Twist Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 Isn’t she going to be represented by lawyers? I’d guess they will be doing the talking but I may be wrong, never really been to a court proceeding. I have watched some Law and Order though! I don’t think the state is in much of a pickle at all. They can easily claim there is a lack of evidence and zero repeatable proof and move on. They don’t have to necessarily take a side, just state not enough evidence for acknowledgment of existence and move on. That leaves the door open for future changes on the subject. As far as businesses and such, as stated before, other industries continue to exist that are based in the paranormal/crypto realm. I don’t see this changing that. To use a phrase loosely, a fool and his money are soon parted. One way or another. 1
hiflier Posted March 14, 2018 Author Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) Hey, Twist, Law and Order was a great series! The original cast were my favorites. And no, from what I gather she is going pro se which means representing herself. But the state IS in a pickle because they have had 50myears and all the resources afforded them to determine Sasquatch existence including reports by their own people in various agencies. So there's no excuse for not knowing all about a Sasquatch population or the lack of a Sasquatch population within its borders. Or Oregon.....or Washington.......or Idaho.....or Colorado.....or Texas.......or Oklahoma.....or, or, or. And to be clear, this isn't about other 'industries' it's about a 7 ft. tall, 800 lb. flesh and blood hominid that runs around on two legs. And the State of California and its resource agencies should know whether or not the creature exists after all this time. So they do need to take a side, they can be forced to take a side. In other words any "door open for future changes" can be closed NOW. What would be the point of leaving the subject in ambiguity just in case of 'oh my, it is real' say, 20 years from now? As an added thought on the state 'leaving the door open for future changes'? One would think those having the no-kill philosophy, of which there is a vast majority, would be all over this case to make sure that Sasquatch hunters out there trying to kill one would be halted in their tracks by any state that claimed, or was forced to claim, that the creature officially exists. So where are those no-kill groups? The ones that shout down speakers at conferences when they mention getting a type specimen for scientific proof. Where are they? Where are the habituators who are so adamant about not harming these creatures? One would think that they would be very vocal if a state wouldn't admit existence if habituators know different. Why would habituators keep silent if hunters in various states like Texas were allowed to hunt and kill a Sasquatch> There are things that are so conflicting about that and I do not understand not just their silence but EVERYONES silence out there in Bigfootdom. Could someone please explain to me what's up with that? Am I the only one who is reasoning out this court case for the good? Can't be. Where are the 'knowers'? Why are THEY so quiet? What about the thousands who have submitted reports to the BFRO? The over 120 Bigfoot websites? Nope. Silence. This make zero sense to me..........ZEE-ROH! Edited March 14, 2018 by hiflier
Twist Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 Yes, the original cast was best! Yes this is about BF but I believe their is precedent set by other business that deal in this type of “field”.
Wolfjewel Posted March 15, 2018 Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) I'm beginning to feel simple-minded (I know, never admit your weak points around high level commenters) but why do you believe that if Ms Ackley wins and/or if the court acknowledges that there might be bipedal hominids in the CA forests, that Sasquatch will immediately be given endangered status, thereby disrupting the timber and mineral extraction industries ( Like the Spotted Owl?) I know for my namesake, the wolf, federal endangered species designation was a help, but only against hunting them. And as soon as someone pressured for de-listing the wolf, they could be hunted in some states. Nothing said about habitat that I know of. For Sas, it would be a long, long time and many lawsuits later that its habitat would be protected, even if hunting them was banned. Just a thought (2cents or less.) Edited March 15, 2018 by Wolfjewel Fix wrong word 1
WSA Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 Fair question Wolfjewel. Welcome to the Forum, btw too. Yeah, there is always going to be potential winners and losers when considerations for listing/delisting are discussed. This Petition pending in CA is probably seen by some as the proverbial camel sticking its proverbial nose under the proverbial tent, but it is a country mile distant from that actually happening under state or federal laws. No doubt though, that argument will be central to the State's Attorney's argument should a hearing ever be held on the merits. So, the issue of hunting/not is a far off idea as well. I'm not sure though we are going to be able to extrapolate any take-aways from our experiences with any less exotic species, like wolves. This is not an animal that runs around on four legs and has no identifiable (to many) human-like characteristics. I'd like to have that discussion in a real-life context, but what I would predict is the idea of hunting BF is going to be seen by far too many as sanctioning murder. Which leads to the rationale we humans have always had for justifying murder. We call it "War" and then we are good to go. There may be that to deal with... just ask the Indian Nations. (One of my strongly held evolutionary explanations for the furtiveness of BF is exactly that. We long ago declared war on them and our superior technology pushed them into the ecologic niche they now occupy)
hiflier Posted March 16, 2018 Author Posted March 16, 2018 I see it as Sasquatch's existence/non-existence being tied directly to Ms. Ackley's potential non-fraudulent/fraudulent enterprise. I wonder how far she is prepared to take that point in her testimony.
Twist Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 In other countries ppl have no issue hunting and killing apes/monkeys. I got to believe there would be some here in this country willing to hunt/kill BF as well. I’m all for procuring a body for research but would hope that’s where it ends.
WSA Posted March 16, 2018 Posted March 16, 2018 In is a huge can o'worms that would get opened Twist. The number of sportsmen who would lobby for a season on a N. American big game animal, and the guiding business interests that would line up in support that would be a very powerful economic force with the political backing from many different quarters. It would get ugly, and very quickly. You have a vocal contingent who are vocally opposed to even the hunting of deer, and who already see the hunting of any pongid as akin to homicide anyway. You think they or their money would countenance a BF hunt? Brother, we are looking at a ____storm of epic proportions. Don't think the State of California isn't looking over that hill as it defends this matter.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 Or it will be dismissed as the sideshow it is. Couple more days now
hiflier Posted March 17, 2018 Author Posted March 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: Or it will be dismissed as the sideshow it is In which case the circular dialogue on the Forum will continue to circulate. But let's say for the sake of discussion that case, once properly presented, goes to the next level. All of us of course will be then watching things much more closely proponents and opponents alike. And, again, for the sake of discussion, what if the court rules that Claudia Ackley can have her business viewed as not being fraudulent because the State cannot, or will not, definitively say that the creature doesn't exist. The reason being that the evidence presented to the court and the responders leaves enough of a shadow of a doubt that results in Sasquatch being a real possibility if not a real creature. Should that happen what will the members of this Forum do? Will it change anything?
Twist Posted March 17, 2018 Posted March 17, 2018 No, it wouldn’t change a thing. It would mean they don’t have have or want to bring forth proof of Sasquatch or means they are not going to try and prove a negative. Letting her have her business is not an admission of BF in my eyes, it’s letting a business and it’s patrons operate along the same lines as people who perform seances and such.
norseman Posted March 17, 2018 Admin Posted March 17, 2018 cir·cum·vent ˌsərkəmˈvent/ verb find a way around (an obstacle). synonyms: avoid, get around, get past, evade, bypass, sidestep, dodge; informalduck "the checkpoints were easy to circumvent" overcome (a problem or difficulty), typically in a clever and surreptitious way. "I found it quite easy to circumvent security" synonyms: avoid, get around, get past, evade, bypass, sidestep, dodge; informalduck "the checkpoints were easy to circumvent" archaic deceive; outwit. "he's circumvented her with some of his stories" synonyms: avoid, get around, get past, evade, bypass, sidestep, dodge; informalduck "the checkpoints were easy to circumvent" 1
Bluegrassfoot Posted March 19, 2018 Posted March 19, 2018 The presiding judge is still the biggest variable, and the odds are that he'll want to put an end to it as quickly as he can.
Recommended Posts