I'm sorry Mulder but that's all I got. I have a hard time taking conspiracists seriously and I've learned over the years there's no sense in arguing seriously with one.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, well said Saskeptic.

I think some people have a hard time accepting that some things are just that simple.

Ty, I agree with you. I was listening for a few moments the other night on Coast to Coast to a government consprialtist? It started with they're watching you and continued to the send you
to jury duty, threatening to kill your family and interrupt your personal calls. Does anyone know someone who this has happened to? Their crime was SEEing a UFO or Bigfoot.

Argumentum ad hominem. Use of a "stopper" word to cast aspersions on my statement rather than attempt a rebuttal of same.



And some people refuse to see the facts in front of them in favor of their preferred ignorance.

There are dozens of Government conspiracy threads. I've haven't read a good reason for covering up the existence of BF yet. It's all argumentum ad ignorantiam ooo fancy fancy. Negative evidence. If the G had a BF, they would come out and say "Look.... we have a BF and you don't, come spend your tourist dollars in our country". All of the critical thinking and philosophy reference guides combined will not convince me that an apple is an orange.

There have been any number of good reasons posited for keeping BF information secret (or at least reasons that are good for the secret keepers). The most potent being (as in so many other areas) economic. The confirmation of an extremely rare creature of unknown habitat requirements could be leveraged by environmental groups to bring virtually ALL human interaction with the wilds to a complete halt. Millions upon millions of square acres of land that could be of value to timberers, miners, or even campers, hikers, and sportsmen locked away to "preserve habitat" for the species.

. . . And for the umpteenth time I counter with the challenge that, according to all those alleged bigfoot encounters, these creatures are going about their business every day in landscapes that support forestry, mining, camping, hiking, and hunting. This is quite different than species like Northern Spotted Owls or Marbled Murrelets whose distributions are very much affected by logging of western forests. Anyone who knows anything about the bigfoot phenomenon realizes that there is no support for the contention that these creatures are restricted to wilderness areas.

A government conspiracy to cover up bigfoot evidence falls on two fronts: very difficult to keep it quiet ('cause the dang things occur all over North America - and in non-North American countries all over the world, btw) and no reason to do so in the first place (cause the dang things occur all over North America). An "alien spacecraft" government conspiracy*, in contrast, makes enormously more sense - (1) the data come from a single point location so it's a lot easier to control information in and out of the site and (2) there's a far more legitimate case to be made that the information affects national security interests.

*For illustrative purposes only. These comments do not in any way imply that the Saskeptic believes that any kind of extraterrestrial spacecraft has ever visited our solar system.

Exactly what I'd expect a government covering up to counter with Saskeptic. Interesting that you can't just admit the cover up, but I guess you'd be out of a job! I'm just kidding!!! I don't understand the cover up conspiracy theories, but then again I'm not working for the government

Yeah I know, you can't gain any traction with the conspiracists. But it would be so refreshing to have someone, just once, make a defensible case for there being a reason for there to be a government coverup in the first place. Motive and means - neither have been demonstrated.

Uh...duh...for future development of Super Warriors. So obvious.

To allow the sasquatch to steal our women and the aliens to loot our ova and sperm to create these Super Warriors?

If you say no, you are in denial. Argumentum ad ignoratium ad absurdim ad hominem ad hominid...

And don't forget about the fluoridation of our water for the purpose of mind control...

I would say that now they would appear to be thriving with sustainable forestry practices and regulated hunting. I do consider it plausible that we almost lost them somewhere between about 1850-1950 with the decimation wrought by commercial and unrestricted hunting and logging.

Just splitting hairs a bit, because although it would seem to be thriving under the current status quo, there are those who want to roll back some of the regulation in which case it's confirmed existance would prove an additional barrier...

... otherwise it might just re-adapt to specifically protected areas and learn to hunt spotted owls

BF sightings are nowhere near as common as your post would have people beleive, and furthermore, the only reason mining, etc take place in the same regions NOW is because BF is not a recognized Endangered Species. Were the gov't to recognize BF, the ink on the proclamation signiture wouldn't even be dry before the first "lock up the land" suit was filed. Such is the nature of the American environmental movement. Sad, but true.

Yes, the secret can get out. People can (and do) talk. But so long as the REAL secret (that the rumors, stories, etc are true) is kept, containment is achieved because no one beleives the stories.

I fail to see why you (and others) are so eager to defend a government that has been a liar, is a liar, and will continue to be a liar when it suits its purposes...

