Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 59 minutes ago, MIB said: I think ya'll are grasping at straws you only imagine exist.......... That is a description of sasquatchery as a whole. Quote ..........Trying to talk others into spending their money instead of you spending yours .. well, good luck with that. I don't care if somebody buys a lawyer to sue or not. I'm opining here. Indeed, I've already written numerous times on this forum that I believe government is discouraging discovery and that I believe that's the best course of action for them, the public, and the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 33 minutes ago, hiflier said: See? it's always zero support from you for any progress or move for discovery. Why is that? Point of fact... there are no straws here. Only sound legal arguments. I don’t think it’s sound. Here is why. I have a friend who is Indian that was apart of this case. Sinixt or as we call them “lake band” won a historical case against the Canadian government. They were awarded their ancestral hunting grounds back in Canada. The tribe is one of the 12 confederated tribes on the Colville Indian reservation in Washington state. https://www.aptnnews.ca/ourstories/the-fight-back-from-extinction/ This is simply unheard of, and probably opens a Pandora’s box for every northern tribe whose ancestors were on both sides of the Can-US border. Now if Todd Standing could not win a court case with this seemingly sympathetic court for all things Native American? Which as you and Huntster argue? That’s what Bigfoot basically is? What makes you think you could sue the US court system and win? The US court system is obviously in a very tight spot with its southern border. Obviously it’s well documented that Apache came and went as they pleased between Mexico and the US. And probably others… If Huntster and you are right and we are talking about human rights being extended to Bigfoot? The US government is going to fight like a banshee to make sure this is squashed. The border itself is a hot topic. Let alone a undocumented lost tribe of Bigfeet. The Sinixt were considered extinct in Canada until Mr. Disautel crossed the border and shot an Elk. Science doesn’t even consider Bigfoot extinct in North America. The Archeological record proves the Sinixt were there before the whites. We have nothing in the fossil record concerning Bigfoot within the United States. We are not even to square one. Which is establishing a identity for the bereaved party.🤷♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 1 hour ago, hiflier said: ........In your opinion then, might this be the road to take that could eventually lead to an official admission of existence or non-existence under oath? As well as the issue of ESA inclusion? And the issue regarding the categorization as recreational activity?........... No way. If mandated by the court to conduct a study, the agencies will attack all evidence of sasquatchery as hoaxed, manufactured, or mistaken, just like they do with UFOs. They cannot afford to let this out, and they'll go down with this ship if they have to. Quote .......Do you think any lawyers who are proponents read this Forum?........ Only if they're interested in the phenomenon like you and I. Quote .........If so and they are looking at these arguments then they would probably have to be certified to practice in DC or at least bring a federal case to a DC court. It could start out in federal circuit court, or federal district court? It would be filed in federal district court, and environmental groups shop for their best venue. I would think that the federal courts in Washington, Oregon, or California would be the best venue. California might be best because it was the location of the PG film, and it's Ground Zero of the Save Everything mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 13 minutes ago, norseman said: ........Now if Todd Standing could not win a court case with this seemingly sympathetic court for all things Native American? Which as you and Huntster argue? That’s what Bigfoot basically is? What makes you think you could sue the US court system and win?........... Again, if you read the Standing case, he was demanding the minister to admit the existence of sasquatches, and he was demanding damages for not doing so up to now. Suing for a study under the demands of the ESA is a completely different foundation of existing and tested law, and it can easily be proven (and government will be forced to admit) that they have not conducted any studies whatsoever of the existence of sasquatches and their potential population densities, past or present. Quote ........If Huntster and you are right and we are talking about human rights being extended to Bigfoot? The US government is going to fight like a banshee to make sure this is squashed........ Bingo. They will fight this with everything they have. They cannot afford another human species to share this continent with. Hell, if you brought this proposal to a law firm (that specializes in environmental law) and they figured out what potential there was for them, they might suddenly want this more than you do. Quote ........We have nothing in the fossil record concerning Bigfoot within the United States.......... But there is an abundance if trace, photographic, and testimonial evidence of existence, and at various densities in differing parts of the continent, just as what one would expect if any species, and we have literal proof (which the agencies will gladly provide by admitting) that they have not studied the species at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 8 minutes ago, Huntster said: If mandated by the court to conduct a study, the agencies will attack all evidence of sasquatchery as hoaxed, manufactured, or mistaken, just like they do with UFOs. That's fine with me and everyone should readily know that by now. Let them do that. I don't care. Let them claim that the creature doesn't exist. Because if they are going to refute all the evidence then, in the wake of that, the question of why they take revenue from a sham comes out. I've always been fine either way the chips fall. All I've ever wanted was an official statement on whether or not Sasquatch exists. In that regard my goal has not changed. But the nut to crack was getting that statement onto the record. A lawsuit delving into everything we've discussed is a positive step toward that goal. I don't think Meldrum would be the one leading that charge do you? Or anyone else that is a high-profile BF conference circuit speaker. It doesn't leave much does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 28, 2023 Author Share Posted October 28, 2023 19 hours ago, norseman said: It doesn’t need to be delivered to DC. It just needs to studied by a Biologist and a paper written. Any University would do or any accredited Biologist would do. Ive set choker in the woods, but for myself. I own 100’s of acres of Doug Fir in NE Washington. You have my respect. And yes I agree that Biologists need to verify what is going on with the species. That’s why I advocate shooting one! That study will never happen until we rub science’s nose in it. Maybe a black helicopter will come whisk it away….but we have to try!