• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

California sued for denying existence of Bigfoot

Why does he think CA denies the existence of Bigfoot? Please don't make me read the article, I can barely stomach this sub forum as it is.

If CA does deny its existence, that's exactly one thing I can applaud CA for doing for as long as I can remember. Something tells me they haven't even done that though.
 
Cainkane1 said:
So why no photographs. Most hikers carry cameras.
Click to expand...

Indeed, my walking-stick for hiking is designed to be that (including a compass on the top knob) as well as a monopod for my rather expensive DSLR and lens (the knob comes off to reveal a standard screw mount). The point being that I'm rarely out hiking without my camera, specifically to photograph wildlife. And I've seen and photographed (and been chased by) lots of wildlife. It's like UFO photos. They're always blurry, indistinct, and require lots of interpretation, which leads to the obvious conclusion that photos of mysterious phenomena have to be the ones that are too fuzzy to be defensibly identifiable as anything else. That's the only way it works. You have to be able to say, "Well, the evidence is too nebulous to prove it's a prosaic this-or-that, so it opens the door to my pet mystery."

As to the lawsuit, I just don't see a lot of merit. The state's obligation to warn people of dangerous wildlife would seem necessarily in proportion to the evidence of actual danger. Wildlife per se is not dangerous to humans; it varies greatly by species and circumstance. Yes, there are a few eyewitness-only accounts and photographs purporting to be this allegedly dangerous creature Bigfoot, but that's not evidence that's congruent in amount and confidence with the evidence establishing the existence and threat of other animals for which warnings seem appropriate. Given that any warning of danger -- valid or not -- has a chilling effect on free enjoyment of open public spaces, the responsible agency must have some discretion over what warnings to give. And where such discretion exists, it must be free to evaluate the threat based on evidence. There is a general obligation not to alarm people unnecessarily, whether it's of incoming missiles or big hairy mythical beasts. We require those who wield power under color of government to be able to articulate a rational basis for their actions and to exercise ordinary good judgment.

More importantly, it's unclear to me to what extent the state has an obligation to act in an advisory role. We recognize the obligation to conserve wild areas, but that's generally to conserve them from the effects of people, and so the state regulates people's activity so as to protect the wildlife, not the other way around. Paradoxically the state assumes an obligation to protect humans from dangerous wildlife that strays into developed areas. But it seems the state's obligation to protect people when they stray into wildlife areas is simply to advise them that a hazard is known to exist and thereafter to leave it up to people to behave in a way that to them seems appropriate. The state tells people that bears have been observed in some area, and you venture into that area at your own risk. I just fail to see how any of the Bigfoot evidence, taken in whole, rises to a level of scientific consensus that would compel a point of public policy.
 
"Ackley’s biggest concern is that the government, by not acknowledging Bigfoot’s existence, could be endangering the public.
'People have to be warned about these things. They are big,' Ackley said. 'We’re totally vulnerable to these things.'”

Interesting. NAWAC in Oklahoma claims nightly rock assaults by giant apes, in an area that sports nearby off-road recreation and hunting and hiking trails, yet they haven't pressed upon the local authorities the dangerous conditions they have encountered there. What gives?
 
Dragons are big, and all the stories told about them indicate that humans are vulnerable to them. In my mind there's a big difference between stories told about something and observed, evidenced behavior of the thing itself. It doesn't matter what everyone "knows" or believes about dragons; it's not evidence of a threat unless the threat materializes in something other than the imagination.

As I understand the law, a court would require a showing that the claimed hazard is actual or inevitable, not merely that it could conceivably occur. But I think that's the standard of proof required for a more instrumental order. If all they want is declarative relief in the form of acknowledging the existence of Bigfoot, I'm not sure what standard of proof should apply. In any case I don't think a court would consider that a justiciable question; it's more a scientific question, the kind that the law traditionally does not touch.

"The state denies the existence of Bigfoot," seems to want to reverse the burden of proof. That the state takes no steps presently to warn of a threat whose existence is deeply in question seems to fall far short of a denial. I think of denial as an affirmative step. It's not as if the state is posting signs that say "There is no such thing as Bigfoot." It seems the plaintiffs are operating under a belief that controversy or ambiguity over whatever evidence there is should have previously been resolved in their favor by the state. Ballsy, but not -- in my unlearned opinion -- a good legal strategy.

When I dabbled in real estate I attended a seminar where they told us that under New York law a seller has to disclose to potential buyers whether a house is haunted. This would seem to indicate that the state of New York acknowledges the existence of ghosts. Well, no. Allegations of haunting, according to New York, have to be considered in the negotiations over the value of the property. That might be as practical a consideration as evaluating the prospect for quiet enjoyment if random ghost hunters who know of the stories are going to bang on your door.

But I can see this perhaps going in that direction. California wouldn't necessarily have to acknowledge the existence of Bigfoot in a way that others could style as having been proven in court. All California would have to say is something like, "This area has been associated with claimed sightings of Bigfoot." It acknowledges the only facts that could conceivably be proven to a legal standard, and is essentially neutral as to whether an actual threat exists.
 
I wandered over to check BFRO's sightings by region page, San Bernardino County has had 11 sightings total, spread out from 1950 to 2014. Not exactly a Bigfoot hotbed.

It is black bear central though, and the fact that this lady's bigfoot was high up in a tree screams black bear to me.

More to the point, as an avid hiker, hiking at dust requires one be alert for Mountain Lions and Bears who have just woken up, and are looking for breakfast. Her cell phone video shows it was dusk, low-light conditions, where shadows deepen, and identification of even common animal life is problematic.

California's defense should be easy, the State Park's Department is in the biology business, not the mythology business. If you ever ask a Ranger about bigfoot, or in my case ghosts, they will politely tell you there's no evidence. In some cases they might point you to the park gift shop (if there is one) where you can find books by local authors filled with all kinds of tales that are not endorsed by the Park System.

The dispatcher who took her call did the right thing. It was a bear, and that's what needs to be reported to Rangers out on patrol. Now if they get out there and find a bigfoot then everyone wins, but the risk is the dispatcher, a state employee, feeding someone's delusion that could lead to something far worse, and definitely actionable in a civil court.

Just my .02...
 
carlitos said:
Yeah, that sort of jumped out at me, too. When you're just ********ting, sometimes that sort of detail escapes your notice.
Click to expand...

She estimated her bearsquatch to be 800 lbs, and if you look at the video, you'll see estimating weights is another concept she's unclear on.
 
comncents said:
This report has her cell phone video....

http://abc7.com/society/crestline-woman-sues-california-to-prove-she-saw-bigfoot/3090517/
Click to expand...

I think I agree with her statement, “That was no bear!” I don’t think there was anything at all.

In the videos in that article, they focus in and highlight a dark shape up in the tree branches. That puts the Sasquatch up in the tree, just like she claims. Except that wasn’t what her daughter was actually filming. Additional footage is here:



While the footage does contain the dark shape that is highlighted, her daughter is focusing the camera lower down near the right or left of the tree, not up in the branches. You can still see the dark shape in the branches near the top edge of the frame, but that is not what her daughter (who spotted the Sasquatch) is pointing the camera at.

She says, "I see it. Is it by the tree?" So she sees it, but isn’t sure where it is. The video breaks and then she is asking "…and a shoulder?" She still isn’t sure what she is looking at. The she asks, “Did it move?” She still isn’t sure what she is looking at. So she sees something that is maybe “by” the tree that maybe has a shoulder and maybe moved. But she now claims she saw an 800 pound “orangutan color” Sasquatch with “black solid eyes” up in the tree (not “by the tree”). And the proof is some blurry dark shape in the tree branches that the daughter filming wasn’t even pointing the camera at and is barely even in frame…I guess.

I don’t see any animal. I don’t see anything move at all.
 
Last edited:
ABC 7 News said:
Ackley said the sasquatch was perched in a tree, about 30 feet above the ground. She said there were two other sasquatches nearby.
Click to expand...
Maybe she is saying one Bigfoot in the tree and two more near the tree. I haven't watched the video yet.
 
William Parcher said:
Maybe she is saying one Bigfoot in the tree and two more near the tree. I haven't watched the video yet.
Click to expand...

Nope. One Bigfoot "by the tree" (later changed to "in the tree") and after that her daughter saw two more "over there" (pointing in another direction away from the tree).
 
Here's some coverage that embeds the actual complaint.

https://gizmodo.com/the-bigfoot-lawsuit-against-california-actually-makes-s-1823082037

It's pretty hilarious. Ignore the analysis by Gizmodo; it really adds nothing. The prayed relief includes a writ of mandamus, which would be an appropriate remedy if the relevant causes of action are proved. But the complaint also includes (para. 36) a prayer for declarative judgment that "Respondents infringed the constitutional rights of Petitioner as it relates to her concerns regarding Sasquatch."

Er, what?

The complaint states no cause of action that would be remedied thereby. That is, it does not spell out which of Ackley's "constitutional rights" have been infringed, or how. Basically, if you read between the lines of the rest of the complaint, it insinuates that Ackley has a constitutional right to have her research taken seriously and believed, and that it's somehow the State of California's fault that it isn't, and that she's allegedly a laughingstock.

This should be entertaining.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I don’t see any animal. I don’t see anything move at all.
Click to expand...

Same here.
It reminds me of photos from someone else who used to post here (whose name I've forgotten), and they were just shadows in trees. No wildlife at all.
 
Tolls said:
Same here.
It reminds me of photos from someone else who used to post here (whose name I've forgotten), and they were just shadows in trees. No wildlife at all.
Click to expand...
We've only ever had a few members who posted pictures of "here is the Bigfoot that I saw". I'm guessing that you are talking about ChrisBFRPKY. Another one was Creekfreak.
 
There was some commentary about people seeing other Bigfoot shadows in the PGF, and also perhaps Darkwing or Driveroperator posted some of their dubious photos.

We posted links to the tree monkey Bigfoot a few years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom