Y'all read this report.
http://www.bigfootinfo.org/data/bfst.php?srcText=197
I keep reading accounts of Federal agents seeing sasquatches, and being told not to talk about them.
Does anyone on this forum have any inside knowledge? (By the way, I'm a "Fed" myself, but bigfoot isn't much of an issue in Maryland....)
Full Version: Why won't the Feds acknowledge existence of Bigfoot?
QUOTE(Savage30L @ Oct 17 2006, 02:50 PM) 
Y'all read this report.
http://www.bigfootinfo.org/data/bfst.php?srcText=197
I keep reading accounts of Federal agents seeing sasquatches, and being told not to talk about them.
Does anyone on this forum have any inside knowledge? (By the way, I'm a "Fed" myself, but bigfoot isn't much of an issue in Maryland....)
http://www.bigfootinfo.org/data/bfst.php?srcText=197
I keep reading accounts of Federal agents seeing sasquatches, and being told not to talk about them.
Does anyone on this forum have any inside knowledge? (By the way, I'm a "Fed" myself, but bigfoot isn't much of an issue in Maryland....)
hey savage ive read similar articles about the feds or fbi knowing or have seen sasquatch creatures in various states in usa in certain books about bigfoot even in certain newsletters. thanks bill please keep informed ok... :bf: ive read similar articles about this issue in magazines like fate & strange magazine. im sure we will hear more about this situation.
The above-referenced link states "We have a lot of motion detectors, etc. in the area near the river to detect people crossing into the United States." Does anyone know what type of "motion detectors, etc." were being used at the time of the BF encounter?
That is quite interesting. I would also be very interested in what type of motion sensors they were using. Never really like the MIB stories, but whatever. Quite cool how he saw it first in his night vision and then in the high beams.
QUOTE(whitt76 @ Oct 17 2006, 08:02 PM)
That is quite interesting. I would also be very interested in what type of motion sensors they were using. Never really like the MIB stories, but whatever. Quite cool how he saw it first in his night vision and then in the high beams.
Here's what I've been aware of...
QUOTE
—"Cox Newspapers Washington Bureau, May 17, 2006"... More than 6,700 motion sensors mounted on fences and underground along the southern border from Texas to California are supposed to give an early warning of illegal immigrants. But frequently, animals set the sensors off. "A lot of times we end up chasing cows," acknowledged Corina Robison, spokeswoman for the CBP in Washington.
Full Story
Here's what's coming...
QUOTE
-"The Epoch Times September 28, 2006"...The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has announced that it will contract Boeing Co. to create a high-tech border surveillance system across the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders. The project, expected to cost more than $2 billion over the next three to six years, will integrate motion sensors, cameras, and an estimated 1,800 high-tech towers to feed live information to Border Patrol agents.
Entire Story
....And that is even more interesting. Live feed cameras? Looks like we need to get someone with BF interest on the "inside" so it doesn't get covered up when something happens. Haha
I think most people generally like keep a low profile. Some people may fear loosing thier jobs if they say anything. Especially if you have a job out of town or a small town where there are few jobs. Most people would be inclided to protect thier jobs and not say anything.
As for the sensors, I think they maybe microwave type similar to the ones around the missile silos. like ultrasonic but use microwaves, sort of radar-ish. Remote sensors would probably have CCTV area coverage. So it would make sence if BF ran for the boarder he'd be seen, but not at Taco Bell, Nyuk Nyuk! I think most of the boarder is desert, like the moon! I might be wrong, so I don't know if BF would be in that type of environment, maybe passing through. I remember reading somewhere on this site that someone was wondering if there were any reports of BF in Mexico. It seems there are not many or maybe we dodn't hear about it here? Enough rambling..............
As for the sensors, I think they maybe microwave type similar to the ones around the missile silos. like ultrasonic but use microwaves, sort of radar-ish. Remote sensors would probably have CCTV area coverage. So it would make sence if BF ran for the boarder he'd be seen, but not at Taco Bell, Nyuk Nyuk! I think most of the boarder is desert, like the moon! I might be wrong, so I don't know if BF would be in that type of environment, maybe passing through. I remember reading somewhere on this site that someone was wondering if there were any reports of BF in Mexico. It seems there are not many or maybe we dodn't hear about it here? Enough rambling..............
On the state level, here in Illinois, the state park officials where I do most of my research have seen bigfoot footprints.
They acknowledge that the animals at least travel through the park from time to time. In the spring of 2002 the state built a new playground in one of the campgrounds. One afternoon the workers smoothed all the sand level only to return the next morning and find some rather large footprints.
Although I have not asked, I would assume they keep their mouths shut for job security.
They acknowledge that the animals at least travel through the park from time to time. In the spring of 2002 the state built a new playground in one of the campgrounds. One afternoon the workers smoothed all the sand level only to return the next morning and find some rather large footprints.
Although I have not asked, I would assume they keep their mouths shut for job security.
QUOTE
Why won't the Feds acknowledge existence of Bigfoot?
Because there's no proof.
Never mind the fact that it's their responsibility to look into the phenomenon.....................literally..............never mind.
That's what everybody else is doing..................
It seems I read somewhere that some of the motion sensors they are using operate on seismic waves, picking up vibrations.
As far as Bigfoot in Mexico, there have been a few reports and they have a couple of names for them down there, one being Pie Grande' (Strict Translation is Foot Big which means Big Foot).
I'm sure that part of the reason we don't hear about a lot of sightings south of the border is due to limited Internet Access, and we have to consider money to buy a computer and pay for access. Of Mexico's 97 million people about 40 million live below the poverty level.
And then there's the literacy factor such as in some States, like Chipas...
IDEX.org
As far as Bigfoot in Mexico, there have been a few reports and they have a couple of names for them down there, one being Pie Grande' (Strict Translation is Foot Big which means Big Foot).
I'm sure that part of the reason we don't hear about a lot of sightings south of the border is due to limited Internet Access, and we have to consider money to buy a computer and pay for access. Of Mexico's 97 million people about 40 million live below the poverty level.
And then there's the literacy factor such as in some States, like Chipas...
QUOTE
"Although official figures show that the national literacy rate is over 90%, in northern Chiapas close to 50% of adults are functionally illiterate. "
IDEX.org
I would certainly say they 'know', and for a looooooong time. It's probably a money issue : with the amount spent on State & National Parks for our enjoyment, don't think it would be good for business at all to list in the Park Brochures "Don't pay any attention to the big harry monsters running around.....enjoy".
http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/report_detail.php?id=00640
Another reported sighting by Border patrol agents.
Another reported sighting by Border patrol agents.
I have reported this before on this board but it's on point, so here it is again. I have a close friend whose sister has been in the Canadian park service for over 25 years. I asked him to ask her what the official Can Park Service position is on BF. He was reluctant but did so and a few days later he forwarded me her email reply that said something like...Since no grants have been applied for study of this the official position must be that it is not real...(I do not remember the exact words but that's the gist). The tone of the email had that feel that it expected it might get shown to other people. It was very "safe" for the writer. This is actually a very funny response because it is classic bureaucratese. (Excuse me to any gov't emloyees on this site but...) Bureaucrats are very good at saying no but not good at initiating new salients, ideas, projects, etc. I get the impression that they respond to...grant applicants! So no grant applicants ergo it ain't real.
Anyway about a week later my friend called me and said he'd had a call from his sister. You guessed it. This was the back-channel admission. She told him that in fact, years before, one of her colleagues in the Park Service had seen (and smelled) a BF crossing a bridge in the wilderness I believe near a park in Alberta. She had the details of the siting -- place toime , etc. She said this guy never reported the siting to his superiors or made any official report. She also went out of her way to make a joke about the guy being a drinker. So here she is years later repeating what the witness told her and still she was reluctant to put it in writing, and still protecting herself with the drinking comment as if to say of course I don't believe him because...
So I for one would be interested in what is it about govt employees, some career biologists, that like a compass they all consistently want to deny BF evidence? Another example of this that I have mentioned before on this board is the Terry Gross NPR interview (March of 2006 I think) of the head of the UC Davis animal genetics lab where they got into the question of What was your most unusual request ? which led to an answer anbout a request for BF hair testing and much hilarity and guffawing. Terry asked a couple of good questions that the lab director avoided...Q: Did You Identify the hair? A:no. QWhy not? A: It did not match anything we had. Q: Well...? No follow up to that. Can you believe it? They all had a good laugh though. The interview is still on the NPR website.
So would any self-identified bureaucrat or psycholgist like to explain this maddening group behavior? Thanks
Anyway about a week later my friend called me and said he'd had a call from his sister. You guessed it. This was the back-channel admission. She told him that in fact, years before, one of her colleagues in the Park Service had seen (and smelled) a BF crossing a bridge in the wilderness I believe near a park in Alberta. She had the details of the siting -- place toime , etc. She said this guy never reported the siting to his superiors or made any official report. She also went out of her way to make a joke about the guy being a drinker. So here she is years later repeating what the witness told her and still she was reluctant to put it in writing, and still protecting herself with the drinking comment as if to say of course I don't believe him because...
So I for one would be interested in what is it about govt employees, some career biologists, that like a compass they all consistently want to deny BF evidence? Another example of this that I have mentioned before on this board is the Terry Gross NPR interview (March of 2006 I think) of the head of the UC Davis animal genetics lab where they got into the question of What was your most unusual request ? which led to an answer anbout a request for BF hair testing and much hilarity and guffawing. Terry asked a couple of good questions that the lab director avoided...Q: Did You Identify the hair? A:no. QWhy not? A: It did not match anything we had. Q: Well...? No follow up to that. Can you believe it? They all had a good laugh though. The interview is still on the NPR website.
So would any self-identified bureaucrat or psycholgist like to explain this maddening group behavior? Thanks
I still fail to belive that the Federal Govt. as a whole can keep anything a secret, It always amazed me when I worked for a certian state agency that had many highly trained very professional individuals and when something big or embarassing to the dept. occured the higher ups would not try to hide it but just ask for some discression,i.e. don't talk to the media. No sooner than that its all over the place someone wants to be the big shot even though the backlash was pretty heavy they just had to talk. It's human nature I can't belive that EVERYONE involved with the govt. can keep a secret.
QUOTE(FanofSquatch @ Oct 18 2006, 01:12 PM)
I still fail to belive that the Federal Govt. as a whole can keep anything a secret, It always amazed me when I worked for a certian state agency that had many highly trained very professional individuals and when something big or embarassing to the dept. occured the higher ups would not try to hide it but just ask for some discression,i.e. don't talk to the media. No sooner than that its all over the place someone wants to be the big shot even though the backlash was pretty heavy they just had to talk. It's human nature I can't belive that EVERYONE involved with the govt. can keep a secret.
There are many levels to "secrets"...a secret about a boss doinking his secretary is different than a secret called Skunk Works.
You're right in that EVERYONE involved with the govenrment can't keep a secret. However, those who can't, aren't given access...those who can are given a big fat carrot to keep them munching. It's called a job with a clearance.
No proof about BF. And, if there is...someone is shrugging their shoulders and stuffing the latest IR image of a BF munching pancakes in a bottom lock-drawer somewhere.
JMO
QUOTE(FanofSquatch @ Oct 18 2006, 03:12 PM)
I still fail to belive that the Federal Govt. as a whole can keep anything a secret, It always amazed me when I worked for a certian state agency that had many highly trained very professional individuals and when something big or embarassing to the dept. occured the higher ups would not try to hide it but just ask for some discression,i.e. don't talk to the media. No sooner than that its all over the place someone wants to be the big shot even though the backlash was pretty heavy they just had to talk. [i]It's human nature I can't belive that EVERYONE involved with the govt. can keep a secret.[/i]
I point out FoS, that she didn't.... it is just "off the record".... just like most everything else we hear. They talk, just not openly. Especially where LEO or other legal type people are involved.... Reading between the lines may be the only whay to get the info, untill something is conclusively PROVEN, and my bet is that due the nature of the beast, it won't involve anybody wearing badges. :new_lmaosmiley:
SK
I can understand the reading between the lines and off the record, I know working for any state or federal agency if told not to speak to the press you don't do it, or face diciplinary actions. But you are free to speak to them on your own time and offer your "opinion". It just seems to me that if the gov. had some sort of proof that a retired or fired or former employee would be chomping at the bit to let loose. I do realize that BF is probably a pretty touchy subject and you wont get alot of attention but I just can't picture a bunch of Fed's in a huddle saying "OK boys we gotta keep this one a secret" Just way too many people down the line to "hush."
I often wonder if it's really "Keeping A Secret", or simply that they don't want to admit to not knowing the definitive answer to something. The "Government" has to instill an illusion, if nothing else, in those that it oversees that they are in control or have knowledge of everything that may affect them. If they fail at that they risk mass hysteria, and loss of faith in their ability to rule.
We see evidence of this quite often for example during Hurricane Katrina. To those of us outside the affected area believed that the government was on top of it, and people were being taken care of as they should be. Then we find out later that someone fumbled the ball and it was days before proper care and rescue efforts were actually employed. The Federal Government not wanting to admit a mistake started pointing fingers at the State Government, and they pointed their fingers at the City Government, and then everyone turned around and pointed their fingers at who pointed at them first. Eventually it was the head of FEMA Michael Brown that lost his job. Probably due to his loss creating the least amount of backlash politicially. The Federal Government wins because once again they show they are in charge and everything is fine.
We also see it when other topics come up, where people have questions about more mundane things. The government reponds with, that information is locked up due to "National Security", or it's in the National Archives and won't be relased for "X" number of years. That alone shows they can and DO keep secrets, at least for some amount of time. And when some people are "Supposedly" leaking that information out they are labled as hoaxers, liars or met with head shaking and disbelief, until the information once officially relased backs up their initial exposure. By then the original person who leaked the information is dead and nobody remembers what transpired previously.
We see evidence of this quite often for example during Hurricane Katrina. To those of us outside the affected area believed that the government was on top of it, and people were being taken care of as they should be. Then we find out later that someone fumbled the ball and it was days before proper care and rescue efforts were actually employed. The Federal Government not wanting to admit a mistake started pointing fingers at the State Government, and they pointed their fingers at the City Government, and then everyone turned around and pointed their fingers at who pointed at them first. Eventually it was the head of FEMA Michael Brown that lost his job. Probably due to his loss creating the least amount of backlash politicially. The Federal Government wins because once again they show they are in charge and everything is fine.
We also see it when other topics come up, where people have questions about more mundane things. The government reponds with, that information is locked up due to "National Security", or it's in the National Archives and won't be relased for "X" number of years. That alone shows they can and DO keep secrets, at least for some amount of time. And when some people are "Supposedly" leaking that information out they are labled as hoaxers, liars or met with head shaking and disbelief, until the information once officially relased backs up their initial exposure. By then the original person who leaked the information is dead and nobody remembers what transpired previously.
QUOTE(moregon @ Oct 18 2006, 05:32 PM)
I often wonder if it's really "Keeping A Secret", or simply that they don't want to admit to not knowing the definitive answer to something. The "Government" has to instill an illusion, if nothing else, in those that it oversees that they are in control or have knowledge of everything that may affect them. If they fail at that they risk mass hysteria, and loss of faith in their ability to rule.
We see evidence of this quite often for example during Hurricane Katrina. To those of us outside the affected area believed that the government was on top of it, and people were being taken care of as they should be. Then we find out later that someone fumbled the ball and it was days before proper care and rescue efforts were actually employed. The Federal Government not wanting to admit a mistake started pointing fingers at the State Government, and they pointed their fingers at the City Government, and then everyone turned around and pointed their fingers at who pointed at them first. Eventually it was the head of FEMA Michael Brown that lost his job. Probably due to his loss creating the least amount of backlash politicially. The Federal Government wins because once again they show they are in charge and everything is fine.
We also see it when other topics come up, where people have questions about more mundane things. The government reponds with, that information is locked up due to "National Security", or it's in the National Archives and won't be relased for "X" number of years. That alone shows they can and DO keep secrets, at least for some amount of time. And when some people are "Supposedly" leaking that information out they are labled as hoaxers, liars or met with head shaking and disbelief, until the information once officially relased backs up their initial exposure. By then the original person who leaked the information is dead and nobody remembers what transpired previously.
We see evidence of this quite often for example during Hurricane Katrina. To those of us outside the affected area believed that the government was on top of it, and people were being taken care of as they should be. Then we find out later that someone fumbled the ball and it was days before proper care and rescue efforts were actually employed. The Federal Government not wanting to admit a mistake started pointing fingers at the State Government, and they pointed their fingers at the City Government, and then everyone turned around and pointed their fingers at who pointed at them first. Eventually it was the head of FEMA Michael Brown that lost his job. Probably due to his loss creating the least amount of backlash politicially. The Federal Government wins because once again they show they are in charge and everything is fine.
We also see it when other topics come up, where people have questions about more mundane things. The government reponds with, that information is locked up due to "National Security", or it's in the National Archives and won't be relased for "X" number of years. That alone shows they can and DO keep secrets, at least for some amount of time. And when some people are "Supposedly" leaking that information out they are labled as hoaxers, liars or met with head shaking and disbelief, until the information once officially relased backs up their initial exposure. By then the original person who leaked the information is dead and nobody remembers what transpired previously.
Sometimes I think that agencies just don't want to deal with the strain on their budgets that would result from an admission of Bigfoot's existence. The Forest Service, BLM, Fish & Wildlife, etc, would have hundreds of Environmental Impact Statements, Endangered Species Assessments, etc, almost certainly without any increase in budget or staffing. Not worth the trouble.
It's true if someone called CNN or MSNBC and said I work for the Govt. and I want to tell you a secret they would perk right up but when he said it's about Bigfoot I think they would lose interest quickly. I am kind of getting away from my point, I guess what I am trying to say is that keeping CIA secrets is eaiser to do with security clearance and all the steps that are taken to insure secrecy(sp?) but keeping a park ranger or BLM or border patrol agent from sneaking a report or photo in order to get a payday is alot harder to control.
FanofSquatch wrote:
Unless, of course, they had a body or body part to back up the story. I think that if the caller didn't sound completely looney tunes, they would ask for pics of body or parts thereof and, if, and only if, they looked fairly convincing, someone from one of the two organizations mentioned would probably be sent out to check it out.
QUOTE
It's true if someone called CNN or MSNBC and said I work for the Govt. and I want to tell you a secret they would perk right up but when he said it's about Bigfoot I think they would lose interest quickly.
Unless, of course, they had a body or body part to back up the story. I think that if the caller didn't sound completely looney tunes, they would ask for pics of body or parts thereof and, if, and only if, they looked fairly convincing, someone from one of the two organizations mentioned would probably be sent out to check it out.
QUOTE(Savage30L @ Oct 18 2006, 05:01 PM)
....Sometimes I think that agencies just don't want to deal with the strain on their budgets that would result from an admission of Bigfoot's existence....
I doubt they were real happy about the snail darter or spotted owl, either. But they were forced to act.
QUOTE
The Forest Service, BLM, Fish & Wildlife, etc, would have hundreds of Environmental Impact Statements, Endangered Species Assessments, etc, almost certainly without any increase in budget or staffing.
No way. If the courts directed them to act, Congress or the Legislature would be forced to fund it or the department would redirect funds to it from elsewhere in the agency's budget.
Just like the snail darter and spotted owl.
QUOTE
Not worth the trouble.
I think it is.
I think people get debriefed and the majority are left feeling threatened about their jobs or pensions. And if the majority isn't talking, the one or two that do, will be looked at as crackpots because no one else is saying those things, let alone other employees backing up their stories.
I'll bet there is a lot of stuff that was seen or documented, just to have somebody's supervisor tell them to not talk about it, while any proof or an actual report was stuck into a file somewhere. And after time, things like that can be easily dismissed, or thrown away.
If 20 illegal aliens are thought to have breached a secured area, that will take precedence over someone seeing some hairy man-like thing running around. Nobody is going to lose their job for not catching a large, 500 lb. undocumented primate crossing the border somewhere.
I'll bet there is a lot of stuff that was seen or documented, just to have somebody's supervisor tell them to not talk about it, while any proof or an actual report was stuck into a file somewhere. And after time, things like that can be easily dismissed, or thrown away.
If 20 illegal aliens are thought to have breached a secured area, that will take precedence over someone seeing some hairy man-like thing running around. Nobody is going to lose their job for not catching a large, 500 lb. undocumented primate crossing the border somewhere.
Neither states, provinces, nor federal governments have any more solid information on bigfoot than what we discuss on this board. There is no smoking gun (and no "Smoking Man") cover-up of bigfoot proof in government. Maybe some NPS employee who saw bigfoot at Yellowstone one day is discouraged from talking about it. That's a far cry from an NPS employee hitting bigfoot with his truck and carting the body back to HQ for all his cronies to see. The government is not sitting on evidence like the latter.
People who work for state and provincial wildlife agencies, the USGS, the FWS, the CWS: Yes they are all government employees, but they do not have "clearance" like people in the armed forces or the CIA. Someone would talk. Loudly. These wildlife folks just don't have the training in keeping their yaps shut the way people involved in national security are trained to do.
Hunster, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the responsibility thing. I know of no legal mandate for state or federal governments to investigate reports of creatures that may exist. IF such creatures exist, there is absolutely no information to reasonably conclude that they are endangered. Therefore, I don't see the connection between the ESA and government mandates to investigate.
So what if a border patrol agent has a sighting and a superior encourages him to keep quiet? That doesn't add anything to bigfootery, IMO. Now if the agent plants a slug in the thing's temple, then we're on to something.
People who work for state and provincial wildlife agencies, the USGS, the FWS, the CWS: Yes they are all government employees, but they do not have "clearance" like people in the armed forces or the CIA. Someone would talk. Loudly. These wildlife folks just don't have the training in keeping their yaps shut the way people involved in national security are trained to do.
Hunster, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the responsibility thing. I know of no legal mandate for state or federal governments to investigate reports of creatures that may exist. IF such creatures exist, there is absolutely no information to reasonably conclude that they are endangered. Therefore, I don't see the connection between the ESA and government mandates to investigate.
So what if a border patrol agent has a sighting and a superior encourages him to keep quiet? That doesn't add anything to bigfootery, IMO. Now if the agent plants a slug in the thing's temple, then we're on to something.
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Oct 19 2006, 08:50 AM)
....Hunster, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the responsibility thing. I know of no legal mandate for state or federal governments to investigate reports of creatures that may exist....
I agree, when it's stated like that.
Do you agree that if they exist, the responsibility for managing them as a species falls with state and federal wildlife agencies?
QUOTE
IF such creatures exist, there is absolutely no information to reasonably conclude that they are endangered.
Correct. However, if they exist, would you agree that they are very rare?
QUOTE
Therefore, I don't see the connection between the ESA and government mandates to investigate.
If, some 50 years from now, it is discovered via a bone discovery that they did, indeed, exist, but recently went extinct, would you still feel this way?
Finally, what you and I opine regarding the matter is meaningless. Frankly, the same is true of the wildlife management agencies themselves.
But if a judicial "opinion" is rendered that those agencies are responsible to discover whether or not such a species indeed exists and might be endangered, they are responsible.
Look at it this way - if they wouldn't believe a plot to crash planes into the Trade Center, or FBI agents who said they knew guys who were taking flying lessons to do that, and they had one of them in custody - then they aren't going to believe a lone park ranger is telling the truth about a Bigfoot sighting.
If they won't admit that there are cougars in the Eastern U.S., when park rangers have seen them for years, then they aren't going to believe Bigfoot Sightings.
That's how our government works. They will say an animal doesn't exist or it is "extinct" - as in the case of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker - and then not look for for 60 years. It's an upside down world.
If they won't admit that there are cougars in the Eastern U.S., when park rangers have seen them for years, then they aren't going to believe Bigfoot Sightings.
That's how our government works. They will say an animal doesn't exist or it is "extinct" - as in the case of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker - and then not look for for 60 years. It's an upside down world.
QUOTE(Huntster @ Oct 19 2006, 09:58 PM)
Do you agree that if they exist, the responsibility for managing them as a species falls with state and federal wildlife agencies?
Correct. However, if they exist, would you agree that they are very rare?
Yes, I agree, but I disagree that ESA would be the reason. Currently, the Feds supply $ to state wildlife agencies to develop "comprehensive conservation strategies." This money goes to states in the form of the "State Wildlife Grant" program. Game management support come primarily from excise taxes and licensing, endangered species money comes from the Federal "legacy" program (if I'm remembering this correctly), and money for non-game species that may need inventory and management (but do not benefit from $ earmarked for T&E species) comes from SWG. Formerly, this support was whatever the states could scrape together from license plates or wildlife tax return gifts. SWG has provided - for the first time - a respectable pot of money to states to do inventory and management for species with the intent that declining species are helped out before they need to be listed. (And before we get too comfortable, there's a lot of rumbling about SWG getting yanked - or at least hacked to bits - thus ending a short period in the history of wildlife research in which biologists actually had a chance to do some proactive work.)
So if tomorrow we learn that these wood-apes are for real and that states (all 49 continental ones?) have a bigfoot mandate, the creatures would be considered "status undertermined" or some such label. They might be "rare" in an absolute numbers sense, but I'm a lot more concerned about the half a million Cerulean Warblers out there than I would be about 2000-10,000 sasquatches. We just don't have a clue about such things. Even if their number is low, there is nothing to suggest that they are declining. We have nothing to suggest that human activities are bothering them in the least. We might surmise that some of them do, but these guys don't even get hit by trucks. Especially in today's political climate, it is ridiculously difficult to get a species listed. So sasquatches would not automatically be considered endangered. Therefore, it'd most likely be SWG money invested in surveying for them in each state. The states would fund the best of the thousands of proposals they'd get to survey for them. (Wishful thinking there!)
If, some 50 years from now, it is discovered via a bone discovery that they did, indeed, exist, but recently went extinct, would you still feel this way?
I think so, 'cause:
1. I see not enough evidence to convince me they exist at all.
2. If they exist, I don't see evidence to convince me that they are rare.
3. If they exist and are rare, I see no evidence to convince me that human acitvities detrimentally affect them.
4. If a bone is found to prove that they had existed, I wouldn't be convinced that they no longer did.
Finally, what you and I opine regarding the matter is meaningless. Frankly, the same is true of the wildlife management agencies themselves.
