Category: Photography

Porn: What’s Legal? What Illegal?

Note: I don’t really hate cops, but I’m not wild about them either. Now if a cop is, say, a detective working robbery or homicide, why should I have a beef with him? He’s catching robbers and killers. Why would I have an issue with that?

I don’t even mind dope cops anymore (although I used to hate narcs) as long as they aren’t busting pot. I have no problems with cops busting people for selling meth, crack cocaine, fentanyl, or heroin. That’s stuff’s garbage.

Now we get down to your ordinary street cop. Let’s look at my city. About half of the cops in my city are huge assholes, the biggest dicks on Earth. It’s like they’re always trying to pick a fight. Don’t like them one bit. But the other half are often pretty nice, and sometimes, they’re extremely nice to me.

But fed cops busting guys for buying whores or fucking 17 year old girls or kids sexting each other or adults possessing written stories or pictures of clothed humans that the cops don’t like? Get out. They’re pigs, plain and simple. Pests.

And the worst cops of all are feds.  Now if feds are only going after murderers as some FBI do, I have no problem with them. Or financial criminals or fraudsters.

But you don’t even want to be a subject of one of their investigations. Federal sentencing guidelines are batshit insane, far in excess of a reasonable sentence. They’re ridiculous! And if the feds want to get you, they will get you. They will dump all of your possessions on the  floor and go over them with a fine toothcomb. They will examine your whole life with a magnifying glass. And they will probably find that you are breaking some law somewhere somehow.

I imagine most of us are violating some stupid-ass law on a fairly regular basis. I know I do. I don’t feel good about myself unless I’m breaking at least one law. I feel like a great big pussy. Call it Permanent Bad Boy Syndrome. God forbid I should arrive at a time in my life when I’m no longer at least one dumbass law. I would probably look around like crazy to try to find a new idiot law to break. Who wants to be a goody-good or an altar boy? Screw that.

So if you see the word pigs below, I’m referring to sex cops. Cops butt out of our sex lives!

Butthead, a commenter, linked to a Youtube video. I clicked on it but it was already taken down.

RL: What was on the video?

Butthead: Bare schoolgirl boobage. She was brushing her hair in the bathroom and her towel “accidentally” slipped for a second.

Well, that’s legal. It’s not CP. Tits are legal on anyone of any age.

Nudity Is Not Necessarily Child Porn

So is nudity, honestly, but that does get a bit trickier. There are sites all over the Net of teenage girls, probably underage but who knows, taking nude selfies of themselves in front of mirrors. A lot of them are in Russia. They’re actually a bit hard to find but if you know what you are looking for, you can find them. I’ve seen them before but I don’t have a teenage girl fetish, so it’s not big deal to me, and I haven’t been back. Been there, done that. As long as they are just standing in front of a mirror or on the beach with their clothes off, it’s not child porn, because child porn is a lot worse than nudity.

There was a site where a lot of teenagers were camming all the time, teenage girls and boys both. Fairly regularly, one of the girls would take off some or all of her clothes. You could see over to the side the people camming and how many were watching. One cammer would suddenly go from five to 50 to 100 viewers, and if you went to look at the cam, sure enough, there’s some teenage girl with her top off.

I did watch one video like that. Two teenage girls aged 17 with their tops off. Problem was every time they opened up their mouths, they sounded like 10 year olds. All this retarded high school gossip. Total turnoff. I went once and never went back. Like I said, it’s not my fetish.

I’ve seen enough naked teenage girls in the flesh back in the day for 10 or 20 lifetimes. There’s nothing special. It just looks like the body of a woman, same thing.

I will never understand why everyone is so freaked out about the Goddamned naked body of a human being, whether it’s a teenager or a child, no matter. A naked human being isn’t necessarily sexual. It’s simply the way we were all born. This idea that some photos of naked human beings are some sort of evil pornography is completely insane. And not to mention, it’s wildly puritanical and prudish. It’s downright sex-hating and anti-sexual.

“Lascivious Display of the Genitalia”

As long as there is no “lascivious display of the genitalia,” everything’s fine. Child porn must involve “lascivious display of the genitalia.” There’s a lot of uncertainty about what that means, but usually it means she has her legs spread or she’s masturbating. Or it could simply be a photo or a video where the focus on the photographic material via zoom lens or whatever is the genitalia. That would be considered lascivious display. For a girl, it would be a focus on the vaginal area. For a boy it would be a focus on his penis, particularly if it is erect. It all depends on the focus of the photographic material.

“If She Has Clothes on, It’s Legal,” until It’s Not!

If she has clothes on, it was traditionally legal. The FBI was quoted as saying, “If she clothes on, it’s not child porn.” This seems reasonable to me. How on Earth could a photo of any human with their Goddamned clothes on be considered the most evil type of pornography? That’s wildly priggish and Victorian right there?

You see, any possible photographic material is legal (not child porn) until one day the fed pigs decide the change the rules and say it’s illegal! And they’re always changing the rules. It’s madness and you would think it’s out and out unconstitutional because you never know when you are breaking the law. A photo that is legal one day when the fed pigs are in a good mood all of a sudden becomes illegal the next day when the pigs automagically declare it to be illegal!

Erotic Stories

For instance, pedophilic stories have always been legal. They’re all over the Internet. I’ve read them for a few weeks decades ago before I decided this was one perversion I’d rather not explore, and I haven’t read one since. On the other hand, I don’t really read written erotica on the Net anymore.That was more of a phase I went through in my 40’s.

There was a large site called Mr. D.’s which dealt in pornographic stories. I’ve been on the site and there was a Hell of a lot of pedophilic material on there.

What was odd was that many of the authors were women! Grown women, often in their 30’s or 40’s, with a husband and kids! A lot of them had photographs and biographies on their author profile. I have no idea why those women were writing that stuff except that perhaps more people are interested in that kink than we think. Indeed, 18

Anyway, Mr. D.’s  had been sitting up there forever with all that pedophilic erotica and nobody did a thing about it. In fact, the top OCD experts on  the world out of Phillipson’s office back east were assigning those stories as homework for people who had OCD with the pedophile theme, which is an extremely common theme by the way. I know because I spoke to one of their clients.

Well, the other day, the fed pigs decided to change the law again! All of a sudden, written pedophilic erotica was illegal! Mr. D. was arrested in Florida, and his site was shut down. They were looking at throwing the book at him too.

So the fed pigs decided to change the law on the fly.

