Why is the changing her life part (losing weight and getting a divorce after seeing Bigfoot) relevant? Did she leave her husband to try to get with Bigfoot and is suing the state because they claim her new beau doesn’t exist? Wild!
Right, see, those are relevant because they show the value of that inspiration. Inspiration that could have brought many more valuable changes to her life if she still had it, but sadly the park service stole that inspiration from her, along with many potential benefits it could have brought her if they’d just let her remain blissfully ignorant of the true identity of the inspiring bigfoot she thought she saw.
No, you’ve misunderstood. She married the Bigfoot and now she’s suing because she was perfectly happy not knowing he was just a bear. They had a destination wedding in London and the divorce lawyer’s bear-wedding annulment fee was 125 pounds.
Shouldn’t this be proof that the change was really inside her all along? How does she know they’re not lying to cover-up for the fact that they got Bigfeet walking around?
Why is the changing her life part (losing weight and getting a divorce after seeing Bigfoot) relevant? Did she leave her husband to try to get with Bigfoot and is suing the state because they claim her new beau doesn’t exist? Wild!
She says that seeing bigfoot was so inspiring that she lost weight and got a divorce. Not kidding. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5512979/Woman-saw-bigfoot-SUING-California.html
It does not seem relevant to the argumentation in the lawsuit.
How come even in 2024 with 4k HDR 120FPS video cameras on smartphones in everyone’s pockets, the alleged videos of Bigfoot are still complete mush?
I don’t even see a bear in that video. It’s not clear there’s anything besides trees. It’s just a big dark blob.
That’s the problem, Bigfoot is blurry! Run, there’s an 8-foot tall, out of focus monster!
Mitch Hedberg was a genius.
Right, see, those are relevant because they show the value of that inspiration. Inspiration that could have brought many more valuable changes to her life if she still had it, but sadly the park service stole that inspiration from her, along with many potential benefits it could have brought her if they’d just let her remain blissfully ignorant of the true identity of the inspiring bigfoot she thought she saw.
“Inspiring”
It made her feel things, deep animalistic things and that’s just the word she chose to not look even more crazy than she already seems.
No, you’ve misunderstood. She married the Bigfoot and now she’s suing because she was perfectly happy not knowing he was just a bear. They had a destination wedding in London and the divorce lawyer’s bear-wedding annulment fee was 125 pounds.
Ah, Sir Bearington strikes again.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JU7ZlhIXFc
Probably because she thought that the impossible was possible and took action based on that change in perception.
Dating bigfoot being the impossible thing.
It’s because in the decent photos, it’s obviously a bear.
But why would that lead her to sue the park for saying it was a bear? Seems unrelated.
Hurt fee-fees
“How dare you break my delusion!”
Probably because they killed her changed mindset with it and now she is worried of falling back into old habits
Shouldn’t this be proof that the change was really inside her all along? How does she know they’re not lying to cover-up for the fact that they got Bigfeet walking around?
Not that uncommon. Have you seen that documentary called The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot
Likely an editorial error and got their stories mixed up. But I like your scenario.