True, but I'd say yours matter more than mine 'cause you can exert pressure as an "objective taxpayer." The fact that I pay taxes is moot. As a research cooperator with state and federal agencies, any advocacy I might promote would be regarded as conflict of interest. You, however, could write to elected officials and make the case that state and federal wildlife agencies need to at least form a publicly available position statement on matters of sasquatch.
But if a judicial "opinion" is rendered that those agencies are responsible to discover whether or not such a species indeed exists and might be endangered, they are responsible.
Correct. However, if they exist, would you agree that they are very rare?
Yes, I agree, but I disagree that ESA would be the reason. Currently, the Feds supply $ to state wildlife agencies to develop "comprehensive conservation strategies." This money goes to states in the form of the "State Wildlife Grant" program. Game management support come primarily from excise taxes and licensing, endangered species money comes from the Federal "legacy" program (if I'm remembering this correctly), and money for non-game species that may need inventory and management (but do not benefit from $ earmarked for T&E species) comes from SWG. Formerly, this support was whatever the states could scrape together from license plates or wildlife tax return gifts. SWG has provided - for the first time - a respectable pot of money to states to do inventory and management for species with the intent that declining species are helped out before they need to be listed. (And before we get too comfortable, there's a lot of rumbling about SWG getting yanked - or at least hacked to bits - thus ending a short period in the history of wildlife research in which biologists actually had a chance to do some proactive work.)
So if tomorrow we learn that these wood-apes are for real and that states (all 49 continental ones?) have a bigfoot mandate, the creatures would be considered "status undertermined" or some such label. They might be "rare" in an absolute numbers sense, but I'm a lot more concerned about the half a million Cerulean Warblers out there than I would be about 2000-10,000 sasquatches. We just don't have a clue about such things. Even if their number is low, there is nothing to suggest that they are declining. We have nothing to suggest that human activities are bothering them in the least. We might surmise that some of them do, but these guys don't even get hit by trucks. Especially in today's political climate, it is ridiculously difficult to get a species listed. So sasquatches would not automatically be considered endangered. Therefore, it'd most likely be SWG money invested in surveying for them in each state. The states would fund the best of the thousands of proposals they'd get to survey for them. (Wishful thinking there!)
If, some 50 years from now, it is discovered via a bone discovery that they did, indeed, exist, but recently went extinct, would you still feel this way?
I think so, 'cause:
1. I see not enough evidence to convince me they exist at all.
2. If they exist, I don't see evidence to convince me that they are rare.
3. If they exist and are rare, I see no evidence to convince me that human acitvities detrimentally affect them.
4. If a bone is found to prove that they had existed, I wouldn't be convinced that they no longer did.
Finally, what you and I opine regarding the matter is meaningless. Frankly, the same is true of the wildlife management agencies themselves.
True, but I'd say yours matter more than mine 'cause you can exert pressure as an "objective taxpayer." The fact that I pay taxes is moot. As a research cooperator with state and federal agencies, any advocacy I might promote would be regarded as conflict of interest. You, however, could write to elected officials and make the case that state and federal wildlife agencies need to at least form a publicly available position statement on matters of sasquatch.
But if a judicial "opinion" is rendered that those agencies are responsible to discover whether or not such a species indeed exists and might be endangered, they are responsible.
Indeed, but this won't happen until private citizens press the issue.
I probably want to see wildlife agncies engage in this issue as much as you do. The difference lies in the mechanisms we see to get that done, and perhaps that I think that the result of the attention would be a big goose egg.
I don't think it is a "secret code", talk and loose your job, or even a funding issue.... it boils down to more of a psychological, around the water cooler with the co-workers kinda thing. Basically, seeing a BF, once or more than one time is, well, is socially embarassing. BF is lumped into the "I was abducted by anal probing aliens" category of lunacy. Flat out.
In ethnographic terms, in today's society, BF is "taboo". We saw an excellent example on the SCI FI channel the other night.... Vodoo practicioners, well, they get the respect, at least face to face of that bunch of yahoos.... Autumn, Meldrum and Fahrenbach, well, they were not even afforded the curtesy of not being made fun of face to face. If that is ok, and it must be, because they showed it on television, how bad for the average person with no status in relation to BF knowledge?????? How bad for an enforcement officer who is held to a higher standard than the average person whom they are supposed to police?? Pretty bad, many of us know, social forces, such as humor, being made the butt of jokes, belittling, all of these put the focus on the individual who has the experience, not the organization. Not saying that the organization does not benefit from it, but it ( the organization ) does not cause it.
Keeping your job these days is hard enough with out making yourself a laughing stock, hence the "out of channel" reports. My thought is that many of these individuals feel that what they release outside of channels is important, or they would never reveal it at all. Also, outside channels, "unofficial" communication is almost always via a "nameless" way.... it can protect the hoaxer and outright liar, but we should also not ignore the value of it in protecting a genuine witness, who does take a chunk of time out of their life to let it be known.
SK
In ethnographic terms, in today's society, BF is "taboo". We saw an excellent example on the SCI FI channel the other night.... Vodoo practicioners, well, they get the respect, at least face to face of that bunch of yahoos.... Autumn, Meldrum and Fahrenbach, well, they were not even afforded the curtesy of not being made fun of face to face. If that is ok, and it must be, because they showed it on television, how bad for the average person with no status in relation to BF knowledge?????? How bad for an enforcement officer who is held to a higher standard than the average person whom they are supposed to police?? Pretty bad, many of us know, social forces, such as humor, being made the butt of jokes, belittling, all of these put the focus on the individual who has the experience, not the organization. Not saying that the organization does not benefit from it, but it ( the organization ) does not cause it.
Keeping your job these days is hard enough with out making yourself a laughing stock, hence the "out of channel" reports. My thought is that many of these individuals feel that what they release outside of channels is important, or they would never reveal it at all. Also, outside channels, "unofficial" communication is almost always via a "nameless" way.... it can protect the hoaxer and outright liar, but we should also not ignore the value of it in protecting a genuine witness, who does take a chunk of time out of their life to let it be known.
SK
what did the "spotted-owl" do to the forest companies??? now what would the exestince of an unknown primate do??? to easy........... 
Sometimes I wonder if there's a general policy to deny credibility to non-mainstream or "fringe" information sources, news and research interests. Considering all the wide variety of phenomena and happenings that are of interest to fringe enthusiasts, it seems to be bucking the law of averages that at least one "fringe" phenomena, conspiracy theory or event hasn't had incontrivertible evidence found for it. Therefore to admit knowledge or evidence for anything at all from fringe interests adds a degree of credibility to the field in general. "They" might be afraid to "open the door" considering that many fringe topics have the potential of exposing some very embarrassing skeletons in some very dark and wll hidden closets. Thus secrecy on any topic which maintains "plausible deniability" is an ingrained habit in government circles.
As this pertains to bigfoot... I figure "they" probably really didn't know anything much prior to the 60s boom in interest and the release of the P-G film. Otherwise, there probably wasn't much reason then to sit on what they knew, would have been a good time for disclosure. However, as the topic lost mainstream focus with lack of other evidence at the time and went more to the fringe, the "risks" of disclosure mounted. It was probably not until the mid-late 70s that any government body had any evidence worth hiding. It would have been around that time that night vision, electronic perimeter control equipment etc, would have become widespread in general military useage on training and exercises. It was extensively developed for use in Vietnam, but probably wasn't widely deployed among units in the US until the dust was settling there. Aerial surveillance techniques utilising thermal imaging cameras etc reached maturity in the same war and probably became widespread around the same time. Then there would be the plausible "national security" reason until the mid 80s or so, of not admitting such capability to detect a "man", due to the cold war. So any encounters, filming, captures, using the new technology would have been classified for that reason if no other. Now in the present day, it's either the cult of secrecy itself which stops anyone coming clean, or the fact that they worry that admitting to one lie in the past, brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.
... or something
Flashman
As this pertains to bigfoot... I figure "they" probably really didn't know anything much prior to the 60s boom in interest and the release of the P-G film. Otherwise, there probably wasn't much reason then to sit on what they knew, would have been a good time for disclosure. However, as the topic lost mainstream focus with lack of other evidence at the time and went more to the fringe, the "risks" of disclosure mounted. It was probably not until the mid-late 70s that any government body had any evidence worth hiding. It would have been around that time that night vision, electronic perimeter control equipment etc, would have become widespread in general military useage on training and exercises. It was extensively developed for use in Vietnam, but probably wasn't widely deployed among units in the US until the dust was settling there. Aerial surveillance techniques utilising thermal imaging cameras etc reached maturity in the same war and probably became widespread around the same time. Then there would be the plausible "national security" reason until the mid 80s or so, of not admitting such capability to detect a "man", due to the cold war. So any encounters, filming, captures, using the new technology would have been classified for that reason if no other. Now in the present day, it's either the cult of secrecy itself which stops anyone coming clean, or the fact that they worry that admitting to one lie in the past, brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.
... or something
Flashman
QUOTE(Flashman @ Oct 29 2006, 12:10 PM)
Sometimes I wonder if ... to admit knowledge or evidence for anything at all from fringe interests adds a degree of credibility to the field in general. "They" might be afraid to "open the door" ... Thus secrecy on any topic which maintains "plausible deniability" is an ingrained habit in government circles.
As this pertains to bigfoot ... It was probably not until the mid-late 70s that any government body had any evidence worth hiding. It would have been around that time that night vision, electronic perimeter control equipment etc, would have become widespread ... Then there would be the plausible "national security" reason until the mid 80s or so, of not admitting such capability to detect a "man" ... Now in the present day, it's either the cult of secrecy itself which stops anyone coming clean, or the fact that they worry that admitting to one lie in the past, brings the whole house of cards tumbling down. ... or something
As this pertains to bigfoot ... It was probably not until the mid-late 70s that any government body had any evidence worth hiding. It would have been around that time that night vision, electronic perimeter control equipment etc, would have become widespread ... Then there would be the plausible "national security" reason until the mid 80s or so, of not admitting such capability to detect a "man" ... Now in the present day, it's either the cult of secrecy itself which stops anyone coming clean, or the fact that they worry that admitting to one lie in the past, brings the whole house of cards tumbling down. ... or something
Plus, as Thom Powell said in The Locals, pp. 235-36, an ingrained condescending paternalism by insiders, plus the worry of seeming non-omniscient by admitting knowledge of something one can't explain, plus the joy of knowing the inside dope and keeping it to oneself.
Now in the present day, it's either the cult of secrecy itself which stops anyone coming clean, or the fact that they worry that admitting to one lie in the past, brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.
... or something
Flashman
********
I wonder how many have gotten the reply from someone that might know something about these creatures, like higher ups in the wildlife/fish and game department that goes like this...
"I have no knowledge of any such creature"
Sounds like a standard rehearsed statement of denile.
Gotta go..strange black car just drove up..
Mike (watch1)
... or something
Flashman
********
I wonder how many have gotten the reply from someone that might know something about these creatures, like higher ups in the wildlife/fish and game department that goes like this...
"I have no knowledge of any such creature"
Sounds like a standard rehearsed statement of denile.
Gotta go..strange black car just drove up..
Mike (watch1)
Hi,
I'm fairly new to bigfooting but have read a couple of books on it recently and have looked up a lot of stuff on the web. This is my first posting. Already I have come across two reports which, if true, show that the government not only knows BF exists but has bodies and possibly a captured live one. These were the report of a crashed saucer with several 'wookies' in it, and a BF severely burned in a forest fire and taken to hospital. In the latter case the firefighters etc were told in no uncertain terms not to say anything about it or they would lose their jobs and pensions. There have been similar reports from other UFO incidents, such as at Roswell when local residents were told they would end up being found dead in the desert if they said anything. When push comes to shove the government shows its true colours - those of the stormtrooper. The reason for the UFO cover-up is fairly obvious, in terms of technology and avoiding panic. The BF cover-up is also about not wanting to scare people, but as others here suggest it is partly about money, and the effect on tourism and forestry. Who's going to want to go camping any more if the government admits there are highly dangerous giant apes at large in the countryside, with apparently paranormal abilities? That isolated dream home in the country might also be somewhat less attractive when it becomes common knowledge that BFs often snoop around such places looking for food, and that there are (a few) known instances of abductions and killings by them. The paranormal aspects may also freak the government in terms of not wanting to admit that we may not in some respects be the most advanced species on the planet, that a bunch of apes can do stuff it cannot explain, and the possible religious ramifications.
I'm fairly new to bigfooting but have read a couple of books on it recently and have looked up a lot of stuff on the web. This is my first posting. Already I have come across two reports which, if true, show that the government not only knows BF exists but has bodies and possibly a captured live one. These were the report of a crashed saucer with several 'wookies' in it, and a BF severely burned in a forest fire and taken to hospital. In the latter case the firefighters etc were told in no uncertain terms not to say anything about it or they would lose their jobs and pensions. There have been similar reports from other UFO incidents, such as at Roswell when local residents were told they would end up being found dead in the desert if they said anything. When push comes to shove the government shows its true colours - those of the stormtrooper. The reason for the UFO cover-up is fairly obvious, in terms of technology and avoiding panic. The BF cover-up is also about not wanting to scare people, but as others here suggest it is partly about money, and the effect on tourism and forestry. Who's going to want to go camping any more if the government admits there are highly dangerous giant apes at large in the countryside, with apparently paranormal abilities? That isolated dream home in the country might also be somewhat less attractive when it becomes common knowledge that BFs often snoop around such places looking for food, and that there are (a few) known instances of abductions and killings by them. The paranormal aspects may also freak the government in terms of not wanting to admit that we may not in some respects be the most advanced species on the planet, that a bunch of apes can do stuff it cannot explain, and the possible religious ramifications.
hey everyone like said before our goverment probley does keep track of sasquatch related activity in our forests but they probley dont definetly see sasquatch as a threat to national security im sure forest rangers keep track of sasquatch activity etc reported on a off the record basis as well depending the states in usa or canada. great new sasquatch thread indeed. good morning bill green keep me & everyone here posted ok. p.s. our goverment knows about sasquatch but they probley look into differantly than we do. opinions
QUOTE(billgreen2005bigfoot @ Sep 30 2007, 07:05 AM)
hey everyone like said before our goverment probley does keep track of sasquatch related activity in our forests but they probley dont definetly see sasquatch as a threat to national security im sure forest rangers keep track of sasquatch activity etc reported on a off the record basis as well depending the states in usa or canada. great new sasquatch thread indeed. good morning bill green keep me & everyone here posted ok. p.s. our goverment knows about sasquatch but they probley look into differantly than we do. opinions
I wouldn't argue with any of that Bill & think you're about right there with all of it my Friend...
& just to touch on the last part about the US Goverment looking at it differently we that we do, i've got 3 words for you " Endangered Species " & " Logging " ..
It was quite difficult to understand Bill Green's ungrammatical response to my posting, but if, as I think it was, a sarcastic put-down I think that is a rather sad reflection on you Mr Green. I do not claim to know more than you do about Bigfoot but I DID raise a couple of points that had not appeared in the previous postings on this subject, and that should not have warranted derogatory remarks.
Can someone translate what BillG said for me?
Uni, if I may call you that, I only know billgreen by his postings here, but the thought that he might be making a derogatory remark directed at you is pretty hard for me to entertain. I've not seen him say anything bad about anyone yet, nor do I think he's started now.
Addressing some points you mentioned earlier:
Were these stories independently confirmed or are they anecdotal?
What evidence do you have that the government has engaged in these cover-ups?
I'd prefer to deal with science fact before delving into science fiction. I've yet to see a paranormalist fully explain these magical powers that bigfoot is supposedly endowed with.
Looked like English to me, but here's the Reader's Digest condensed version:
In Bill's opinion, the goverment probably keeps track of sasquatch related activity, but they don't see sasquatch as a threat to national security, and forest rangers keep track of sasquatch activity, but off the record.
RayG
Addressing some points you mentioned earlier:
QUOTE(Unicorn)
Already I have come across two reports which, if true, show that the government not only knows BF exists but has bodies and possibly a captured live one. These were the report of a crashed saucer with several 'wookies' in it, and a BF severely burned in a forest fire and taken to hospital. In the latter case the firefighters etc were told in no uncertain terms not to say anything about it or they would lose their jobs and pensions.
Were these stories independently confirmed or are they anecdotal?
QUOTE(Unicorn)
The reason for the UFO cover-up is fairly obvious, in terms of technology and avoiding panic. I thought The BF cover-up...
What evidence do you have that the government has engaged in these cover-ups?
QUOTE(Unicorn)
The paranormal aspects may also freak the government in terms of not wanting to admit that we may not in some respects be the most advanced species on the planet, that a bunch of apes can do stuff it cannot explain, and the possible religious ramifications.
I'd prefer to deal with science fact before delving into science fiction. I've yet to see a paranormalist fully explain these magical powers that bigfoot is supposedly endowed with.
QUOTE(BlueGenes)
Can someone translate what BillG said for me?
Looked like English to me, but here's the Reader's Digest condensed version:
In Bill's opinion, the goverment probably keeps track of sasquatch related activity, but they don't see sasquatch as a threat to national security, and forest rangers keep track of sasquatch activity, but off the record.
RayG
Unicorn,
First and formost, Bill does not have a mean bone in his body! Maybe you should look up some of his many past posts. You will soon understand.
Secondly, he did indeed cover what you speak of... is govt hiding the existence of bigfoot, and if so why. Bill has always held the view that govt knows they exist, but will not do anything about it because it doesn't threaten our national security. Correct me if I'm wrong Bill.
As for the rest of your post, Unicorn, may I offer a bit of advice. This forum is primary made up of people who believe if bigfoot exists, he's the flesh and blood variety, nothing paranormal about it. Although you are certainly welcome to your own opinion and beliefs, let it be known it may not be accepted by most.
With that, I welcome you to the forum. Here's a thread you should check out, if you haven't already: BFF Posting Guidelines and Policies
First and formost, Bill does not have a mean bone in his body! Maybe you should look up some of his many past posts. You will soon understand.
Secondly, he did indeed cover what you speak of... is govt hiding the existence of bigfoot, and if so why. Bill has always held the view that govt knows they exist, but will not do anything about it because it doesn't threaten our national security. Correct me if I'm wrong Bill.
As for the rest of your post, Unicorn, may I offer a bit of advice. This forum is primary made up of people who believe if bigfoot exists, he's the flesh and blood variety, nothing paranormal about it. Although you are certainly welcome to your own opinion and beliefs, let it be known it may not be accepted by most.
With that, I welcome you to the forum. Here's a thread you should check out, if you haven't already: BFF Posting Guidelines and Policies
You know, I'm a fed and they won't even acknowledge that I exist, so why would they do that for bigfoot??? 
I am intrigued by the concept that border patrol might be encountering bigfoot as it crosses the border...but I have to ask (unless I'm not correct on the terrain as I think), is that environment a bit harsh for an 8 foot primate? Humans crossing the border have it hard without carrying water due to the lack of natural sources...so would that make sense that a bigfoot would occupy that area?
Also, I concur with oregonfooter about Bill Green. There isn't a sweeter man on the board!
I am intrigued by the concept that border patrol might be encountering bigfoot as it crosses the border...but I have to ask (unless I'm not correct on the terrain as I think), is that environment a bit harsh for an 8 foot primate? Humans crossing the border have it hard without carrying water due to the lack of natural sources...so would that make sense that a bigfoot would occupy that area?
Also, I concur with oregonfooter about Bill Green. There isn't a sweeter man on the board!
QUOTE(Bobby Orangeboom @ Sep 30 2007, 02:49 PM)
I wouldn't argue with any of that Bill & think you're about right there with all of it my Friend...
& just to touch on the last part about the US Goverment looking at it differently we that we do, i've got 3 words for you " Endangered Species " & " Logging " ..