The Sad Saga of the Black Cat Scans

For instance, as I noted above, the rule always was, “If they have clothes on, it’s legal.” The men who ran Black Cat Scans and their photographer read the law and felt that they were within the law with their hebephilic photos of fully clothed young girls posing in some very erotic photos. All of a sudden out of the blue, the fed pigs decided that if they have clothes on, it could be illegal sometimes!

They arrested the two guys who ran the site, both Jews by the way, and they also arrested the photographer, who seemed like a really good man. They threw the book at all of them. None of these men were pedophilic or hebephilic. The Jews were just out to make a buck like they always are, and the photographer just liked to take pictures.

The arrest and sentencing of the photographer was particularly controversial. Most of the girl models were out of Russia, and they had all been brought in by their mothers. They were all adults by the time of the arrests, and they were all unrepentant about their modeling. There were 20-30 Youtube videos of former models and their mothers protesting  the  arrest of the photographer, saying that the girls were not harmed, that they did not regret what they did, and that the photographer was completely professional. It is important to note that none of the girls were molested in any way, shape or form. I believe the mothers were even present during the shooting.

Just to show you how absurd the law is, Black Cat scans had been visited by 25 million (!) men, and I assume a lot of them downloaded the pics. In order to enforce the law, the fed pigs would need to arrest and throw the book at 25 million guys! Good luck with that.

There are still some Black Cat scans floating around. What anyone sees in those photos is beyond me. I’ve seen them but I don’t like them because they seem creeptastic.

Art Photography

There are art photographers like David Hamilton who took many art photos of young teenage girls. You can find those all over the Net. They’re perfectly legal.

Nudist Photos

There are nudist photos all over the Net with humans of all ages, including plenty of teenagers and kids, strolling or sitting around naked in woods, beaches, and whatnot. It’s all perfectly legal. They don’t seem to be very popular so I imagine there isn’t much of a market for nudist pics.

Nude Beaches

It’s also perfectly legal for minors, including kids, to be stark naked at nude beaches, at least in the UK. Teenagers and kids get to walk around naked and look at naked adults and the adults are allowed to look at the kids. Anyone can look at anyone all they want.

I knew a 29 year old woman recently who often took her two daughters, ages 9 and 13, to nude beaches. She was always bugging me to go with them, but I never did. She also often made perverted comments about her girls, which seemed weird to me. She actually asked me to move in with her the second or third time I talked to her, but she was pretty far away, plus she was kind of fat. But she was cute.

Medical Text Photos

Medical texts often have nudity, including closeups of genitalia. All legal.

The Problem of Having an Internet Flooded with Photos of Nude Minors

Be that as it may, a lot of hosts want nothing to do with any photos of naked underage teen girls or kids, so sites with this material, even nudist sites, are few and far between.

I’d like to keep it like this.

Could you see if people started posting this stuff all over the Net and all these porn sites sprang up with nude underage teenagers and worse, kids?

That might flood the whole Internet porn industry pretty quickly. I don’t know what do do about that, as it would make me uncomfortable to see all this sites out there with naked underage teenagers and kids. Also, it would cause a tsunami of outrage, and there would be all these calls to ban the stuff.

Sexting

By the way, a lot of that sexting those teenagers are outrageously getting arrested for is probably legal. It the girls and boys are simply sending each other nudes with no lascivious display of the genitalia, it should be perfectly legal. So it’s not illegal for teenagers to send nudes to each other or at least it shouldn’t be, but who knows how the pigs enforce the crazy laws in their area.

The problem here is that most of them are probably not sending legal photos. Have you ever gotten nudes from a woman on the Net? Hell, they send them out before the first date these days! More women than I can count have sent me nudes over the Net. They were mostly 18-23. I have a whole huge folder of them. Unfortunately, you almost never get to meet them. They just send nudes and maybe talk dirty and then take off.

Well, if you have ever gotten nudes from a woman, first of all, there is typically a focus on the breasts and there is absolutely a focus on the genitalia. Often it is simply a photo of her breasts alone or her genitals alone, usually a huge closeup of the latter. Yep, women focus that camera right on those parts of their body. Women are such perverts!

And men, well, what are the complaints that women make about men when men send nudes? Men don’t send nudes. They send dick pics! So many selfies that men send women tend to focus on the male genitalia or it’s simply a photo of their penis.

So probably most of teen sexting involves sending each other pics with lascivious display of the genitalia, and yes, that would be CP.

But we have to think about this in some other way. It’s insane to bust teenagers for sending nudes to each other. It’s madness. But what can we do about it? I say we let them do send the real thing to each other – lascivious display of genitalia, photos of them having sex, whatever, but they can’t put it up on the Internet.

The Ever-Mutating Rationale for Making the “Child Porn Du Jour” Illegal

The rationale for making child porn illegal – that the child is harmed merely by having their photos floating around for everyone to see – doesn’t seem to apply here. These teens sexting each other – are they being harmed by sending those dirty pics to each other. Generally speaking, no! Ok, so what’s the new rationale for making this stuff illegal. The pigs have to go back to the drawing board and say the old rationale for illegal CP doesn’t apply here and somehow some new rationale applies. But what exactly would the new rationale be?

You see what they are doing?

First they make a reasonable case for making child pornography illegal. It is a document of a very serious crime of child molesting in most cases. But that alone does not seem a good argument because there are videos out there of criminals murdering their victims live on video. Perfectly legal. So photographic depictions of crimes is apparently completely legal.

The other better argument is that the kid did not consent to being molested, and the kid is being harmed merely by having pornographic photos of them floating around. I actually agree with this, though the rationale du jour “the child is harmed every time someone downloads one of their photos” seems ridiculous in a philosophical sense. How exactly does that work. So a girl’s photo gets downloaded 1,000 times. Does she  suffer 1,000X harm? What if it was downloaded once? Does she suffer 1X harm? How in God’s name does the victim know how many times their photo gets downloaded? Does the crime go out in some metaphysical space and zap over to the kid’s head and ring up another download in their brain, harming them ever so slightly more with each download? Of course not. But that is what this asinine article implies.

In the case above, did the girl whose photo was downloaded 1,000 times really suffer 1,000 times the harm of the girl whose photo was downloaded once? That seems bizarre. What if the girl doesn’t even know her stuff is out there on the Net. Theoretically, she suffers absolutely zero harm unless and until she discovers that her photo is out there. What she doesn’t know can’t hurt her, right?

Riffing off the argument above that the child is harmed every time their photo is downloaded, is the girl really harmed ever so slightly more with each subsequent download? Why would she? She has no idea how often the pic’s being saved.

