Squatchy McSquatch Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 Todd Standing is a proven hoaxer. Have you forgotten Muppet Bigfoot? Ackley claims she was face to face with a Bigfoot. But the BF was 30 feet up in a tree. Do the math. Be excited all you want. And expect disappointment.
hiflier Posted February 21, 2018 Author Posted February 21, 2018 Good positive post there, Mr. McSquatch. Just what this tread needs. Appreciate the words of encouragement.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 Hiflier would it make you feel better if I hold your hand, rub your back and "worry about sasquatch" with you? Standing is trying to bring a similar case to Canadian court. It is what it is hiflier. Publicity. Attention. Nothing else. Wrap yourself up in that cover-up conspiracy blanket if it gives you comfort. 2
hiflier Posted February 21, 2018 Author Posted February 21, 2018 Oh good, condescension as well. Perfect. You must not be reading everything in the thread? I mentioned the word 'province'.......that would be Canada. Standing's 'similar case' is old news. There. I've just given you more fodder for condescension- bring it on. Besides, I neither want nor need your respect for any reason.
WSA Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) I do think SMS's comment point out a gap of understanding I see on display frequently. It is the apparent inability (refusal?) to acknowledge the difference between the recognition of something previously unknown and unclassified for practical reasons, and the fetish for scientific classification. I'm much more interested in the first concept and leave the other to the taxonomy geeks. In my view, we long ago reached the practical recognition of the species. The number of the converted just keeps growing, not declining. That it has no Linnaean G. s. attached to it is really of little consequence to me, as it is to anybody who might encounter one. You are spot-on about any witness that comes to support such a case though SMS. If you can be shown to have perpetrated a fraud on ANY other occasion, it will be offered to impeach your credibility, no matter how many other verified pieces of evidence you have to offer the trier of fact. Todd S. would come with that baggage, yes.. Edited February 21, 2018 by WSA Edited because I'm going blind, apparently.
hiflier Posted February 21, 2018 Author Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) Todd would, Claudia wouldn't. Todd is Canada, Claudia is U.S.. Two different witnesses in two different courts. Ant court worth its salt or any judge worth his or hers will be impartial and rely on evidence. It's not a perfect world though. But this is also about supporting someone who is truly sticking their neck out not only in the courtroom but by default in the public eye as well. Suing a state agency that is tasked with managing an environment and its wildlife as large as California's is no simple thing. Millions of dollars could be at stake and if the San Bernardino courts rules in Ackley's favor- even if it's not in Sasquatch's favor- it will set a precedent that others may follow. Worst case scenario it could even open the flood gates on the missing persons in state parks or on state controlled land. Now it seems like I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill here, which would be true, IF I thought it was indeed a mole hill. But it isn't a mole hill folks if one really thinks about it and considers all of the discussion threads we've had on this Forum which could easily relate to and be linked into this case. In my opinion any court should be considered lucky to get out of this by simply awarding punitive damages because if anything is allowed to go further than that then all heck is going let loose with the number and types of lawsuits brought against state agencies. If anyone is thinking along these lines at all it's the people and agencies at the federal level. All of the past conversations I've had about surveillance capabilities says that if this creature is out there in the California wild as Ackley say it is then I say someone knows about it. And THAT kind of court case is something I see a potential for. That's the kind of court case that ANY court will be aiming to stop in the effort to keep things at the state level with some kind of settlement- in, or out, of court. Sure, getting ahead of things but I truly think one has to think ahead regarding possibilities to understand why a court ruling might seem to be more focused on compensation rather than let anything get out of hand. A court also after all can only rule on whatever is presented as evidence. Even so, any ruling in this case must be done in a way that guarantees that nothing will backfire on the state and open the door for other suits to follow; like ANY of the state of California's 411-type cases. Again I say, tricky stuff. An example might be that the state couldn't rule in a way that contained any language specific to Sasquatch being a danger to the public. That would be an admission of existence and therefore cover-up. Oh yeah, tricky. Edited February 21, 2018 by hiflier
Twist Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 I really feel like you are putting way to much into something that will turn out to be nothing. I’m guessing this media attention and court case fizzle out in the next week or so if it has not already. Just saying.... 2
hiflier Posted February 22, 2018 Author Posted February 22, 2018 There is no reason it should fizzle out if the public only understood the complex dynamic of the entire thing as I've been laying out. Then too, there are a lot of things about this Forum that I don't understand. Just saying........
norseman Posted February 22, 2018 Admin Posted February 22, 2018 8 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: Hiflier would it make you feel better if I hold your hand, rub your back and "worry about sasquatch" with you? Standing is trying to bring a similar case to Canadian court. It is what it is hiflier. Publicity. Attention. Nothing else. Wrap yourself up in that cover-up conspiracy blanket if it gives you comfort. Its not often I agree with you. But let it be proclaimed that in this instance your spot on.
hiflier Posted February 22, 2018 Author Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) Have either of you actually read all 7 pages of the lawsuit? If not then you just do not realize the scope of it. It was available to read on Scrib but when I went to look for it there was a notification that the document had been removed. Someone (a Scribd member) early on had uploaded that entire 7 page document which is a public document. and now? Too bad, it's gone. I uploaded a partial version as a .pdf in another thread but I do have the entire 7 page document and it covers a LOT of the territory that gets discussed on this very Forum. So, go ahead, have your fun, take your digs at my expense. I couldn't give a rat's behind what you think. Why is it that when something like this comes along people come out of the woodwork to shoot it and the messenger down? Again, I do not understand what gives around here.......or why. Ah well........... Edited February 22, 2018 by hiflier
Twist Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 hiflier, your on a public forum stating your opinion. Expect some people to disagree. And I’d hardly call it people coming out of the woodwork when we are all pretty much regulars here that have been commenting. 2
hiflier Posted February 22, 2018 Author Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) I do expect people to disagree. That's what a Forum is for. But what Norseman and Squatchy McSquatch wrote was beyond just disagreeing. There was no call for the tone or wording they chose to use. Disagreeing and snarkiness do not have to be synonymous. They of course are welcome to an opinion like me and everyone else but there is nothing that says I need to suffer their condescending slants and slights in silence. I gave as I got. Edited February 22, 2018 by hiflier 1
WSA Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 Nobody appreciates dismissiveness (just ask my wife), but moving on.... The greater probability is the Petition will be dismissed on a procedural point not touching on the merits of the claim that BF exists. This will be a disappointment to proponents who will conclude the court was doing the bidding of the powers-that-be to squelch information. Opponents will claim this is an affirmation that BF does not exist. Both will probably be wrong about their conclusions. I wish for my prediction of this outcome to be wrong as well. We shall see. 2
Bluegrassfoot Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) Ackley was interviewed on the most recent Sasquatch Chronicles podcast. She came across to me as sincere, and emphasized the threat to public safety angle of her case. In my opinion, that would be the best thing to base her case on. It certainly gives her standing. In the podcast, she admitted that she might not win, but she's going to do all she can to win. She said, "at least someone is starting to do something. It's a step in the right direction". I can't fault her for that. Edited February 22, 2018 by Bluegrassfoot
Recommended Posts