Mulder, where do you think the money for the government studies was hidden? There would have to be studies to discern that BF was endangered in order to preserve the land or avoid this whole theory of preserving the land. They would have to have multiple subjects to understand the human impact. This study did not come from environmentalists. If there was money hidden for such studies it would have to be categorized as something else in order to continue deceiving the public. I would think any eager politician would fleece any such bill in a heartbeat. Especially in todays climate. What are your thoughts on funding for these studies?

I really doubt the gov would have the brains to hide the existence of an 8 foot monkey man, roaming around our backyard, for 100+ years. Hell, they can't even hide their own mistress'!!!!

You don't need a study to look at the history of environmental legislation and litigation and know what they'd do if BF were a recognized species. The whole point is to AVOID such spending and regulation by simply denying BF exists.




Again, that attitude does not square with the demonstrable FACT that governments can and DO keep all kinds of secrets on a daily basis, and do so successfully.

First, we don’t know, if bigfoot is a real animal, if it is an endangered species. There are thousands of reports from all over the country, so if bigfoot is a real animal, it’s range is very extensive, it lives in all kinds of habitats, and there would have to be thousands of them and a self-sustaining population to explain all the encounters.

Second, even if bigfoot is found to be a real animal, and it is found to be endangered, why would any land be “locked up”? Let’s look at another large, endangered mammal, with a range much smaller than the purported bigfoot range, and with a much smaller population: the grizzly bear. Grizzlies number about 1000 in the Lower 48, yet no land has been “locked up” to protect grizzlies. I have hiked, camped, and fished all over grizzly habitat in Wyoming and Montana without restriction. Why would it be any different with bigfoot?

Isolated events, covert operations, extra maritial affairs.... maybe, but to to keep secret an animal that freely roams throughout the Western Hemisphere?, don't buy it.
I'm a gov worker, I've yet to see them do anything logical.
They may have knowledge of it, just choose not tell the public

You mean they're keeping a big secret about an animal that even they don't recognize among themselves?

I'd like to know how the government knows that the "rumors, stories, etc," are true. It was that Georgia freezer thang wasn't it...

Hi

The Government as we all know is diced up into many many departments, And within all those is competition for $ to stay alive , Given the way things are right now with the economy i would be willing to bet even more pressure is on to keep programs and jobs alive, What better way to get a bundle of funding could you think of than by having evidence of a BF ?

I don't think a ticked off Government employee could be stopped from going to CNN ~ And i don't want to hear the men in black crap, When People go missing it don't go Un noticed




Peace
Tim

Therein lies the rub. You speak as if the "governing board and/or legislature" is some highly-evolved, discerning body that considers all of the evidence, properly deliberates then determines a well-thought out course of action. That group, in my experience, is usually half-baked, undertalented, and fraught with distractions and objectives which have nothing to do with anything but their own personal agenda.

The same goes for "scientists".

As typed and read on a computer, posted on the internet, through cables of instantaneous communication, powered by electricity, coming from a home with temperature control, modern conveniences such as a stove, running water, lights, refrigeration, television with a dish that receives signals from satellites orbiting around the earth, and since it's cold and flu season most likely the inhabitants have had a flu shot or are on medication to fight the cold or flu, has had a lifetime of various inoculations and vaccinations against diseases and viruses that not too long ago decimated millions of people, surgeries, not to mention the relative safety of child birth compared to how dangerous it was not long ago...

Yeah, those scientists, a real half-baked, undertalented, and fraught with distractions and agendas bunch that is...

hmm, scientists? or geniuses? or just regular people?.........

refrigeration :oliver evans......inventor and engineer, not formally educated

http://www.welshnepa.org/OliverEvans.html

electricity : nikola tesla ...as far as I consider, father of american electricity........many many inventions.....also an engineer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

electric stove :lloyd copeman , engineer........

http://www.lloydcopeman.com/biography/bio1.html

running water : the romans, mayans, chinese, but the terlet was harrington , who studied law and was an author

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harington_%28writer%29

television :a sharecropper, lol.......philo farnsworth.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harington_%28writer%29

communication, or course Alexander grahm bell.........

scientist and engineer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell

medical, of course louis pasteur but he was a professor of physics at 26 , real smart cookie, and a scientist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur

computers : zuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Zuse

internet, al gore but really it was this dude vint cerf, yup a scientist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf

it takes ALL of us to make the world go round......not just those of us with a formal education.......and lets look at that word too, education.......

one of my favorite teachers is John Taylor Gatto hes not afraid to speak the truth.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto


enjoy!!