This argument sounds convincing at first until you realize it’s garbage. But for kids who know their photos are out there or for adults who know pics of themselves are out there, I agree that they are being harmed, assuming they don’t want them to be there. But what if they are perfectly happy to have their child porn on the Net? Are they still being harmed with each and every new download? Of course not.

This argument is full of holes, but it does work in a number of cases.

I would make another much better argument that society is harmed by this stuff too. Even if it’s on the Dark Net where hardly anyone but the worst pedophiles is looking at it, I still think society is being harmed. Even if someone has the photos taken by themselves on their computer and has never shown them to anyone else? Yes, I would argue that society is still being harmed. We simply cannot allow photographic documentation of children being molested, willingly or not, floating around in society. I do not wish to live in a society where this garbage is legal. It’s disgusting and outrageous that it even exists at all. Kids shouldn’t be molested and we should not take photos of kids getting molested. Because we don’t wish to live in a society where we allow this sort of perverse and revolting garbage occur or exist.

The Anti-CP Argument Mutates Again

But notice how that definition alone isn’t good enough? What about in the case of the Black Cat Scans? The girls were not harmed and in fact they are quite happy to have these erotic pics of themselves floating around. So the argument that the girls are harmed is garbage. Are the Black Cat scans photos of a crime? I certainly hope not. I certainly hope it’s not illegal to take photographs of clothed pubescents in dirty poses.

So on what grounds is it illegal? Who knows? Notice how they have to keep going back to the drawing board and inventing new and weirder and weirder reasons for extending the crime beyond what was intended? Perhaps it is harmful to society to let this stuff float around willy-nilly. That’s a tough argument because even I find that stuff repulsive, but I don’t think stuff really harms society. But I don’t want the Net flooded with it either. If it only exists in a very secretive niche websites, I don’t have a problem with it.

And the Argument Mutates Again!

Pigs wouldn’t be pigs if they only had one mutating argument for making something questionable illegal. The reason they’re pigs is because the arguments for the illegality of this or that keep changing, seemingly with the wind. With each new unannounced expansion of the law, new justifications for the material’s illegal must be invented. The fact that people have to wrack their minds to come up with some argument, any argument, for making something illegal implies to me that it probably shouldn’t be illegal. Crimes ought to be justifiable on their face. It’s illegal to take another’s life without cause. It’s illegal to break into other’s homes. It’s illegal to see dangerous drugs that cause death and destruction. It’s illegal to drive drunk and possibly lethally endanger other people’s lives and limbs. It’s illegal to steal other people’s stuff.

With each of those crimes, did we have to wrack our brains forever to come up with some BS reason for the law to exist? Of course not. In general, all of those things are illegal because the person or possessions of another is harmed to taken from them. In other cases, innocent people are being subjected to unreasonable harm to life and limb due to the irresponsibility of others. Sensible laws are about hurting, harming, or killing other persons, relieving them of their possessions, or unreasonably threatening their lives and bodily health.

So we see that the child porn argument mutates yet again!

What about in the case of Mr. D.’s erotica? This is even crazier. The Black Cat scans at least dealt with real humans. With written erotica we are not even dealing with that. We are dealing with people who literally don’t even exist. The fictional characters apparently being harmed in these stories aren’t real! So how could they be harmed? There’s just a bunch of words. No humans, no photos, just words. Any girls get harmed? Nope, there were no girls to harm! A written depiction of a crime with fake fictional characters? I assume you can write stories about committing disgusting crimes all you want to. It’s a pretty weird thing to do, and I worry about people who do that, but it would seem to legal under freedom of speech.

Is society harmed by allowing pedophilic written erotica to exist? I doubt it. Who even knows that those stories even exist on the Net? 1

Robert Stark Interviews Author Ray Harris

First Stark broadcast I have run in some time now. This man Ray Harris is a true intellectual. Stark suggests that he also may be considered Alt Left, and I would agree with that. A lot of interesting discussions going on here with a lot of it centering on nudity, social nudity, and our very nutty hangups about nudity. The Anglophone world is extremely uptight and Puritanical about social nudity in contrast to most of Europe. Germany and Spain in particular are quite wide open about this subject. There is also a lot about nude minors being portrayed in art. In recent years, the controversy has been mostly about naked teenage girls in movies. Most of these movies were produced in Europe. Louis Malle’s Pretty Baby features a nude 12-year-old Brooke Shields. This clip is out there on the Internet for all to see because nudity is not necessarily child pornography. You can have all the pictures of naked kids all you want I guess. Nudism sites certainly do, and they are all over the Net. They show humans including minors of all ages, wandering about in the nude on beaches, forests, etc. It’s honestly not very erotic, and the younger teenage girls are not as hot as you would think. They mostly appeared underdeveloped to me, and I wasn’t very into them. Of course the naked kids are not arousing at all, and I fail to understand why we flip out about this stuff. I mean, I can’t think of anything less interesting than a naked kid of either gender. So why do we have a heart attack every time we see one!? I mean it’s a naked human being. Is that evil or something? Color me mystified. What the Hell’s the matter with you hysterical  Puritans anyway? Of course I have seen the Pretty Baby clip, and I must say, I can’t see why anyone would be turned on by 12 year old Brooke naked in her shower. I watched it and I thought, “Lame,” and “Why would anyone get turned on by that?” Nevertheless, the hysteria rages on out of control, burning minds to a crisp all over the land. There’s a long history of painting naked minors, especially females, and in centuries past, it was quite common to paint young naked children. I believe Harris says it’s not done much anymore because artists are too paranoid. The work of photographers Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, and Bill Henson is gone over. These are modern photographers whose work focuses on naked teenage girls. Henson likes them real young, like age 13. I’ve seen some of that, and it’s not a turn-on at all. In fact, it’s a huge turnoff. You want to look away because you are thinking a girl that young is too young to be sexualized. It’s not erotic to me in the slightest. Instead it is shocking and weird. They have no bodies at all, no tits to speak of, their bodies look like boys’ bodies (I call females like that “sticks”), and at this point of my life, they really look like little girls. They’re not little girls anymore, but they look like they are. I think we need laws to keep men and 13 year old girls from having sex. These girls need to be protected from us men, and we men need to be protected from ourselves. It would not be right for this to be legal. That’s practically a little girl. Hamilton and I think Sturges focus on teenage girls, so that’s a lot more promising. Hamilton’s shots are in outdoor locations, often in groups. The photography is spectacular, and the girls are very beautiful. On the other hand, at least Hamilton focuses like Henson on young teenage girls. I think most of those girls are 13-15, but correct me if I am wrong. I would have to loved to have looked at them earlier in adulthood because girls that age turned me on a lot more when I was younger like 18-30, but at my age, they just seem too young. It’s too much of a young girl. They’re not even much of a turn-on. Physically they are somewhat of course, but then they seem like too much of a young girl, and they are so underdeveloped and girlish, and that part of it is a turnoff and wipes out the physical part. I know they are not little girls, but even 16 year old girls are starting to seem like little girls to me now. They are perfectly developed, but it just seems like way too much of a girl, and they seem very immature. I see them, and I think they are in junior high. I figure they are in 7th or 8th grade. I ask them if they are in junior high, and they get offended. Anyway, yes, I have seen Hamilton’s stuff and it is all over the Net if you want to go looking for it, and I assure you that it is all 100 I forget Sturgis’ focus, but I think it was young teenage girls also. I also worry about these men. What’s with the obsession with 13-15 year old teenage girls? I don’t get it. Sometimes I wonder if these guys’ sexual interests are completely OK. It’s not normal to be obsessed with young teenage girls. You are getting into hebephile territory, and hebephiles are not normal. This subject has aroused some of the worst lies and libels about me of all. I have tried to address these lies, but I just dig the hole deeper. This is all based on some retarded thinking that people of normal intelligence always engage in. It’s called, “If you write about it, then you do it,” or “If you write about it, then you are one.” There’s also, “If you talk about it, then you do it,” and “If you talk about it, then you are one.” All of these are logical fallacies. Take this arguments to your Logic professor and see what he says. These are examples of very stupid ways of thinking and almost 100 The Robert Lindsay Brush Fire about this matter was set off long ago. The fire is 0

