San Benardino, Calif. Bigfoot Lawsuit

[WSA]

 To address the possibility of the PG film being proffered as evidence for the Petitioner and admitted by the court. Not likely.  "Remoteness and Relevancy" is the objection, and it is a pretty good one. All proffered evidence must be relevant to the matter before the court. A film that purports to show an actual BF roaming wild in the state of CA, with the requisite foundation, might possibly be relevant to the dispute. However, given the age of the film the law would probably entertain a motion to exclude it. It could be offered for the proposition that a BF existed at the time it was filmed, but not as tending show that a BF, or BFs, currently exist, which is the necessary relevant proof to support the Petitioner's allegations. The court could even take judicial notice that Patty was real, and still probably not abuse its discretion in sustaining the defense's objection. In other words, "We believe the film is legitimate, but what does it mean to this dispute?"

[Twist]

Good info WSA.  Still want to see it lol.

 

 I could imagine the PGF film showing how the BF avoided confrontation and willingly exited the scene stage right at a quick pace.   That would not be good evidence of BF being a threat to the great citizens of Cali, at least not on that day.

[WSA]

No, it wouldn't be, you're right there. Like most evidence, especially witnesses, you always gain something and lose something at the same time. The calculus always is to figure out if you are likely to achieve a net advantage. I can also tell you from hard experience, your client and your own witnesses are always your Achilles' heel. When you can get your client down off the stand without your entire case blowing up, you always heave a sigh of relief. And your own expert witnesses? They are the worst of all the vulnerabilities. Walking mine fields. I avoid the necessity of using them at all costs.

[hiflier]

31 minutes ago, WSA said:

And your own expert witnesses? They are the worst of all the vulnerabilities. Walking mine fields. I avoid the necessity of using them at all costs.

 

^^ In this case I couldn't agree more. How can the Responders not retaliate against them as being 'experts' on something that is officially considered a myth? It's up to the plaintiff to win the case even if after any expert witnesses are discredited. Again though, I am not privy to any evidence that's going to be presented nor how hard that evidence is.

 

One thing does come to mind here. There was a member here about three or four years ago who claimed that there was a frozen Sasquatch arm that was being kept in some State of California facility somewhere. Anyone besides myself remember this? I'll try to find some older posts that claim this. It seems to me the member was somehow either previously or currently linked into a state agency. The facility in question was never mentioned though, as one would expect, I had asked.  

[WSA]

Or the Minaret skull, which when last seen was being entrusted to the Anthropology Professors at UC Berkley?  As often is the case with BF evidence, as we know, it becomes an exercise in chasing chimeras very quickly.

 

Those experts are not any more/less compromised than your average expert, believe me. I've cross-examined experts who have been guilty of hoaxes within their fields that rise to a level of anything we've seen  and discussed here. The thing that torpedoes an expert quicker than anything is an inability to concede anything to the opposition, especially the obvious. The best experts I've ever worked with will willingly, even cheerfully, acknowledge any holes or gaps in their factual foundation they cannot change, and even acknowledge how these deficiencies might even leave some doubt in their conclusions. The second shortcoming you see a lot is experts who won't concede that they might not be an expert in another, related discipline.  I effectively took down an expert in a particular field by giving him enough rope and a platform to claim he was, more or less, and expert on ANYTHING you would care to mention. The size of his ego barely gave the jury enough room to leave the box and hand back a verdict for my client. It was fish in a rain barrel for me, or any reasonably qualified lawyer...guys like him just sort of self-destruct on the stand.  It is fascinating to watch.  Unfortunately too, the field is just chock-a-block with swell heads.  T.S. is probably one witness I'd be very, very wary of doing the same thing. Meldrum? Not at all. He strikes me as being as close to the perfect witness as you could find. Bill Munns is another if photographic or film analysis is the topic. Bill has about as balanced an approach to forensic proof as anyone I've ever seen.

Edited March 6, 2018 by WSA

[hiflier]

Again, I agree, with the exception as mentioned before of Sasquatch not being recognized by the State of California- interpretation subject to much needed definition. Meaning, can non-recognition be sufficiently interpreted as saying the creature definitely does not exist. In law, words are everything even to sussing out the spirit of a law, policy, or position. I should boil down to FIRST acquiring a definition for the term non-recognition and whether or not the state incorporates the wording as being synonymous with absolute non-existence. It also would lay open the inquiry as to how the state determined that position?

 

I'm still searching for the 'frozen-arm" thread.   

[Squatchy McSquatch]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

Or the Minaret skull, which when last seen was being entrusted to the Anthropology Professors at UC Berkley?  As often is the case with BF evidence, as we know, it becomes an exercise in chasing chimeras very quickly.

 

Those experts are not any more/less compromised than your average expert, believe me. I've cross-examined experts who have been guilty of hoaxes within their fields that rise to a level of anything we've seen  and discussed here. The thing that torpedoes an expert quicker than anything is an inability to concede anything to the opposition, especially the obvious. The best experts I've ever worked with will willingly, even cheerfully, acknowledge any holes or gaps in their factual foundation they cannot change, and even acknowledge how these deficiencies might even leave some doubt in their conclusions. The second shortcoming you see a lot is experts who won't concede that they might not be an expert in another, related discipline.  I effectively took down an expert in a particular field by giving him enough rope and a platform to claim he was, more or less, and expert on ANYTHING you would care to mention. The size of his ego barely gave the jury enough room to leave the box and hand back a verdict for my client. It was fish in a rain barrel for me, or any reasonably qualified lawyer...guys like him just sort of self-destruct on the stand.  It is fascinating to watch.  Unfortunately too, the field is just chock-a-block with swell heads.  T.S. is probably one witness I'd be very, very wary of doing the same thing. Meldrum? Not at all. He strikes me as being as close to the perfect witness as you could find. Bill Munns is another if photographic or film analysis is the topic. Bill has about as balanced an approach to forensic proof as anyone I've ever seen.

 

Imo munns  couldn't be introduced unless the PGF was also introduced.

[hiflier]

Good point, Squatchy McSquatch. You've been around a while, do you or anyone out there in BFF land remember this member several years back mentioning a Bigfoot arm being kept frozen in a facility in California? I've bee looking back 6 years under various search criteria and have not run across it. My latest search effort is under the term "frozen arm" and I've gone back 22 pages in the GF with the term without success.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Hiflier I'll play around on advanced search when I'm back at home and on my laptop.

 

I've been posting here for almost 6 years that doesn't really sound familiar.

 

The only thing that rings a bell was the Stacey Brown alligator hand.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch

[WSA]

Definitely Bill's long suit is the PGF. I would also consider him as a Rule 26 expert on costuming and general special-effects techniques, all informative and relevant on the topic of how hoax-able any other such documentary evidence might be. Who knows? On the subject of TS, he just might have crucial testimony to give for the Respondent. That would certainly be an interesting twist, if so.

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Hiflier I'll play around on advanced search when I'm back at home and on my laptop.

 

I've been posting here for almost 6 years that doesn't really sound familiar.

 

The only thing that rings a bell was the Stacey Brown alligator hand.

 

Than you Squatchy, I would appreciate that very much. I do remember the alligator limb as well. I'll keep looking, too, with as many different kinds of search titles as I can dream up. Maybe some others who have been here for as long? I've been here since June, 2013 to help limit how far back to go and I think it may have been sometime during that year or in 2014. Wish I could be more helpful with the time of year or even the thread but, alas, I am unable to pin it down- Good Luck to both of us.

[hiflier]

Found it! It was a post submitted on February 6, 2014 by a member going by the username "ptangier":

 

"Hiflier- that part of the story doesn't come at all and maybe shouldn't have brought it up but a 31" half/hand and forearm was supposedly found by the UFS  4 miles inland from Jenner, Calif. and stowed away within the states vaults. Told to me by a friend who knows the fellow who was on the crew who found it in 1981 but not confirmed; maybe I shouldn't  have brought it up."

 

Interesting wouldn't you say? The curious thing is that it's a story but the body part has a definite size mentioned: 31 inches and also that it is an arm with a "half/hand and forearm" which would be enormous in length if for instance it didn't have the upper arm attached?

 

I need a nap now  

Edited March 6, 2018 by hiflier

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Ackley's claims of being unable to run her bf tour group are easily countered. Willow Creek California is home to numerous bigfoot-themed businesses.

 

The 'man' doesn't  seem to be keeping them down

 

The more I read about Ackley, the more she comes off  as Ketchum 3.0 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Squatchy McSquatch

[ShadowBorn]

Hey they (Gov) do not want this to be a tourist guide service. So they (Gov) are going to shut this down quickly with all means possible. They again (Gov) already have a specimen and are going to deny her and Standing  of what these creatures are. Like I have said they do not need our protection and are free to go where they wish as long as they do not encroach on our land. In which case they have not yet but we have on theirs and this is a problem. Denial is what will be the outcome and will always be the outcome. She can sue all she wants but she is fighting a force that is greater then she thinks and that is our Gov which always wins . 

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Ummm wouldn't our land be their land? If what you say is true about them..

 

Do Sasquatch routinely recognize and respect property boundaries? 

 

Ackley isn't suing for protection btw