& just to touch on the last part about the US Goverment looking at it differently we that we do, i've got 3 words for you " Endangered Species " & " Logging " ..
hey bobby good afternoon most definetly indeedy. thanks for great return new above informative reply to me. i totaly agree. bill
QUOTE(oregonfooter @ Sep 30 2007, 06:00 PM)
Unicorn,
First and formost, Bill does not have a mean bone in his body! Maybe you should look up some of his many past posts. You will soon understand.
Secondly, he did indeed cover what you speak of... is govt hiding the existence of bigfoot, and if so why. Bill has always held the view that govt knows they exist, but will not do anything about it because it doesn't threaten our national security. Correct me if I'm wrong Bill.
As for the rest of your post, Unicorn, may I offer a bit of advice. This forum is primary made up of people who believe if bigfoot exists, he's the flesh and blood variety, nothing paranormal about it. Although you are certainly welcome to your own opinion and beliefs, let it be known it may not be accepted by most.
With that, I welcome you to the forum. Here's a thread you should check out, if you haven't already: BFF Posting Guidelines and Policies
First and formost, Bill does not have a mean bone in his body! Maybe you should look up some of his many past posts. You will soon understand.
Secondly, he did indeed cover what you speak of... is govt hiding the existence of bigfoot, and if so why. Bill has always held the view that govt knows they exist, but will not do anything about it because it doesn't threaten our national security. Correct me if I'm wrong Bill.
As for the rest of your post, Unicorn, may I offer a bit of advice. This forum is primary made up of people who believe if bigfoot exists, he's the flesh and blood variety, nothing paranormal about it. Although you are certainly welcome to your own opinion and beliefs, let it be known it may not be accepted by most.
With that, I welcome you to the forum. Here's a thread you should check out, if you haven't already: BFF Posting Guidelines and Policies
hey oregonfooter aww your very welcome for wonderful above reply to me indeed your right. good afternoon bill
While the X-Files was an entertaining tv show, such a conspriracy is unlikely to exist concerning a BF coverup. What posible motivation would the feds have for doing such a thing? The best I can hypothetically come up is the timber vs endangered species issue. But even that makes little sense when the total lack of BF evidence is taken into account. In the end, I don't think the feds are very worried about something they don't think exists (and likely doesn't).
hey blue wow very interesting great conterversal above reply indeed regarding this certain situation which i do agree with you. good evening bill green 
Thank you Bill.....your thoughts are much appreciated.
QUOTE(BlueGenes @ Sep 30 2007, 11:50 PM)
Thank you Bill.....your thoughts are much appreciated.
hey blue your very welcome for return great reply to me. i realy the comments in this thread so far very informative indeed
good evening bill green
Hey, it loooked like Bill was taking a pot-shot at me for being a rookie, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Regarding RayG's questions, the two incidents I mentioned are in Thom Powell's book The Locals, pages 203-204 and 219-228. He also cites incidents of phone-tapping and disappearance of items. The fire story was apparently on this forum in 1999. Neither of the two stories seem to have any supporting evidence, as with a lot of Bigfoot reports. It's the same with the UFO cover-up - there's no incontovertible evidence, just people's testimonies and suspicious incidents such as the government changing the Roswell story several times. First it was a saucer, then a weather balloon, then 50 years later it was full of crash-test dummies. In the absence of proof you have to ask yourself whether these things ring true, and look at the overall weight of testimony. Whilst I believe Bigfoot is a flesh-and-blood animal, in my limited reading of the subject the alleged paranormal abilites come up again and again. I find it easier than most people to accept such abilities are possible as I have personally experienced telepathy, psychic healing and clairvoyance.
QUOTE(Unicorn @ Oct 1 2007, 09:51 AM)
Hey, it loooked like Bill was taking a pot-shot at me for being a rookie, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Don't think I've seen Bill take a pot-shot at anyone. I think it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the forum and who posts and how before jumping the gun.
QUOTE(BlueGenes @ Sep 30 2007, 01:17 PM)
While the X-Files was an entertaining tv show, such a conspriracy is unlikely to exist concerning a BF coverup. What posible motivation would the feds have for doing such a thing? The best I can hypothetically come up is the timber vs endangered species issue. But even that makes little sense when the total lack of BF evidence is taken into account. In the end, I don't think the feds are very worried about something they don't think exists (and likely doesn't).
Timber ... or ranching, or the energy industry, especially natural gas and oil exploration. Someone mentioned the spotted owl above, excellent point. What about the marbled murrelet? No small stir there either. I've seen what protection for Preble's meadow jumping mouse has done here in Wyoming; ranchers have deliberately allowed riparian habitat to deteriorate to prevent their land from being designated as critical habitat. The current delay with delisting the gray wolf, created by the state of Wyoming's original wolf management plan, is in large part due to a solid backing of the state government by ranchers and outfitters. Money talks. I doubt a government conspiracy, personally. If a governmental agency has evidence I suspect it is no better than that possessed by private institutions. I would not be surprised that more conclusive evidence is possessed by or has been destroyed at the individual or corporate level. Strong emotions can and do dominate people in the face of serious financial loss.
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Sep 30 2007, 12:24 PM)
You know, I'm a fed and they won't even acknowledge that I exist, so why would they do that for bigfoot???
I am intrigued by the concept that border patrol might be encountering bigfoot as it crosses the border...but I have to ask (unless I'm not correct on the terrain as I think), is that environment a bit harsh for an 8 foot primate? Humans crossing the border have it hard without carrying water due to the lack of natural sources...so would that make sense that a bigfoot would occupy that area?
Also, I concur with oregonfooter about Bill Green. There isn't a sweeter man on the board!
I am intrigued by the concept that border patrol might be encountering bigfoot as it crosses the border...but I have to ask (unless I'm not correct on the terrain as I think), is that environment a bit harsh for an 8 foot primate? Humans crossing the border have it hard without carrying water due to the lack of natural sources...so would that make sense that a bigfoot would occupy that area?
Also, I concur with oregonfooter about Bill Green. There isn't a sweeter man on the board!
I agree HM.....when I see this subject brought up(and it is every now and again, Gov't cover ups and all), I start wondering why the goverment would acknowledge a bigfoot's existence or even care if one existed? I know, I know...all the stuff about protecting the forest and stopping logging, but do you think think they would put a stop to all logging? It all boils down to the money. In the light of the almight dollar....Sasquatch wouldn't have a chance...that is, unless Uncle Sam feels like he could get some back taxes for all those "Messin' with Sasquatch commercials". Then I'd bet you'd see some funding kick in for research.
I umpteenth the comments about Bill Green. He's tops in my book!!
hey mike & researchers thanks for the nice above replys about me & the goverment knowing about sasquatch i hope see more opinions comeing indeedy. good evening bill green please keep me posted. oh by the way any new possible sightings of sasquatch near goverment bases lately in usa or canada forests.
please keep me posted. oh by the way any new possible sightings of sasquatch near goverment bases lately in usa or canada forests.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.