Robert Stark Interviews Author Ray Harris

Paradise-Reclaimed
Cover of Ray Harris’ newest science fiction novel.
Robert Stark and co-host Pilleater interview writer Ray Harris. He is based out of Australia and is the author of Paradise Reclaimed which is available on e-book. Link here. Topics: Ray’s science fiction novel Paradise Reclaimed about the story of the first interstellar colony. Warnings about dystopia on Earth and creating a utopia from scratch. Transhumanism, the idea of both genetic and social engineering, CRISPR Gene Editing, and the influence of Julian and Aldous Huxley. Ecotopia, Solar Punk, Soleri’s Arcosanti, and combining the primitive and futuristic. How we have the technology to advance civilization, but corporate and political corruption stands in the way. Aldous Huxley’s Novel Island. Jungian archetypes. The upcoming sequel to the book The Golden City about the colonists returning to Earth after being isolated. Social nudity, it’s place in the book’s space colony, and whether our aversion to it is rational. The historic of social nudity, attitudes in Europe and Japan, and the Freikörperkultur Movement in Germany. Different cultural attitudes towards sex in America, Europe, and Japan. Developmental vs. chronological age. The history of attitudes towards sexuality in the West, age of consent laws, and how they affected the arts. Nudity in art; French Rococo painter François Boucher’s Leda and the Swan; works by Edgar Degas, Vincent van Gogh, and Jean-Honoré Fragonard. Japanese Shunga art. The debate about what is art and what is erotica. Controversial nude photographers Bill Henson, Jock Sturges and David Hamilton. The film Louis Malle’s Pretty Baby (1978), Eva Ionesco, and Natalie Portman in Léon: The Professional. If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Bigfoot News August 22, 2012

Shocking news! “Dogman” is apparently real! Dr. Melba Ketchum team says Dogman is a separate entity from Bigfoot, apparently another species or subspecies. This is incredible news. A source inside the Ketchum camp have informed me that the Ketchum camp believes that Dogman is a separate entity from Bigfoot, either another species or subspecies. How they came to this conclusion, I have no idea.

The Beast of Seven Chutes, taken in Quebec. The original photo is much larger, a panorama of a waterfall. The Dogman is very had to see in the photo and was only discovered much later as the shooter was looking closely at the photo. The object in his arms is apparently a small dog that he has killed and is going to eat. The photo is not though to be hoaxed.

Dogman looks somewhat different from Bigfoot and has longer hair and more of a snout-like nose as opposed to Patty’s more human nose. Some say that they are shorter, only about six feet tall.

Dogman apparently resides in the Central, Midwestern and Eastern US from the Southwest on up to Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Quebec and over to the Appalachians in Tennessee. In other words, the Bigfoots like Patty of the Northwest are one species or subspecies, and the ones in the Midwest like Dogman are another altogether.

A darkened photo of the Beast of Seven Chutes. The killed poodle shows up much better in this photo.

I asked the source whether Ketchum herself believe that the Dogman was real (I know that members of her team do) and he said, “She must. If [name removed] said it, then it has to come from Melba.”

Zoomed and enhanced photo of the Beast of Seven Chutes.

The question is how the Ketchum team determined that Dogman is actually a separate entity, a separate species or subspecies. The source did not know, but the obvious guess would be via DNA. On the other hand, he told me that there is a team working on gathering Dogman DNA for analysis.

An illustration of the Beast of Seven Chutes, taken from the photo. Very nice illustration by one of the finest new Bigfoot researchers out there, David Claerr, dramatically shows this odd Bigfoot like creature. It would be amazing if this thing actually exists and if there are multiple different Bigfoot-type species or subspecies in the US and the world. Copyright David Claerr.

The source also affirmed that the “Beast of Seven Chutes” is a good example of a Dogman. He also stated that information about the Dogman will not be in the upcoming Ketchum paper but may be in a later paper.

Scott Carpenter says that Dogmen are real in his research area in Tennessee. People blast him a lot for his unconvincing videos, but he does have a successful hair sample in with Ketchum’s study that tested presumptive for Bigfoot. Carpenter’s blog entry about Dogmen in Tennessee is here.

An example of how hoaxers are using the latest Bigfoot movies and photos to improve their hoaxes. Look at the photo below. It’s from a video by a special effects group that was released as a “real Bigfoot video.” It was so good that many were fooled. The huge back effect may have been created by stuffing some sort of bedding or pillowing in the back of the suit.

Click to enlarge. A screengrab from a recent Bigfoot hoax video by a special effects studio that had many people fooled.

Now take a look at the Hovey photo.

Click to enlarge. The Melissa Hovey Bigfoot photo, a probable real photo of a Bigfoot.

To me it is clear that the makers of the Pacific Northwest hoax above based their hoax on a careful study of the Hovey photo which they attempted to recreate with their suit. This is what I meant in my previous post about hoaxers getting better. When you have special effects folks competing to see who can make the best Bigfoot hoax, things are getting serious. It must be some sort of a game with these guys.

Back story for Ontario GoPro and Temagami Bigfoot video and photos is terrible. According to a source, the people behind the GoPro video, someone named “Nikk” has told lie after lie upon being investigated and has proved himself to be one slippery fish.

Alarmingly, it was Nikk to told investigators about the Temagami photos. The elderly couple are named the Heiberts and they supposedly reside in Timmons, Ontario. However, extensive searches by investigators have failed to find anyone named Jeanne Heiberts in Timmons, Ontario or anywhere else for that matter. Investigators feel that the “Heiberts” probably do not even exist.

Other things about the story do not add up. There was snow on the ground at the time the Temagami photos were said to have been taken, but there is no snow in the photos. There is the bit about the helicopters circling the lake, apparently lifted from the narrative of the Ben Matine hoax. Although the photos have been Photoshopped, the creature has apparently not been shopped in. That means that it’s either a real Bigfoot or it’s a hoax.

Tim Ervick investigated the story but did not meet the couple in person. Instead, there was 6 weeks of extensive emailing back and forth. Investigators are worried that Ervick may have been taken for a ride on both the Temagami and GoPro photos and video.

So we are left with at best a case like the Harley Hoffman video of what looks like a real Bigfoot video but the back story is insane, or at worst an elaborate hoax. Very disappointing.

Bigfoot News June 16, 2012

Stanley Dingle photos are fakes. He posted this on his Facebook wall.

Sorry to do this everyone, but I need to let you all know that the photo I posted recently is hoaxed. I may be a hoaxer, but I am also human. It was only intended as a joke, but unfortunately a lot of people believed it, something which I am feeling guilty about. This isn’t something I wanted. These are the beliefs of people, and I do not want them to have their hopes built up with false pictures. I needed to inform everyone of this latest development because I will not be visiting the page anymore. The first photograph that I posted is also a fake. Facebook Find Bigfoot’s judgement about it being a person is right. The second, more recent photo is Photoshopped. I know you will think I am a horrible person for doing this, and I cannot make excuses. Sorry again. I cannot apologize enough to you all.

Well, at least he feels guilty. “Stanley Dingle” is also not an American. He’s either Canadian or a Brit. Probably a Brit, since Brits are notorious skeptics when it comes to Bigfoots. They just don’t believe in it. I am really getting tired of these hoaxers. They ruin it for everyone. It’s hoaxers who have turned the Bigfoot community into a hornet’s nest of raving assholes. So much Bigfoot evidence has been hoaxed by scumbags that no one believes anything anymore. Any evidence we put up – videos, photos, DNA, footprints, stories, you name it – it all gets totally destroyed as a “hoax.” The reason people do this is because of all the hoaxing. So the hoaxers have wrecked it for everyone. One thing is for sure. Even after Bigfoot is proven or a least a lot more proven than it is now, the hoaxing will go on and on until the day I die. And as the hoaxing flood continues, it will always be hard to sort out the real evidence from the bullshit and lies. Hoaxing isn’t funny. It’s not a joke. It sucks. It ruins everything, ruins it all, turns all of Bigfootery to complete and utter shit.

Hoaxed Bigfoot photo from “Stanley Dingle,” hoaxer. This pic was Photoshopped. Jerk.
Another hoaxed photo from “Stanley Dingle,” hoaxer. This pic is “fake.” Not sure how it was created or the back story behind it.
Doubts about the Ontario Bigfoot photo. The Ontario Bigfoot photo is very nice, but even nice photos can be faked as can be seen with the “Stanley Dingle” debacle above. This photo came from a video posted by purported Bigfoot hunters who no one has ever heard of. A screen capture was obtained  from the video, which made the rounds. However, the actual video was very quickly deleted, which to be honest, is suspicious and confusing.
Photo of a possible Bigfoot peeking over a ridge in Ontario. Doubts are now emerging about this photo in line with a problematic back story.
Erickson Project update – what do we know and how do we know it? There has been a lot of discussion about the Erickson Project lately. Yes, they have a video. Yes, it is or at least was in Hollywood being worked on. What’s being done with it? Mostly editing and fixing it up. How will it be released? Probably as a DVD or possibly as some sort of a documentary on TV on National Geographic or something of that sort. Problem is that TV doesn’t pay crap for their stuff. Earlier this year, Erickson spoke to some Hollywood TV executives. They made him an offer that he thought was way too low, and he rejected it. I would imagine that the most any Hollywood studio would offer for Erickson’s documentary would be $150,000. Problem is that Erickson reportedly spent $2 million to make his documentary. He’s never going to get that money back any time soon, if at all. Even under the best circumstances with residuals for each reshowing of his footage, he might make the money back over 10 years if he was lucky. But it’s going to be hard to cut a deal like that. He will need to get a good Hollywood agent, and those can be expensive. Is the Hollywood story true? Apparently it is. We know that Erickson has been talking to Hollywood people before, because Richard Stubstad went to a Hollywood studio with Erickson where they were talking about working on Erickson’s movie. It’s a great big Hollywood studio, the real deal. That incident occurred a couple of years ago. Whether it’s at the same studio or not is anyone’s guess. How did Erickson get the money to have Hollywood work on his video considering reports of his dire financial straits? No one knows, but we do know that Erickson showed Wally Hersom his video early this year. Wally was very impressed and said there was no way the footage could have been hoaxed. Soon afterwards, Erickson shows up in Hollywood with a huge wad of cash, and Hollywood is working on his flick. It stands to reason that Hersom gave Erickson some money to take his flick to Hollywood to have them work on it. There are also rumors that Dr. Melba Ketchum put extreme pressure on Erickson to shut down his leakers. In return for shutting down his leakers, Hersom was to grant him a huge wad of cash to help ease his financial apocalypse. These are just speculations, and no one knows if this is true. I have no idea what Erickson’s financial situation is now, but a while back, he was already being sued by people who bought his properties at his development in Canada. The stars of the Erickson video are of course the Kentucky animals. Footage includes that shot by the residents and also by Leila Hadj-Chikh and Dennis Pfohl. The greatest footage of all is of Matilda, the juvenile female Bigfoot who got pregnant in the course of the study. There is also excellent footage of the large male, and he is so huge that it will completely blow your mind. Whether there is any other footage from any of Erickson’s other habituation sites is uncertain. There may or may not be. However, no video footage was obtained from the Carter Farm that Erickson bought. It is rumored that experts have looked at Erickson’s video and were not impressed. This is not true. Bill Munns was asked to review video shot by the Crittenden, Kentucky owners that Erickson suspected was hoaxed. Munns affirmed that it was indeed hoaxed with a Chewbacca mask and Erickson refused to buy the video. However, several other videos were shot by the same owners after the first hoaxed one, and these were shown to a variety of experts who all thought they were real. Unfortunately it is true that the best videos in Erickson’s documentary were shot by confirmed hoaxers, who at least hoaxed the first video they shot. Surely the skeptics will use this information to try to discredit all of the videos. However, some of our best evidence has come from hoaxers – Randy Brisson, Paul Freeman, Ray Wallace, the list goes on and on. It’s pitiful but true. All of my sources regarding the Erickson Project have dried up. It was always hard to get people to talk about anything to do with Erickson. The sources all like him a lot, but they are also afraid of him. Erickson made all of them swear to secrecy, so getting info about his project out of anyone was like pulling teeth. In recent days, Erickson was putting extreme pressure on my sources as suspected leakers, and the sources dried up. Erickson is at least as secretive as Ketchum, and probably a lot more so. I have no relationship with the man whatsoever, and both he and his wife are very angry at me for writing anything about him and his project at all. If you want to know how I know all of this stuff, guess what? I can’t tell you! I had sources about the Erickson Project, and a couple of them were pretty close to Erickson himself. Others were close to submitters to the Ketchum Project. All of them gave me information under orders of strict confidentiality. All I can tell you is that the best information came from people close to Erickson himself.

