and she's one sharp cookie. She has been involved in government files for many years. If you read the post summary of the file it tells of all known photos to be in the file . That means all of them except the one or two that may still be out there in public. This is a no brain-er that these photos are considered classified as well.





17 comments:

  1. Someone had a great idea earlier. Are there any artists near some of the people who've seen the photograph? I think we'd love to see a sketch, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stir up big brother's interest, but I could be wrong. Lawyers, what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do not have legal experience, so this is just a question.
    The way it has been stated, it is not legal to posses, transmit or display a classified photo.
    Is there a distinction here, since this particular photo isn't classified specifically?

    I'm sure that the official case file photo's are, so of course it would be illegal to display, posses or transmit those. But aren't we talking about a private photo, taken by a private camera? A photo that the federal authorities probably don't even know exists?

    Let's use a hypothetical example to clarify. If say, a known spy walked through my yard, and I took a picture out of my window of him, then later he was shot and the case was classified, would my private property (the photo) somehow become classified?

    In my way of thinking (I could be wrong), the VanFossen photo isn't classified. It is a private photo of a natural being in the wild, who happens to be dead.

    The investigation of this incident, and any official photo's connected to the file may be classified.

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but that seems logical to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jupiter, I agree 100%. After going over the facts in my head a hundred times, I see no reason how anyone could get into trouble for showing a personal photo, especially one that shows a cryptid of any form. However, I'm not a lawyer, so I just have to shrug my shoulders. I do hope someone will try to sketch it, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The person who is supposedly from the Rand Corp is 100% wrong. The only "classified" photos are the ones in government files, period. Private photos and photos taken by the press have legal protection. The government can move to cease them (usually when they are of secret technology) but they cannot prosecute you if you obtained them legally (were not stolen from the government or a contractor).

    Our question to the supposed Rand attorney, how do they know what is in the government file if nobody can view it, including you? They haven't seen a list of what's in it and even if they did they don't know if this photo is in the file because they haven't viewed it. This photo could be of an entirely different event, we don't know and either do they....

    The USFS doesn't have ANY authority to assign something "top secret" status. It's not relevant to anything on this site if they USFS or DOI have sealed a file, laws in the State of Oregon or California protect the owners of the photo from unreasonable search and seizure. If the owners are truly concerned and still want to make the photo public, present it to a local network affiliate (ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox), post it on you tube, they will put it out for viewing. The last and safest option, go through a public advocate attorney, they will release it through their office and will offer you the same legal advise, it is legal, the USFS cannot seize it and it is 100% your property.

    I would suggest you seek legal advise from someone other then the group that is claiming they are from Rand....There may be a conflict here...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous here is perfectly willing to throw anybody under the bus to get a look at the photo. Ether w let the attorney from Rand help us in this quest for the file or we do as anonymous says's and try to get a jump on the government. then when the feds decide not to let people view the file it will be Linda's fault again, right!

    ReplyDelete
  6. USFS HAS EVERY RIGHT to not disclose information or photos to the general public if it has a affect on public lands.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my earlier post I said some inaccurate things about Rand and the file. You see I'm just nosey from Cal. It was just my opion and fell that I was once a cop I know everything.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How would the photos pertain to the affects of the land?

    ReplyDelete
  9. People would no doubt want land and other concessions for Sasquatch if it was proved to be real.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 7:51 EDT: If the majority of the people with this blog would like to take another road in the request for the DOI file to be opened, I would certainly step aside with no animosity. We do not share the same opinions as many on the blog on the photos still illegally in public hands. We certainly do not agree with testing the governments will to prosecute or not the person or persons that may want to present this photo for public use. As we are doing this as a public service for bigfoot believers we do not claim to have all the answers to all respects of this file and story and we would understand if the people would like to try another line of action to reopen this file. We will be waiting for your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm so ashamed and upset with so many of you guys, there's no reason that Linda should be under attack for anything that has happened, how were we to know the government would intervene,Linda is not at fault in any way! Those who've been on here slandering Linda and Debbie that call themselves researcher and believers I'm ashamed at how all of you guys acted when we got the bomb about the photo. They're absolutely right about getting into trouble, I had a similar indecent with the government actually taking a photo from me that I took,of a sasquatch. I know how it feels to have proof ripped out of your hands, and it's not a good feeling. The best thing we can all do is wait for the DOI files to be accessed, and open to the public from the help of Debbie and the RAND CORP.

    Keep your chin up fellow squatchers, the day is near!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Debbie, the editors of Bigfoot Ballyhoo are certainly behind you! As Ballyhoo is an open forum for different opinions, we know that not all will agree with us; however, Chris and I are sure that the great majority of our readers are in agreement with the way you and your Rand Corp colleagues are handeling the bigfoot case. Please be assured that you have our full support.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I feel very upset with many of you that seem to want to crucify Debbie the lawyer now. Do any of you know what it cost to try to get government files released? This lady has donated her time and resources for us. Now some people are losing patients with the legal system and want to try some radical way to get a look at the file and pictures it might include.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you Linda and Chris Perry for your continued support. I will continue to do everything possible to get this open to all. I do realize that some might want to try something else. As I told you we will proceed with legal case guidelines and hopefully we will get this file open to all in a timely fashion. In fact I am writing a summation request for the justice department right now on the 4377 and 4377-A file .

    ReplyDelete
  15. Something stinks to high heaven here.

    Nothing in the Department of the Interior is classified. Documents may be marked "For Official Use Only", but this just indicates that the documents are important internal documents, and not FOIable. These would typically be documents and evidence for open criminal cases, and employee matters.

    If someone has a photograph in their personal collection, which has come from a non-government source, then there are no restrictions on its release. If a person has a photo which has come from a government source, but it is not labeled or embossed with any restrictive markings, then that too may be released, assuming there is no reasonable indication that it might be classified (CLASSIFIED, SECRET, or TOP SECRET).

    Again, DOI has no classified information, so ANY photo of this beast out there is fair game for publication.

    And for those who still might think that Rian Crawford knows what he's talking about, and the photo just cannot be shown... The file is still, supposedly, closed. Neither Debbie nor the Vanfossens can possibly know what pictures are in it, so how can they identify the Vanfossen photo as being a copy of one in the closed file?

    Something stinks worse than a pissed off bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  16. pumpkinhead you seem to read what you want in this. if you bother to read the whole story on this then you will know this file has been passed around thou government for years. Everybody wants to kill the messenger in these cases. IF YOU CAN DO BETTER, DO IT DON'T COMPLAIN>

    ReplyDelete
  17. To MagicPumpkin . A search today of DOI files shows 7,121 classifies or not for public view. Where you got your information is beyond me. You say somethings stinks to high heaven? I would guess it might be something in you house! Do the work before you start this "there's a rat in the closet stuff". These type of accusations are just wrong so don't act like you know the way DOI files their reports if you don't. I would also ask you to view the file and photos from DOI and tell us you viewed them. Then you say there's no reason the Vanfossen photo could be tied to the DOI file. Well just how many bigfoots were found under trees in 62.

    ReplyDelete

Can't wait to hear what you think!