The government as I see it has it's problems, but it's a damn site better than the alternative.

I do? How did you read all that into my comment?

"Wildlife Commissioners" - the "board of regents" of state wildlife agencies - are generally political appointees who are big-time businessmen and avid sportsmen. I didn't indicate that they necessarily provide any kind of critical scientific review of proposed policy (though they sometimes do), but they are another hurdle that the policy must pass. The scientific review comes from the wildlife biologists.

The scientific review is fine and I have no problems with that.

It's when you involve a governmental entity, of any persuasion, and think they are going to perform in a judicious, efficient and effective manner is when I draw the line. Governmental agencies are littered with talentless, political hacks who couldn't get a job sweeping the floor in the real world. One never really knows whether a survey/study was either undertaken, dropped or the reports buried other than to know it was politically motivated to satisfy some politician's agenda.

Of course, then you've got all the secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant to executive secretaries, executive VP, assistant executive VP, secretary to the executive VP, and on and on and on, each with their own agenda.

Enough already.

Care to enlighten us on how to determine the real from the fake encounters on the BFRO? Their database seems to indicate a rather wide distribution in North America . . .


So you're making an ad hominem argument that because our government has kept secrets in the past about, for example, the Iran/Contra scandal, that it must be keeping a secret about bigfoot? Can't argue with that logic . . .

Unless, of course, you actually think about it for a minute.

So just how widespread is this government cover up of known bipedal hominids? I'm assuming it must at least include all the "wildlife" departments in the 50 states (OK, maybe not Hawaii), plus (again, at least) the following Federal agencies: USFWS, USDA, NRCS, USFS, BLM, BIA, DoD, DOE, USEPA, NPS . . .

In each one of these agencies there must be at least a handful (5-10?) of people in on the plan. They must also have been keeping this up for some time - let's say at least the past 40 years, when that Patterson guy started making people a bit nervous. So, at an absolute minimum, we're looking at about 300 government employees actively engaged in operation "Squatch-Squelch" at any given time, and they've been doing so for decades.

But wait - there's more.

It's not enough to just have people know about this and try to keep it secret, a special ops-type policing force would also be needed and at the ready, 24/7. I mean, what if some guy driving back to St. Paul from a weekend in the Boundary Waters hits a bigfoot and manages to get it into his truckbed? He might stop at the next exit where dozens of people at the truck stop could be taking photos and checking the thing out. It could go viral on the Internet in probably less than an hour. If that happened, the government's ruse would crumble like a house of cards in a cyclone. Surely, our government is taking steps to make sure that the secret couldn't be so easily outed. So there must be a strategically placed strike force at the ready to make sure that bigfoot is confiscated before the guy ever makes it to truck stop. I suppose you could do this with something like 500 or so elite commandos distributed across the suspected range of bigfoot who use helicopters and all the other latest gadgets to neutralize and contain any such security breaches. Of course, all the bigfoots would need to be outfitted with satellite GPS transmitters, so the commandos would know exactly when and where to mobilize . . .

But wait - there's still much more.

Bigfoot lives in Canada too.

And Russia.

And Australia.

And India.

And Malaysia.

And China.

And Iran.

It's really heartwarming to consider how all of these governments are able to get their heads together to make sure no one ever produces quality physical evidence of an undescribed, hairy, bipedal hominid, just so our industries can keep mining and logging without all those annoying environmentalists getting in the way. I guess this whole global warming thing will be a piece of cake for world governments to fix too.

So you generalize and characterize political appointees as untalented and corrupt, yet you think such people are responsible for successfully orchestrating an enormous and complicated, long-term campaign to make sure no one ever finds out that "bigfoot" is alive and well in our forests?

Yep, that's why we're so busy here at the Squatch Commando Center. No rest for the weary. By the way Saskeptic, keep it up and you'll be visited by one of our genetically engineered giant hairy Internet peace keepers. After he politely asks (in a most impolite way) that you stop posting all this logical stuff, if you could just keep it between us, we'd appreciate it

Many of the people you wrote about were scientists.

BTW, this is a "pin-worthy" response to this issue.

And in the Swamps of Florida, and in the UP of Michigan, two completely different countries in their own right.

This post is worthy of quoting in its entirety.

I'm trying to apply Billy Mays' (Oxi-Clean) voice "But wait, there's more!"

*snort*

Kindly show me when, on earth, I ever made that statement or agreed to one already made?

Just because someone is untalented and corrupt doesn't mean they aren't accomplished at covering their trail.

Just one question for the conspiracy theorists: Since NOBODY in the world of Bigfootry has produced any valid evidence - what evidence do you think the government has and where did they get it?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but talked with someone that does scientific analysis of many things. He also did not come across as a conspiracy theorist, but has seen MUCH more government forensic laboratory stuff than I have. He said what's in a local lab ( http://www.lab.fws.gov/ ) would blow me away. He has worked with them as a contractor. He was speaking relative to a conversation we were having about bigfoot. He stated in no uncertain terms that bigfoot is real, is a living creature, and that I should shoot one if given the opportunity. Anyway, I don't think the government is trying to cover up stuff, but they probably have documentation of a lot of stuff I don't have an interest in and documentation of things that don't concern me. If they have things relative to a criminal investigation or any other investigation there is no reason they would have to make those things known that aren't needed to be known. That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy though.

Say they had a foot they were doing forensic analysis on. It wouldn't be prudent to state something about that foot that was relevant or relative to anyone other than those involved in the investigation. Why would they call a large bone fragment or large foot a bigfoot foot if they didn't have a specimen to compare it to. It wouldn't mean they were hiding evidence of a bigfoot. It might just mean there is a piece of evidence they have that they don't fully understand yet and aren't willing to go on any record (rightfully so) as it being anything at all.

So your friend is willing to violate any non-disclosure or secrecy documents he would have had to have signed if he was working anywhere near criminal investigation evidence?
Wow!
Perhaps you should alert your local authorities as he is a danger to due process and could hamper or harm ongoing investigations since he is so talkative!



Seriously though - your friend is just more proof why such "secrets" are not kept secret for long.

Stating a local lab has something that would surprise me doesn't violate any NDA. Also, I didn't say his statements were based on a criminal investigation, past or present. He has more access to the lab than I do. deleted, but that doesn't mean what he's told me is specific or related to an ongoing investigation. He and I were talking generally about bigfoot. We were also speaking generally about a local lab.

And, you're absolutely right about anyone having information is more proof of why secrets aren't kept long. That's one more reason I don't believe in conspiracies related to bigfoot. It's not a secret if it's known by three people.

Edited to add, since I just thought about this, I've never had to sign any secrecy documents or non-disclosure documents related to a criminal investigation. deleted

First of all - I thought the smiley would help you see that I was mostly joking about your friend.
However, he did state that he knew for certain that Bigfoot existed and obviously the implication was that he had come across that info while engaged in his contract work. Otherwise - why would you mention his work at all?

In Canada, you have to have some sort of security clearance if you are involved in criminal investigations (or work in areas where such are conducted) as part of your job. Non-disclosure documents are par for the course. Also - Privacy Act legislation (both Federal and Provincial) comes into play.

As far as our forensic labs go - they are ultra-security/secrecy conscious because they have to be! Very high security clearances are needed as well as non-disclosure paperwork.
Evidence continuity or contamination is a huge concern - but so is disclosure of information that may be harmful to individuals being investigated or to the investigation itself.
Even police officers must sign in and out and have control badges if they are entering into the actual lab part of the facility.

I find it very difficult to believe that such rules would not be in force in the US as our laws concerning rules of evidence are so similar.

I'm just trying to understand here. You are saying that government labs do or don't keep secrets about biological evidence? How would this not figure into disclosure of evidence that might support the existence of our hairy freind?

Just read the posts I was referring to and don't try and take it out of context. You'll figure it out.

I want to be clear so there isn't any mix up. I spoke of someone and probably shouldn't have. I don't want to speak of him out of context or in detail. I did not call that person a friend. I was trying to speak to the idea that a forensic lab could have information that you or I might find mind blowing, but that they may not because they may be looking at it differently than you or I, which isn't conspiratorial. It brings to mind a skinless bear paw that was thought to be a "bigfoot" foot due to how much it looked like a human-like foot. A lab might do work on it and not disclose anything to you or I, they may deal with a specific group or agency. They may also have a genuine bigfoot foot and not call it that because it doesn't have an identifier to which they can compare it.

The person I was speaking with has more information than I do related to what they have there. He also believes without question that bigfoot is a real animal. That doesn't mean that he got inside information from a lab that was trying to keep things secret and let them slip to me. He may have inside information, but our conversation wasn't specifically about inside information. He is not the type of person to sensationalize information to get a reaction, neither am I.

I have worked in a capacity that put me in an investigative role, dealing with evidence. I never signed a NDA or a "secrecy" document. Some people may depending on their role. In any role I've had I've not been asked to sign anything, although there have been verbal agreements that information is not for distribution. I have no idea if the person of which I was speaking ever signed anything, but our conversations were not relative to any ongoing investigations, but were general conversations regarding a local lab and a general conversation regarding bigfoot. The conversations were of a general sense. I mentioned his work brought him close to a lab because I think that lab (being a government lab) is relevant to the topic at hand. My meaning was that labs can have interesting things there but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy if they aren't broadcasting all of that information to every Tom, Dick or Harry.

So, bottom line, there can be labs (in this case, and linked above, a government lab) that has information that you or I or someone interested in Bigfoot might find mind blowing, but they may not or they may be involved in an investigation and not release it, but it doesn't mean it's some sort of conspiracy. If the government has information you or I want to know more about, them not providing that information doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. Also "you" is typically meant as the collective "you", not specifically you.

Yes, I did. Non-disclosure and unpublished scientific evidence apparently happens all the time, yet we are to believe there are no secrets being held. Just talking about it doesn't really let the cat out of the bag does it? Thats just another anecdote.

None of that changes the fact that scientists have an "orthodoxy", just like many other people and groups do. If we'd listened to what "scientists know", we'd still travel by horse and buggy because "science knew" that man could not travel faster than 50 miles an hour and survive". "Science knew" that artificial flight was impossible. "Science knew" that meat left out spontaneously generated maggots.

And every time someone came along to challenge what "science knew", science struck back against them as fiercely as any religious extremist. Try getting ANY "mainstream" journal to even LOOK at certain topics (like BF, among others), and you'll see just how "intelligent" and "impartial" science is. I do beleive that Dr. Meldrum is well aware of how "impartial" his collegues really are...

Not all of which occur at the same time even if they are in the same place. Which you would know if you bothered to look at the time codes on the reports. To say that because there are X numbers of reports in the database that there are currently X number of BF abouts fails the test of logic.



The NSA, CIA, FBI, DoD (civilian side) NRO, et al employ 10s of 1000s of people who work with classified information on a daily basis. Add to that all the people in the various military branches, defense contractors, etc who also do so, and do so WITHOUT disclosing secured information. Compartmentalization and "stovepiping" mean that people working side by side in cubicles may be working on entirely differnt things and NEITHER will talk to the other about it without "need to know".

It's called being professional, and honoring your oaths and NDAs.



Nations gather to discuss and exchange information all the time without the public knowing what was discussed OR exchanged. Does anyone who wasn't at the last G20 meeting REALLY know what was discussed? No. The IMF? The World Bank? We know what we are TOLD they discussed.

I'm not saying there HAS been a global "squatch summit", but if there was and they didn't want us to know it WE WOULD NOT KNOW IT.

If they're the only three people who know it, and act to KEEP it that way, then it's a secret.



So you zig zag back and forth between the position that gov'ts can NOT keep secrets and that they take all kinds of measures to ensure that they DO keep secrets...which is it rock?

Who is science, and how do I join their club so I can be a scientist? Who gets accepted into the club and who get rejected? Who decides who gets accepted and who gets rejected? Are there membership fees? Is there an official list of members?

Don't you see that your use of the word 'science' is meaningless?

This world is made up of individuals and no matter how you try to lump them into certain groups it just can't be done because each one is his or her own person, not a clone or a robot.

That's funny because there's no shortage of people are all too eager to call themselves a "scientist".

I don't know about your discussions on other planets, but on earth you wrote this in reference to governing boards of wildlife agencies in post #70:

"That group, in my experience, is usually half-baked, undertalented, and fraught with distractions and objectives which have nothing to do with anything but their own personal agenda."

Then there was this in post #76:

"Governmental agencies are littered with talentless, political hacks who couldn't get a job sweeping the floor in the real world."


To which I responded in post #78:

"So you generalize and characterize political appointees as untalented and corrupt, yet you think such people are responsible for successfully orchestrating an enormous and complicated, long-term campaign to make sure no one ever finds out that "bigfoot" is alive and well in our forests?"


(Bolding mine.)


If I have misrepresented your position, please feel free to clarify.