🤷♂️ At some point? The dam will burst open just like Ufology. You can only call something “swamp gas” for so long…. But the government is only going to reveal the truth when they think they are backed into a corner. Physical evidence…. not plaster casts, not audio or video but physical evidence wil go along ways to back them into that corner. My personal belief is that they don’t want to admit to the public that a 800 lbs primate is roaming around our hinterlands and oh by the way we have all of these missing people we don’t keep track of…..and we have been hiding it all along? We knew and we said nothing? Did nothing? It’s not a good look to have with the public…. If a person is attacked by a Bear or a Cougar? What happens? Accountability happens…. That was so true and a super reply that explains the crux of the matter. Is it within the bounds of Bigfoot Forum to have volunteer members join forces to write up an application for getting Bigfoot listed as an endangered species at the federal level? The paper would need to show bigfoot and logging are compatable. This would be a different thread so this thread remains on the rail road tracks. The fact that most states probably don't care if bigfoots are shot bugs me. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 2 minutes ago, hiflier said: .........All I've ever wanted was an official statement on whether or not Sasquatch exists. In that regard my goal has not changed. But the nut to crack was getting that statement onto the record.......... They know they exist. That's why they have been forthcoming with only silence, sideslipping, and April Fools jokes. If forced to admit or deny, denial will place them in danger of perjury, but they'll take that avenue well before admitting existence. Quote .......A lawsuit delving into everything we've discussed is a positive step toward that goal. I don't think Meldrum would be the one leading that charge do you?........ Nope, nor should he. He's a subject matter expert, not the plaintiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 28 minutes ago, norseman said: If Huntster and you are right and we are talking about human rights being extended to Bigfoot? We weren't talking about that all. That would be far, far down the road if it got discussed in court at all. 29 minutes ago, norseman said: We are not even to square one. Which is establishing a identity for the bereaved party. There is no bereaved party. There is only an admission that hunting Sasquatch is a recreational activity. So the legal question is: "How was that determined?" The fallout from such a pointed question will propel the case much, much further once that question hits the fan. There is no come back on that beyond: "It was determined because the creature doesn't exist." "OH? Is that right? And just how did you SPECIFICALLY determine that the creature doesn't exist?" And the dominoes will fall from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 9 minutes ago, hiflier said: ........Or anyone else that is a high-profile BF conference circuit speaker. It doesn't leave much does it. The obvious plaintiff should be the Save the Sasquatch non-profit environmental salvation organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Huntster said: They know they exist. That's why they have been forthcoming with only silence, sideslipping, and April Fools jokes. If forced to admit or deny, denial will place them in danger of perjury, but they'll take that avenue well before admitting existence. Again that's fine with me. Go ahead and officially state they don't exist. And then get hit with, "You say they don't exist. That's fine. Now, please tell this court exactly how you arrived at that conclusion?" There is no win for them here. Anything they say simply brings up another question. And the second and third follow up questions will only get tougher to respond to. 2 minutes ago, Huntster said: The obvious plaintiff should be the Save the Sasquatch non-profit environmental salvation organization. Class action. Which would be a classy move. Edited October 28, 2023 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 4 minutes ago, hiflier said: We weren't talking about that all. That would be far, far down the road if it got discussed in court at all. There is no bereaved party. There is only an admission that hunting Sasquatch is a recreational activity. So the legal question is: "How was that determined?" The fallout from such a pointed question will propel the case much, much further once that question hits the fan. There is no come back on that beyond: "It was determined because the creature doesn't exist." "OH? Is that right? And just how did you SPECIFICALLY determine that the creature doesn't exist?" And the dominoes will fall from there. Specifically? You have no physical evidence that the creature exists. Case closed. You are trying to go to court in a murder case, but you don’t have the murder weapon….heck you don’t even have the dead body. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 2 minutes ago, hiflier said: .........."You say they don't exist. That's fine. Now, please tell this court exactly how you arrived at that conclusion.......... "......without any study of the matter whatsoever, which is what you have admitted and which we require in the ESA." Quote ........There is no win for them here. Anything they say simply brings up another question. And the second and third follow up questions will only get tougher to respond to.......... Their only hope is early dismissal before the plaintiff can present evidence of species scarcity, which they might be successful at. The good part about that possibility is reduced legal cost for the plaintiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 If Bigfoot is being treated in court as an animal of the forest then Biology practices will apply. A type specimen is needed. If Bigfoot is being treated as a Human being in a court of law? The question of it existing as a species is already taken care of. And obviously no court is going to ask for a type specimen. The next step would be showing somehow Bigfoot is the bereaved party as an unrecognized “tribe” whose human rights have been trampled on. It’s a stretch, it’s a long long stretch….. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 Just now, norseman said: Specifically? You have no physical evidence that the creature exists. Case closed. You are trying to go to court in a murder case, but you don’t have the murder weapon….heck you don’t even have the dead body. This case isn't about proof of existence. It's about why (and under what circumstances) the creature got relegated to recreational status. What is it that gov knows that is the basis for that description? THAT'S the court case. This isn't at all about physical evidence. It's about what determined the creature's current official status of only being classified as a recreational pursuit. That is the main legal argument. But it's only the main pry bay that opens up all the rest of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 28, 2023 Share Posted October 28, 2023 1 minute ago, hiflier said: This case isn't about proof of existence. It's about why (and under what circumstances) the creature got relegated to recreational status. What is it that gov knows that is the basis for that description? THAT'S the court case. This isn't at all about physical evidence. It's about what determined the creature's current official status of only being classified as a recreational pursuit. That is the main legal argument. But it's only the main pry bay that opens up all the rest of it. It’s a nothing burger. It’s a recreational pursuit because it’s a mythological animal. And it’s a mythological animal because there is no physical evidence of its existence…. There is no way to contest that line of reasoning unless you produce physical proof. I can already tell you how your court case is going to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts