If you had bothered to look at the word "distribution" in my post, you'd know that I was referencing where bigfoots allegedly are, not how many there allegedly are.


Sure, but most of that secured information is never accessible to those people until they get their clearance in the first place. A guy in his deer stand could pop a bigfoot this weekend and the whole cover-up would be for nought. That same guy is not going to be picking up Al Qaeda "chatter" while sitting in his deer stand. So it's not only the hundreds (at least) of people who would have to have "squatch clearance" to keep the secret, it's all the regular Joes out there who could so easily stumble upon that highly sensitive information while going about their daily business - they'd need to be dealt with to keep the thing under wraps.


I don't doubt that the professionals do this every day - even despite a few high level examples to the contrary. It's the amateur involvement that provides the weakest link.


Elvis has re-entered the building.

This is why these discussions are vicious circles. Statements are made that aren't supported with facts but only prejudice.

Automobiles, airplanes, refrigeration, all were products of the scientific procedure, they didn't just materialize over night. People were fascinated with them, saw the potential, educated themselves on what had been done before, experimented repeatedly to get better results, and evolutionized it in some way. That's science, and that's how you have the pampered lifestyle you have today.

Automobile:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/auto.html

Flight:
http://inventors.about.com/library/invento...earlyflight.htm
http://inventors.about.com/library/invento...arlyflight2.htm
http://inventors.about.com/library/invento...ht_brothers.htm


Refrigeration:
http://www.wisegeek.com/who-invented-the-refrigerator.htm


The comments on science ignoring evidence for sasquatch are also untrue. Krantz was explicit that though he did find resistance, he also found those willing to look at the evidence. In my own experience, I was surprised to find either those who were willing to look at it, or refused to based on that they had before and been burned by the shoddy evidence that this subject produces.

The issue for me about a hunter who shoots one is this. If a hunter bags a BF, he can't tell you what it is, only science can, so he will need the authorities to verify what it is. When they get involved the body is going to a lab and he no longer has control of the evidence. He can tell you he shot one, but that means nothing without the body. He may have blood and tissue but without a picture of the critter it came from, the tissue could be anything unless science says different. In the end, if he didn't take pictures and the authorities didn't take them and any remaining tissue. He may be stuck with an unpublished lab result that simply says "unknown primate", or worse, just a story to tell.

This leaves me with the question, "Would the authorities go public with such an extraordinary creature?" Could we really handle the truth that there is big hairy wildmen running around out there?

I get mulder's point though, it took the Wright brothers to convince many "scientists" that heavier than air flight was possible (gawd knows how they thought birds did it) in fact it took several years of repeated demonstrations from the Wright Bros. They attacked the problem scientifically, but it wouldn't really have mattered if they got the plans in a dream for all the kudos it gained them with the "experts" who hadn't seen it for themselves yet.

Seriously though, I would not be at all surprised if the US or Canadian military establishment had secrets that involved Sasquatch, but it's either out of habit, or more likely because revealing how they detected/observed/recorded it would let rather too many cats out of the bag about their sensor or other technology.

What would they go public with if they didn't have the whole thing and it in fact did come back as "unknown primate". If a lab or any government agency gets "evidence" that they can't compare to a known animal and they don't call it a bigfoot will any of the believers be happy? Say they get a piece of tissue, run a DNA analysis and it's unknown or doesn't come back as anything, is that proof of a conspiracy? Can't the government get a sample and not know what it is without calling it something specific? I've said this in the past and believe it, that the things that aren't explained as something else aren't proof of an unknown primate.

"Collection:

Tissue: The fresher the better. Muscle tissue is best. Organs such as the heart and liver are good if fresh. Collect about a dime sized piece and place in a sealable plastic bag. Do not store tissue samples in paper bags. The more degraded the tissue is the more you want to collect--up to a golf ball size piece."

Based on the above, even if you don't know what it is, a lab doesn't need the whole thing to do testing. That's not to say if you have a biped like body that you shouldn't be calling someone, but to do testing to determine what it is (if that can be determined) a lab doesn't need the whole body.

This thread is going just about like I thought it would. I foresee it being closed in the not too distant future.

But in 2009, can you really imagine that somebody would bag a bigfoot and that the body would be confiscated before the hunter and all his buddies would take a gajillion photos? I say there's an awesome YouTube video that goes viral before the county game warden ever gets wind of the event. These days, hunters carry their own cameras, people's phones have cameras, convenience store parking lots are video monitored . . . the photos would be taken to document the event - it wouldn't be contained.

Reading this entire thread, I cannot find suitable enough reasons for the government (that supposedly knows for sure BF's are real) to NEED to suppress it. It would take too much work and would be doomed to fail.

The multitude of people needed to contain this secret is mind boggling. And to imagine that leaks wouldn't spring is too far-fetched.

Maybe so, but then all the vids and photo's on Youtube are hoaxes right? Especially without a published examination from some qualified scientist.

All the ones on there NOW are hoaxes, but consider non-jumpy, non-grainy, close-up footage of the quality in, for example, our "Hunter's Pics" thread. Such imagery would be darned near impossible to fake and 100% impossible to ignore.

For example, I'm talking photos as clear as this: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=502825

(edited to add link to hunting photos)

Yet when you put them together they become a "body" and "bodies" develop orthodoxies. I've cited numerous examples of said orthodoxies in science that were totally DISproven. Science (as a body) didn't know as much as it thought it knew. This DISproving the "impartiality" of "science".

Doesn't matter...widespread distribution of sightings STILL does not prove a large number of BF. The total number of sightings reported in any one year is very small, and you have to take away the number of "back in X, I saw..." reports that are not contemporary.



And a UFO could land in Central Park at high noon and the aliens call a press conference too, rendering gov't secrecy moot. What's that got to do with it?



And they are delt with, by being told "it's a bear/hoax/et al" or by being outright ridiculed. A truth that no one believes when told is still a secret.



Again which proves what?

let's not take flight for granted, yes they had to demonstrate that it could be done, but that is one of the points of science. Same here. A person can make all of the claims that they want that the government is hiding evidence of sasquatch, but without evidence of that those claims are baseless.



No, you didn't, you gave your own opinion.

You mean like the pronouncements of "science" about BF?



And all had their share of debunking by "science".




That Kranz or you could find a few open-minded individual scientists does not disprove the CLOSE-mindedness of science as a body.



It doesn't take a multitude...it just takes a few people in the right place with the right authority.

And what would that be?



How so? Show facts, Mulder.



Actually it does.



Mulder, provide evidence of a government conspiracy to hide the existence of sasquatch. Not your theories, not telling people what they should believe, but evidence.

I'm responding to the original post before reading the entire thread because I believe I have a fairly original take on this.

I live in Minnesota. In 1993, I read a front page article in the Sunday Minneapolis Star Tribune which talked about the established breeding population of cougars in NE Minnesota.They claimed there were separate groups in the Remer area, the Grand Rapids area, and the Taylor's Falls area. They quoted DNR biologists who CONFIRMED this and talked about how it would impact people living in the area.

Now, people started seeing them closer and closer to established human areas. In 2003 10 years later, we all had to go get out kids from school in Hill City, MN because a cougar was seen prowling the area. The official response from the DNR was "it must be someone's pet got loose." Hill City is 1/2 way between Grand Rapids and Remer.

This comes up again and again and alway it's a "loose pet" or a "young male moving this way from South Dakota." They NEVER acknowledge what THEY THEMSELVES confirmed back in 1993- that cougars are ESTABLISHED in our area and have been for more than a decade, if not longer.

As a wildlife biologist that works for a similar agency, how do you resolve this? Can you see why your industry loses credibility?

They way I look at it is that the DNR of Minnesota thinks they know better than the people who pay their checks how to deal with wildlife information. It's alright that they lie to the public because they understand things in a way that the common man could never relate to.

Don't get me started on wolves.

Tim B.

I think that no matter how good all the photos are, the absence of a proper examination of a body that you had soooo much time to photograph would be a huge red flag flying in the eyes of true skeptics. You know that the question of proper examination will come up. I'd take some close clear photos but would place more importance with tissue samples and multiple private labs getting the dna, Then watch for the black helicopters for months after that.

You have but I have neither the energy nor the inclination to.

I and others have repeatedly. Read your history of science.



And how am I supposed to "prove" a successful conspiracy? By definition keeping a secret requires that it not be known/proven?

I can, as TimB has done, show that there is PRECEDENT for Wildlife agencies to engage in conspiracy when it suits their aims.

No, don't get started on wolves please.

No, you haven't, you've just talked about your own opinion.



So really you have no evidence of a government cover-up of sasquatch evidence, bottom line.

*crickets*

See, that means no BF's around here

BF find crickets a delicacy, and the more gourmet squatches have taken to first rolling the insects in a salt lick or predator urine for improved flavor.

::now where's that rimshot icon?::

That's true.

I still don't know who Mulder is referring to when he says, "Science", though.

Sorry for the derail.

Back to the crickets.

Yes, Canada, specifically Ontario.

t.

I think the point that Mulder is taking to hyperbole is that there's a segment of acadamia that considers themselves teh shepards of "common man" and have no problem withholding information if it gets in the way of the agenda. How else do you explain Al Gore's light bill? There's no evidence that there's a bigfoot conspiracy, but the tendency is there. It's fact.

Tim B.

What is a fact? The former Vice-President ironically having an expensive electric bill after conveying the information behind global warming is a far cry from science or the government hiding the existence of sasquatch. Next it will be Dan Quail's spelling potato with an "e" at the end that will be indicative of a conspiracy.

Nope, actually it was his quote, "A mind is a terrible thing to lose" that was the conspiracy element.

No wolfie- it's a sign of the elitism of our "betters". Al preaches of our need to moderate our ways before we kill mother earth then lights up his mansion with 30,000 incandescent bulbs. But he pays someone in a third world for their carbon footprints so it all works out. Truth is not on the agenda in Washington or anywhere else governmental- it's about controlling the masses.

Tim B.

I'm still not seeing the connection. You're talking about one person and generalizing it on to a group of people and attaching a conspiracy while ignoring how obviously Gore's behavior is not a secret.

Gore didn't start the presentation of evidence for global warming, scientists have been talking about it for some time. Even more ironic is that Gore kept pushing Clinton to drill in the Arctic Refuge for oil right before the election, which lost him a ton of votes from the environmental and conservationist side. No secret conspiracy there, very public, and not very smart, and the masses sure didn't fall for it.

This same guy was the partner and support for his wife who ran the PMRC during the 80's against rock music, and while attempts were made against Ozzy Ozbourne, AC/DC, Dead Kennedys, and others, for the most part their efforts were laughable and transparent and "The masses" backlash made these artists even more famous.

So this example, of this one man, actually goes against a successful conspiracy of keeping evidence for sasquatch secret. His actions have always been public, they backfired tremendously with public opinion, and people move on and so does he. You're confusing politics with policy.

No- again- it was a specific point to show an example- government bodies set policies that they don't follow themselves because they know better than us. That's it. that's all. Just one example.

Tim B.

You didn't show a government body, you talked about one individual.

Okay- he's the figure head for the global warming cult in the US. He's instrumental in the development of global warming policies that the US is considering putting in place. He does not intend to follow these policies himself.

I"m sensing you are a last-word guy, so have at it.

Tim B.

"Cult", ok, so obviously you do not agree with Gore's concerns for global warming, and that is really what is going on here.

But let's just say that Gore really had the pull you claim he does, and he wants to control people with his agenda of reducing carbon emissions by using the fear of global warming, which environmentalists have been talking about for years. This conspiracy contradicts the conspiracy to keep the existence of sasquatch secret. The main thrust of the secret sasquatch conspiracy is that if it was discovered environmentalists would have all of the forests locked up from industrial use.

So Gore's conspiracy would demand that this secret evidence of sasquatch's existence be revealed, to protect the forests which would aid in cleaning the air and would be a huge credit for him to use to burn even more electricity in his mansion.

I'm sensing that you are a conspiracy buff kind of guy, so have fun with that one.

They also have better health insurance than most of us!