Bigfoot News June 15, 2012

Facebook Find Bigfoot has a new book out about Sasquatch. Jake Barnes is a friend of mine, and I am sure he did a great job on this book. Here is the trailer for it. Amazing new Bigfoot photo from Stanley Dingle. A new photo from Adirondacks State Park in New York by a guy named Stanley Dingle. I have no idea who this guy is, but he has two new interesting photos up of what he says are Bigfoots. Does anybody know anything about him or his history? Does he have a history of hoaxing? He seems to have come onto the scene from out of nowhere. Some people think this photo is Photoshopped. I am not sure of that. But if that is a suit, it’s one of the best suits I have ever seen.

Very interesting possible Bigfoot from New York.
Here is what he wrote about it:

I returned to the area where I saw that mysterious animal and started to explore the area. After a few hours of wandering the area, I came to a brush covered hillside and saw this thing observing me. It was a much lighter color than the last animal I spotted with my son. It looked ape like, and I zoomed in and took a photo. When it heard my camera sound, it backed into the brush, and I heard it crashing through the trees as it moved off. I think someone needs to get out here – at Adirondack state park.

Here is an enhanced version. People are saying this looks like an orangutan, but it looks nothing at all like an orangutan in any way whatsoever. Either a suit, Photoshop job, or a real Bigfoot.
Previously, he posted a very strange photo of a possible Bigfoot.
An extremely weird photo of a possible young Bigfoot on all fours in Adirondack Park in New York.
Here is what he wrote about it:

I’ve contacted the BFRO about this but have received no response. In February of this year, I was hiking with my son in Adirondack State Park. We were walking through quite thick brush when we came into a clearing. It was then that we noticed a dark shape crouched down near the tree line. At first we thought it was a bear, but as it started walking on all fours, I realized it was no bear and got a little spooked. This thing was hairy, and I could see the muscle structure under the hair. My son was scared and urged us to leave. I quickly took out my cellphone and snapped a photo. It was then that this creature stood up on two legs and started to run the treeline bipedally. My son began to scream and panic, and so we hightailed it out of there. I had no time to get any more photographs of the creature. We were truly terrified. I’ve never seen an animal run like this did on two legs. It could not have been a bear, as they cannot run like that. This thing walked on its knuckles when on all fours, like a gorilla. It then stood up like a man and ran, all hunched over. One detail I noticed during the sighting was that it had something on its back, something hairy and grey. I got the impression that it was an infant. I have of course heard of Bigfoot, but I never believed such things, yet now I am sure that it must be this creature that we saw. I’m scared for people who go hiking up in that wilderness in case this creature is dangerous. I feel sometimes people will think I am delusional. My wife thinks I am crazy in some way and will not believe that I photographed anything other than a bear. But I know what bears look like. This was no bear. I have attached the first photograph for your consideration.

Well,  juveniles run and walk a lot on all fours, but the adults do too sometimes. If it had a baby on its back, it would have been an adult for sure. New photo of Dr. Melba Ketchum. I found what seems to be a recent photo of Ketchum on the web. I have no comment on this photo except that she looks quite young. For some reason, I thought it was a photo of a teenage girl!

New photo of Melba Ketchum. Probably a recent photo.
Possible reason for delays in Ketchum DNA project. I just spoke to someone who is in contact with people close to the Ketchum Project who told me that part of the reason for the delays is that Ketchum is being pressured by the government and the timber industry to drop the study. I don’t know how reliable this source is, but I am just passing this information on.

Bigfoot News June 10, 2012

Why I released the Sierra Kills drawings and photo. The release of the artistic drafts of the two Bigfoots from the Sierra Kills and the photo of a hide skinned from the Bigfoot steak from the same Kills has caused a lot of controversy. A lot of people are saying that I didn’t have permission to release them. One of the main problems is that I don’t even know who the copyright holder is on the drawings and the photo. If I don’t know who these people are, how can I contact them to ask them if I can post their stuff? It’s impossible. The drawings and the photo or photos have been floating around the higher echelons of the Bigfoot community for a long time now. I have had them for two months. I got them from someone along with the drawing of the head of the male Bigfoot from the Kills. My source gave me permission to post the head of the male, but soon after, I lost touch with them. I sent them multiple emails for two months trying to get ahold of them, but they had dropped off the face of the Earth. Apparently they have cut off all contact with me. Now I have a problem. I have an agreement not to publish via someone who has stopped speaking to me. I honor agreements with folks who stay in contact with me. I tear up agreements with folks who quit talking to me. Since he quit talking to me, I felt I was no longer bound by our agreement. My agreement to publish or not was with the source, not the copyright holders, whoever they may be. There’s a problem here. I am a journalist. We believe that information wants to be free. We pretty much want to publish just about everything unless there is some privacy reason not to. We believe in the public’s right to know. We don’t believe in withholding valuable information from the public. What the public has a right to know is a very controversial matter, and I’m not sure the public needs to know about everyone’s private lives. But information like I published is the sort of thing that the Bigfoot community has a right to know. I don’t believe in creating works of important art and then sticking them in your drawer forever so no one can see them. These are important graphics, and the Bigfoot community has a right to see them. They do not deserve to be shoved into a drawer somewhere where none of us can ever see them. There’s way too much information withheld from us already. There have been some loud complaints from folks saying that I have no right to publish these items. Some are coming from folks who are in deep with the Ketchum Project and others are coming from folks in deep with the Erickson Project. Two groups shrouded in secrecy who have been withholding stuff from us forever. Compare the hide from the Bigfoot steak (Shall we call it the Bigfoot hide?) to other photos of Bigfoot hair. It would be nice if someone could put these together into some sort of a montage. All of these hair samples have tested positive as Bigfoot by DNA.

Here is the Bigfoot hide from the Sierra Kills for comparison. Note the globule of fat in the upper right of the photo. This was from defleshing the hide. There is also an aberration in the lower left that looks like blood or bloody tissue of some sort.
White Bigfoot hairs from Randy Brisson gathered in Golden Ears Park in British Colombia. Compare with the kinky hairs seen in the Bigfoot hide above.
A closeup of the hair from one of Brisson’s sample. Note the kinky nature of the hairs somewhat resembling pubic hair or spermatozoa.
Grey hair from Randy Brisson gathered in Golden Ears Park in British Colombia. Note the kinky nature of the hair, almost like pubic hair.
Blond hair from Randy Brisson gathered in Golden Ears Park in British Colombia. This one is more wavy, but it still resembles the hair on the hide.
Reddish hair from Randy Brisson gathered in Golden Ears Park in British Colombia. More the wavy type here.

Awesome Pics of October 2007 California Fires

Repost from the old site.

The fires in California last October 2007 were historic. 1,500 homes, 500,000 acres were burned, 9 people died, and 85 more were injured, including 85 firefighters. Here are some of the more spectacular pictures of the fires.

An incredible photo of Mount San Miguel burning during the Harris Fire on October 23, 2007. I was following all of these fires closely and I remember as this wall of flame charged down Mt. San Miguel towards the homes below. This horrible fire burned 206 homes and 252 outbuildings and damaged 253 structures. It killed 5 people and injured 55 more, 34 firefighters and 21 civilians. What an incredible fire. Those flames must be 100-200 feet high.

This photo still creeps me out. It reminds me of some popular horror movie like Friday the 13th. I keep expecting Freddy to pop out and start roaming the streets. This photo was taken in Irvine, California, and the fire is the Santiago Fire. The wall of smoke is so vast it seems to have blotted out the sun altogether. Awesome photo. I’m not sure when this was taken.

Another strange and very creepy photo. A number of fires were burning in and around Santa Clarita northeast of Los Angeles at the time that this photo was taken on October 21, 2007. The fires with the halos around them almost look like UFO’s. The homes in front lit up by street lights adds to the creepy effect.

A strange photo of the Santiago Fire taken on October 23, 2007. The Hellish-appearing flames of the fire seem to loom in the background, while another strange line that looks like headlights on a distant freeway burn closer to town. The photo was taken from Aliso Viejo, with Lake Forest in the foreground.

Writing Is Like Music, Cinema, Painting or Photography

I recently complemented a commenter on the site by telling him he’s a genius. By that, I mean he’s a great writer. He’s also a fine thinker, but the two go together. We have lots of fine thinkers on the board, but not all are great writers too. He’s Korean, and Koreans don’t seem to write English spectacularly. I don’t know why, but they are better in visuospatial than in verbal IQ:

Thanks. I found one of the secrets to writing that is engaging is having a musical awareness. Walk down a street and run a tune through your head. Preferably one that you made up. Then just play with it. Volume, pacing, accelerate, decelerate. And volume is key. Change in volume completely changes the tune. Try it. Try Beethoven’s 5th bahm, bahm, bahm, baaahmm.

Quietly. Done quietly it’s nothing. LOL. So here’s the dramatic conclusion to why Koreans don’t write spectacularly. They are raised to be quiet. It shows in their writing.

And we are not even getting into poetry yet. Sure the best poetry is musical, always has been. That’s why it’s so hard to translate. But so is the best prose. We are talking strictly prose here. How do you translate Finnegans Wake into any language other than English? Where do you even begin?

So when you write, your prose is music. Well, it should be, if your aim is artistic. Or at least that’s one way to write

Of course, the best prose is both music and even visual art like painting. I don’t know if it’s cinematic. And the best prose sings like poetry too. It’s all about the rhythm.

I write musically too, and I also write cinematically or like paintings. I get little pictures in my mind when I writing. They just pop up. Then I look for words to describe the paintings or scenes. Sometimes they are pictures like storyboards for a movie or just a painting or picture or frameshot or photo or other visual image. In other cases, it’s like a scene from a movie. Then I search around for the words to describe the scene I just saw in my mind.

When I was 22, a could of friends read my fiction and said it was like Joyce, “painting pictures with words.” My junior college journalism teacher threw me off the paper for “hallucinating with words.”

One of the Great Photos of the 20th Century

The Red Army hoisting the flag atop the Reichstag, the seat of Nazi power, amidst the apocalyptic horror of the Battle of Berlin. The Battle of Berlin was one of the greatest battles of the 20th Century. In only two weeks on 1945, an incredible 181,000 were killed, 85

This must rank up there with the Iwo Jima hoisting the flag photo with one of the great photos of WW2. Actually, along with the Iwo Jima photo, it’s not only that, but it’s also one of the great photos of the last century.

The Soviet contribution to the defeat of the Axis in WW2 is completely underestimated. We didn’t even seem to be against the Nazis much before the end of 1941. I saw an article from Time Magazine in 1940 about the takeover of Poland by the USSR and Nazi Germany. There was nothing about the Nazis. It was all about the cruelty and evil of the Soviets. One would think that the piece was Nazi propaganda.

Even before 1940, there was a battle against fascism going on in Spain. A Leftwing government had been elected in 1936. There was a military coup soon afterwards, as there always is (which is why a lot of Communists say that the peaceful road to socialism is doomed), and Franco’s forces declared war on the state. I think the Army split, but I’m not sure. Hitler and Mussolini supported Franco.

