WSA Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 What I think a judge must do, in order for this to be a favorable ruling for the Petitioner is to successfully and simultaneously hold two ideas: That Sasquatch does, and doesn't, exist. Fortunately the law has had to resolve millions (and probably King Solomon's strategy was not the first example of it) of A/B controversies with just that approach. Those who think the outcome must necessarily be one or the other could be right of course, but don't think that is a foregone conclusion. Case in point? Who remembers the outcome on appeal the last time a primate was on trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 5, 2018 Author Share Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, WSA said: Case in point? Who remembers the outcome on appeal the last time a primate was on trial? Ah, but who can remember when was the last time a HUMAN was on appeal in which that appeal depended as such to the existence a primate connected to the case? The task before the court IMHO would be for the Responders to first UNCONNECT the primate from the appeal somehow in order to move quickly toward a decision. Edited March 5, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMort Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 There are plenty of folks in this forum who believe that the Patterson Gimlin film is proof of the existence of sasquatch. Let the film be introduced as evidence in this case and have the courts subpoena Gimlin as an expert witness. After all, It was filmed in the State of California and is certainly relevant to this case. Let's put it to the test... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Statute of limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 50 minutes ago, OldMort said: There are plenty of folks in this forum who believe that the Patterson Gimlin film is proof of the existence of sasquatch. Let the film be introduced as evidence in this case and have the courts subpoena Gimlin as an expert witness. After all, It was filmed in the State of California and is certainly relevant to this case. Let's put it to the test... ^^ I like this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 Presenting the film to the court and subpoenaing Bob Gimlin would necessarily create an existence debate which would be outside of the scope of the lawsuit and therefore the scope of the case itself and the court. It would only serve to water down the current nature of the case which could only work in the Responder's favor. Best to leave Bob and the PGF out of the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 1 hour ago, hiflier said: Presenting the film to the court and subpoenaing Bob Gimlin would necessarily create an existence debate which would be outside of the scope of the lawsuit and therefore the scope of the case itself and the court. It would only serve to water down the current nature of the case which could only work in the Responder's favor. Best to leave Bob and the PGF out of the courtroom. To protect BF, or protect humans from BF, doesn’t one have to acknowledge BF? How do we acknowledge BF if not discussing existence? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 6 hours ago, hiflier said: A similar question: How can someone be convicted of murder if no body is ever found? Answer: There is enough circumstantial evidence to support the ruling. There are at least 20 cases in the last century that say so. It is often stated that OUR circumstantial evidence is enough to convince someone in a court of law. BUT when that is brought up the counter argument is always that this isn't a court of law and the case of Sasquatch's existence will never find itself in a court of law. Well, it has found itself in a court of law and the evidence, so far as we know, is also circumstantial. The claimed physical evidence of course remains to be seen. And I see we now have a 'Grendel' on the Forum. Great name For the record? I don't 'believe' things. So do I THINK he was a hoaxer? Evidence would say that in the past he was, and maybe even now he is. Dr. Meldrum and the late Dr. Bindernagel obviously saw something in the man and his work so who would I trust more? Forum members or learned anthropologists? We have some pretty sharp people here who have questioned those relationships without a definitive answer for why the two professors hooked up with Standing and his subsequent recent documentary. I don't think his helping Ms. Ackley with the wording in her petitions and their submissions to the court places a shadow on the case coming up in San Bernardino if the court is a sound one that is only swayed by the evidence without regard to public opinion regarding the parties involved. But as I've said before- it isn't a perfect world. Proving the existence of a new species in biology is much harder than convicting someone of murder. I know this may sound strange to people, but it’s the truth. The state of California may choose to accept Sasquatch as a real being. They may chose to accept Pluto as a planet. They may chose to accept that Atlantis sunk off the coast of Florida. All it will do WITHOUT proof is throw California off step with science. I do not want to “win” like this. I was never for it with Standing or Ketchum and I am not for it now. But this doesn’t mean I stand with skeptics and do not want it to happen. 