San Benardino, Calif. Bigfoot Lawsuit

[Twist]

^^^ Then he could claim that the judge who eventually throws this out didn’t read enough reports! 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

It's just not the same without him.

 

Enough legalese for a moment...

 

How is this NOT a skeptic's dream about to come true?

 

[hiflier]

It may very well BE, Mr. McSquatch. It may very well be. This thread is for exploring a discussion on what if it's not. No Harm No Foul. It should be allowed to run its course for the sake of that discussion. Trying to shut down discourse at every turn serves no purpose as far as I can see. I find it more interesting to pursue the avenues in the unlikely event that the case takes an unusual turn. And since the case is two weeks away from being ruled upon I see nothing wrong with exploring an opposite outcome than what you and others deem inevitable. I may deem it inevitable as well but it doesn't diminish the purpose of this thread one iota.

 

There is quite a bit that could be brought to the table here on each point the plaintiff has submitted in the court papers. Just because some folks have made their determinations that the case will get thrown out doesn't mean the arguments for the plaintiff's case as presented aren't worth any dialogue. This is a Bigfoot Forum after all so one should expect a discussion reasoning out the issues being brought to the court. Dismissing everything every chance one gets only comes across as an attempt to short circuit that discussion. March 19th will be here before we know it. But in the meantime It's perfectly OK to talk about different items that are in the court papers to present opinions about each one. Is that OK with you?   

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Enjoy your what-ifs hiflier.

 

Take it as seriously as you want to. Don't mind me

Comedy gold btw

[Night Walker]

Consistent failure to persuade zoologists or anthropologists to investigate Sasquatch phenomena may be explained by the fact that most of the available evidence consists of eyewitness testimony, which scientists are not trained or accustomed to deal with. The professionals who are trained to evaluate testimony, and who take it very seriously, are lawyers. Since lawyers also dominate the political scene, where the purse strings of scientific research are held, the best way to achieve a scientific investigation may be to convince the lawyers first. To this end, a campaign for a judicial or legislative inquiry into the existing Sasquatch evidence is advocated.

Green, J. (1989). The Case for a Legal Inquiry into Sasquatch Evidence. Cryptozoology, 8, 37–42. 
 

[jayjeti]

I agree that the case will likely be thrown out, but there are some unknowns, like we don't know the disposition of the judge.  What if he already believes in the existence of sasquatch.  We also don't know what evidence Claudia Ackley is going to present.  If someone knows some of the evidence that would be interesting.  What if she presents some compelling physical evidence, expert testimony, like on hair samples.  Sasquatch hair is unlike any known species.  I'm sure she must plan to present casts of footprints.   So, a lot depends on the judge.  McSquatch, don't count your non-cryptids yet before they don't hatch; we'll know soon enough.   

[Twist]

I’m going to start taking over/under bets in each thread hiflier starts.  We’ll be betting on how many times he gets upset at other posters for not agreeing or posting how he wants them to.  Lol. 

[WSA]

20 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Your dead wrong because I didn’t make the rules concerning biology. If anyone is holding the hammer it’s science. 

 

Im just the guy scurrying around trying to find nails to hammer. I don’t get to hold the hammer.

 

Without proof (which seems to be unimportant to many) I see this case being fully dismissed. It’s silly. You go in that court room with a tooth or skull or a body? It would be anything but bad news......

 

 

Ummm....what if this question right here is not one of biology? But whatever, keep pounding. I've found there is really not much of a future in trying to solve an intractable problem by spending energy on only endlessly redefining what the problem is.  You can claim this cat can be gutted and dressed only just so, but there is world of history out there that says different. There are more things in law, equity and administrative procedure than are dreamed of in your biology. (And photography, and forensics, and....)

 

That is not a prediction though. I don't handicap litigation and anyone who does is a rank fool. It is anyone's guess how this will turn out and anyone who says they know is kidding themselves and others.

[norseman]

How can the question of existence be settled in court if it does NOT involve Biology? What’s next? A civil case on the existence of Pixies? Gnomes? 

 

No matter what my personal belief is? 

 

To settle a question of a cryptids existence and what sort of rights and guarantees should be afforded to it? Biological proof is required first.

[Guest]

On February 21, 2018 at 3:24 PM, hiflier said:

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.

 

Do you believe Todd Standing is not a hoaxer?

[hiflier]

47 minutes ago, norseman said:

How can the question of existence be settled in court if it does NOT involve Biology?

 

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  

 

41 minutes ago, Grendel said:

 

Do you believe Todd Standing is not a hoaxer?

 

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.  

 

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by hiflier

[WSA]

I guess Norseman it depends on if you think there are degrees of existence, or only one?  Currently, you think there is only one, and every other possibility is as impossible and being almost pregnant. I'm just here to say, there are degrees.  The kind you consider to be valid, if achieved, would be the only kind necessary, I grant you.  If you've been needing a reminder though  here it is:  The effort so far has been an abysmal failure with zero tangible results.  So, there are intermediary steps. This might be one, or it might not be, but don't think for a minute it might not be possible, or not ultimately useful.

 

To bring it even more down to earth, think about this. What if the state of CA decided it had just enough evidence to fund and field a crew of biologists to solve that ultimate question with authority up to and including license to capture or kill a type specimen?   What if enough private donors came forward after a ruling that more than a scintilla of evidence was established for existence and did the same?  I'll tell you what I think it would be. It would be a way out of the endless positive feedback loop and circular-but-binary thinking that has dogged this field for decades.   

 

Here's the chords and the lyrics:

 

The possibles are "A" and "B" (exists/doesn't) 

Proof of "B" precludes "A", and proof of "A" precludes "B". 

We haven't (or at least so far haven't) been able to satisfactorily prove "A" or "B" . 

 

 

Many here, me included, choose "C".   

[Twist]

1 hour 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.  

 

 

 

Do you not believe that circumstantial evidence is different when dealing with known beings such as humans vs. mythological beasts such as BF in regards to discovery?     

 

I hear this argument brought up at times when discussing tracks.  We can convict a killer on Shoe tracks but not an unknown species on it’s tracks?  Well duhh!!   I shake my head when ppl use this logic.  

[WSA]

Twist...If I may....a difference of degree only.  As has been continuously noted (You want DWA, well here you go..) the science textbooks, especially astronomy,  are full of the "mythical", and which are accepted  as existing on far less circumstantial evidence. The law is especially forgiving when it comes to those kinds of proofs.  You want mythical? Look up "chose in action" sometime, or the Rule in Shelley's Case if you really want an exercise in the ethereal.

 

Try door #3. It won't hurt. Come along just for the ride. You can get off at any time should you feel woozy.

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

What if the state of CA decided it had just enough evidence to fund and field a crew of biologists to solve that ultimate question with authority up to and including license to capture or kill a type specimen?

 

And this thread exists for the discussion those 'what ifs'. And ultimately it would indeed come down to having enough of a certain TYPE of evidence. What that would consist of in a manner that would satisfy the court is an unknown. The evidence that will be presented is an unknown as is what would be the minimum that the court need to effect a ruling beyond just monetary restrictions imposed on the witness by the state for trying to conduct business. If the state of California rules that a person's livelihood has been marginalized unfairly then how far away is it for a motion for the court to define it's reasons for the ruling?

 

In other words, "Yes, you can conduct Sasquatch tours even though the creature doesn't exist"? In other words the state admits to Sasquatch's non-existence. Or would it be safer to for the state if the wording was more like, "Yes, you can conduct Sasquatch tours even though the state doesn't recognize Sasquatch as a known animal"? Would that then mean that the animal in the eyes of the state is an indeterminate subject and if so could there be a suit subsequently brought before the court to order the state to determine the creature real or not? I see either as a slippery slope best avoided at all cost.

 

@ Twist:

 

32 minutes ago, Twist said:

Do you not believe that circumstantial evidence is different when dealing with known beings such as humans vs. mythological beasts such as BF in regards to discovery?

 

Of course I do. But in the case of Sasquatch the circumstantial evidence, depending on how strong it is present will, or should, go right to the heart of whether or not the beast IS mythical. That why I keep saying that the case is tricky. Not only in it's wording but in it intent. The witness is ultimately after the court debate on existence as it directly impacts her case for being marginalized, stripped of credibility, unable to be licensed for business, and other 'hardships' BECAUSE the creature is viewed as mythological. The points of the case are all wrapped up together in a neat little package that wasn't a sudden epiphany the witness awakened with and wrote down. The court papers are a very carefully crafted, and drafted, petition.

 

Here's a question for everyone to ponder: Would a ruling, either way, by the court regarding Ms. Ackley's ability to get licensed to run the tour business depend on whether or not Sasquatch exists? If the court rules in her favor is it saying she can run a business even though it is a deception to her potential clients because Sasquatch doesn't exist? If the court rules against her then, again, is it saying the creature doesn't exist?   

Edited March 5, 2018 by hiflier