The US and the rest of the rest refused to support the Republican government despite their desperate pleas for help. But the US did not stop US corporations from supplying the Francoists with military gear. These supplies along with the refusal of the West to support the Republic, led to the fall of the Republic in 1939.

Thousands of Americans went off to fight with the Republicans. They were excoriated at home, and in the 1950’s, they were purged from their jobs by the McArthyites as “premature anti-Fascists.” Amazing, huh? It was only ok to be anti-fascist after, what? 1940? 1941?

89

The Nazis were essentially defeated by the USSR.

Nevertheless, revisionist history holds sway. Going to school in the Cold War, we never learned about the Soviet role in the defeat of the Nazis. Most popular US WW2 books have reams about Roosevelt and especially Churchill, oh, and don’t forget D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge, but little to nothing about the crucial Eastern Front, where the war was won.

New books and articles in Time excoriate Stalin’s role in the war. The Nazi invasion caught him off-guard, since he was a fool.

Not really so. Stalin knew Hitler was going to attack, he just did not know when. There had been endless false claims of a Nazi attack, almost one a day, for the previous year. Most of these were coming out of Western intelligence, especially “war hero” Churchill’s MI-5.

While under brutal attack by the Nazis, amidst Soviet cries for alliance, Churchill the die-hard anti-Communist could not be bothered to help the “evil” USSR. Instead, his intelligence service was busy serving up Stalin a fake Nazi invasion about every day. The reason?

To set off a war between Germany and USSR in which the two enemies, one as bad as the other to Churchill, would destroy each other, meanwhile laying off the Brits. So these reports developed a boy who cried wolf quality, but Stalin knew of the invasion as soon as it started. Yes, there were tactical retreats at the beginning, now recoded as defeats by the Western media.

The same books and articles even, appallingly, try to lay responsibility for the 27 million Soviet deaths on Stalin himself! I have seen analyses of “Stalin’s Death Toll” that apportion say 10 million of those deaths to the Nazis, and the other 17 million to Stalin! Why? For being a shitty commander in chief, apparently. What a disgrace to the memory of the fallen.

The West regularly republishes the tragedy at Katyn. Yes, 40,000 Polish officers, possibly fascists, were executed. So much about this, but is there one word of the fireboming of Dresden (28,000 Germans killed in one night) or the firebombing of Tokyo (100,000 Japanese killed in a night).

We often hear reports of atrocities committed in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by Stalin. Yes, there were some killings. Keep in mind these states had elected fascist governments when the Soviets took over. Supposedly, a few of those taken away to Siberia by the NKVD were even Jews. So Stalin was an anti-Semite?

Let’s look at the facts. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Baltics when the Nazis overran them and the Red Army retreated. That was only a few less than when the Soviets took over. In a year or so, there were basically zero Jews left in the Baltics. Those who had not escaped were gassed at concentration camps. Huge numbers of locals had gleefully joined in with the Jew-killing, even forming large Nazi auxiliary armies to help the process along. Now who’s the anti-Semite anyway? Not a word of any of this in the Western media.

Yet we do hear of the Red Army reportedly waiting outside Warsaw, supposedly to let the Nazis finish off the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, though I have yet to corroborate this.

With all the sacrifices the Soviet people made in defeating the Nazi Orcs, it’s sad that we have to trash and ignore them like this.

How Could You?

There have been some notable cases in the media lately about men who were caught having sex with 13 year old girls. The Roman Polanski case was one. Polanski was 46 years old when he did the dirty deed. The Harry Baker case in California is another one. Baker is 83 years old. This started a big discussion on the blog about men having sex with girls around that age. Thing is, I could never fit a picture to the words. I don’t know any 13 year old girls! Honestly. Why should I? I think there are some around the complex, but God forbid I should talk to them.

A picture of an unknown 13 year old girl with her brother, Mom and dog. Where is the appeal?

So I started wondering what exactly a 13 year old girl looks like. Which took me on an Internet image search. I quickly came up with several images, and I was stunned. They looked so young! I was appalled that these older men could be having sex with such a young girl.

Now, there are girls and there are women. There are also things called girl-women, which is basically a teenage girl. It’s in between a girl and a woman, in neither category. As they start getting up around 16-17, it looks lot more like a woman than a girl. But down around 13 or so, it’s a Hell of a lot more girl than woman. Hell, 13 year old girls still have baby fat on them. Only a year before, they were still playing with Barbies.

Now studies have shown that all normal males react sexually to females all the way down to age 7. The maximum reaction is at 16, and it continues at the same level on up to adult women. That is, a male reacts at the same intensity to a 16 year old girl as he does to an adult female of any age. So saying attraction to 16 year old girls is pedophilia is perverse. If it’s so, then we are all pedos.

Below age 16, the curve starts to drop off steeply, and by age 7 it is nearly gone.

This is a 13 year old Ukrainian girl, Kateryna Lahno, who recently won a major chess championship. Sure, she's cute, but a sex object? You're kidding.

So the only difference between normal males and pedophiles is of intensity and preference, not of the presence or absence of attraction. To normal males, girls between the ages of 7-12 are ho-hum. It’s not that there’s no interest, it’s just that it’s not very strong. I mean, a lot of guys might be slightly interested in doing a sheep if it came down to it and they were in the mountains for six months, but it doesn’t mean that’s what they love.

To the pedophile though the girl from age 7-12 is his prime attraction. He’s not interested in mature females. That’s nothing to him.

This 13 year old girl won a championship in Texas for text messaging, beating all comers. She looks like a little girl. It bugs me to think of any adult male having sex with her. That's messed up.

There are some pictures of 13 year old girls on this page so you can see what I mean.

I will also link to a picture of a nude 13 year old girl, which was taken by a major yet controversial Australian artist named Bill Henson. It’s tastefully done and you can’t see all that much. Various courts have ruled that it’s not child pornography. The only problem I have with this guy is that he seems to be obsessed with shooting nudes of girls around this age. There is something disturbing about that.

I didn’t want to upload it to WordPress because I was afraid they would freak and shut me down. But there are numerous images of this photo on Blogger, so I’ll post it to Blogger and link to it. The interesting thing about this nude is how unerotic it is. I mean, it’s ok, but really, there’s just not much there. You look at her and shrug your shoulders and say, where’s the excitement?

Link here. Click at your own risk.

It’s ridiculous that adult men are having sex with these girls. Keep your hands off em!

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)