24 minutes ago, Twist said: To protect BF, or protect humans from BF, doesn’t one have to acknowledge BF? How do we acknowledge BF if not discussing existence? Exactly. If I want protection from the Trolls roaming my ranch? I should be made to prove to the court the threat is real......from a biological standpoint. And not because a few of my neighbors and I have formed a Troll block watch and have seen em dang it!!! Believe.....you me! 3 hours ago, Twist said: ^^ I like this! Not how biology works though. They are gonna call California Fish and Game biologists to the stand and ask for proof..... same as any endangered species. They have officially declared eastern cougars extinct based on the biological proof at hand. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/north-american-eastern-cougar-mountain-lion-extinct-spd/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmknight Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) In a tweet by Matt Moneymaker, found on the BFRO website, he says, in regards to the Claudia Ackley lawsuit, " It's the latest publicity stunt by Todd Standing. He did the same thing in BC in October. He’s using Claudia Ackley to file this suit. We investigated Claudia's incident a while back. It was an optical illusion. That much was demonstrated to her. Now it should b considered a hoax." Any comments, or was this already mentioned? Edited March 6, 2018 by cmknight Readability 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 Not surprising! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 33 minutes ago, norseman said: Not how biology works though. They are gonna call California Fish and Game biologists to the stand and ask for proof..... same as any endangered species. They have officially declared eastern cougars extinct based on the biological proof at hand. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/north-american-eastern-cougar-mountain-lion-extinct-spd/ Regardless, I’d find it interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) If it was an optical illusion then Moneymaker could find himself subpoenaed for the defense. But since he has already claimed to have seen one it may not be in the Responder's best interest to have an eyewitness to a real live Sasquatch take the stand. If Fish and Wildlife is called to the stand I wonder what questions will be posed to them by the plaintiff? Matt Moneymaker went to law school in Ohio but didn't complete the program to take the bar exam. There's a reason I'm bringing that up because he was also friends back in the 1990's with Don Keating, former organizer for 20 years of the Ohio Bigfoot Conference. The same Don Keating who lied about his personal encounter supposedly occurring around 10:00 pm under a Full Moon- THERE WAS NO FULL MOON THE NIGHT OF HIS SUPPOSED ENCOUNTER ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1985. He went on to lied to the public about that "event" on two radio shows back in 2008. Also Moneymaker wasn't there when Ackley and her daughter allegedly saw their Sasquatch in the tree. His presence in the court as a non-eyewitness to the event would be pointless. Besides he wouldn't dare risk exposing the BFRO as doing the exact same thing that Claudia Ackley wishes to do- run Sasquatch tours. Edited March 6, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 Sorry, but the immense overstating of the previous posting is rather sad. What's next? The Cottingly Faries? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) You are correct (except for the spelling of Cottingley) and I apologize to the members for dragging up an unpleasant history, true as it is. The point was bringing Mr. Moneymaker into this discussion opened a door that maybe the Responders wouldn't want opened. And as much as one might think he discredits Ms. Ackley, in truth, he risked everything in doing so. Being someone who has claimed to be a witness to a Sasquatch, just because he claimed her sighting was an illusion doesn't mean someone wouldn't claim his was as well. And his past associations would not help. I could begin to take the State of California's side in this if it would make everyone happy? After all, I have only been arguing the case FOR the plaintiff but I can just as easily argue against. It's only a discussion so it matters not. And it would instead favor a dialogue where the state wouldn't have to enter the existence debate although IMHO it would be much more difficult. Easier to take the hard line and say that the creature doesn't exist, and then issue any court rulings from there. It would be a fairly destructive course impacting anyone in the state, and beyond, because anyone involved in any way promoting the subject of Sasquatch loses: authors, conference organizers, websites, Forums.........it all goes down the drain.......in a hurry. The way I see it is if someone is going to go after the State of California then the State of California will defend itself- even to the point of causing destruction of the Sasquatch industry as a whole. If I was the council for the Responders that is what I would do. And I would do it without regard to reports, databases, knowers, habituators or anything else in order to protect the state. In a pure sense there is no middle ground. That's what makes this case so danged interesting. Edited March 6, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 No middle ground Hiflier? Hardly. I can draft you three proposed Orders off the top of my head right now that include PLENTY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts