Why Cover Up Big Foot?

[MIB]

Nothing we haven't speculated about before.   Something that unsettles some status quo that has big ripples.   Economics, religion, politics, human origins, proof of aliens ... yada yada yada. 

 

Whatever it is, the fact that we don't have the proof on the table means either it doesn't exist or the people who hold it choose to suppress it, I don't think there can be much question about that dichotomy.  

 

My belief here is that IF the proof exists, the people who know it voluntarily suppress it.  I don't believe ANY threat is sufficient to make every person who knows a secret keep it for more than 50 years, someone would talk.   It has to be at least partially voluntary.  Extrapolating, my guess is if you found out or I found out, since everyone else so far has held the secret, probably whatever it is, it's sufficient to convince us to do the same thing. 

 

I am only guessing though. 

 

Well, looks like its time for good little MIBs to brush their teeth and go to bed.   Catch you tomorrow.   Have a good evening.

 

MIB

[Incorrigible1]

Spoken like a true estabilshment defender.

 

What's your motivation......comrade?

Thank goodness, Larry, that you're brilliant enough to see through the conspiracy. You're a regular canary in the mineshaft.

[ThePhaige]

+1 there MIB...its like Prego..."its in there"

 

I guess Im in that cage also ... tweet tweet 

[Guest]

Spoken like a true estabilshment defender.

 

I represented a view that is grounded in reality.  You respond with an ad hom...  Yeah, that really helps your case there truth warrior.

 

 

 

LarryP said:

What's your motivation......comrade?

 

The desire to make a better life for myself that doesn't involve trying to hold down multiple, thankless, minial jobs.  I have a good shot at my hard work bearing fruit in the immediate future.

 

What is your motivation?

Edited February 26, 2014 by Leftfoot

[Guest LarryP]

Thank goodness, Larry, that you're brilliant enough to see through the conspiracy. You're a regular canary in the mineshaft.

 

It's not a "conspiracy" if it's right out in the open. So this mineshaft you're referring to is non-existent for me.

 

The difference between you and I is that I'm not wearing materialist blinders. As my father always told me when it came to anything about the government; "Pay no attention to what they say. Just watch what they do".

 

I represented a view that is grounded in reality. You respond with an ad hom...

 

 

Reality is purely subjective. And how was that an ad hom?

 

 

The desire to make a better life for myself that doesn't involve trying to hold down multiple, thankless, minial jobs. I have a good shot at my hard work bearing fruit in the immediate future.

 

As a business owner and entrepreneur,  I wish you the best with any endeavours that involve working hard.

 

But I have no idea what that has to do with defending the status quo.

[Guest]

 The difference between you and I is that I'm not wearing materialist blinders. As my father always told me when it came to anything about the government; "Pay no attention to what they say. Just watch what they do".

I would argue that while your father wasn't entirely wrong, he wasn't entirely right either. What they say is important to pay attention to as well.

 

LarryP said:

Reality is purely subjective.

Well this claim certainly explains a lot, but no reality really isn't subjective.

LarryP said:

And how was that an ad hom?

It implies that just because I'm not buying into conspiracy theorems that I just blindly accept whatever the government says. This is erroneous on multiple levels.

 

LarryP said

As a business owner and entrepreneur,  I wish you the best with any endeavours that involve working hard.

Thank you for your well-wishes.

 

LarryP said:

But I have no idea what that has to do with defending the status quo.

"Status quo" is one of those hot-topic terms that conspiracy theorists love to use, but doesn't actually mean anything meaningful. It's ill-defined, doesn't make any testable predictions, and is completely unfalsifiable. But they certainly love using it to commit several fallacies.

[Guest LarryP]

I'll tell you the same thing I told incorrigible.

 

It's not a conspiracy, if it's right out in the open.

[Guest]

Cool story, bro. Since it's out in the open you should be able to easily demonstrate it with evidence if asked to prove it then.

So... Prove it.

[Guest LarryP]

I can't prove something to someone who has already made up their mind.

 

Especially someone who's convinced that reality is objective, instead of subjective. 

[Guest]

I can't prove something to someone who has already made up their mind.

So you got nothing then. Why am I not surprised?

LarryP said:

Especially someone who's convinced that reality is objective, instead of subjective.

I'm convinced because reality exists objectively despite whatever anyone of us subjectively believes about it.

Quick question by the way, how did this evolve into a philosophical discussion about the nature of existence?

Edited February 26, 2014 by Leftfoot

[Guest LarryP]

I provided a link upthread of a news release from the Department of the Interior & the USFG from 1977 that clearly states why they would never officially recognize BF.

 

I'm convinced because reality exists objectively despite whatever anyone of us subjectively believes about it.
 

 

 

Your objective reality is an illusion. Therefore it is really subjective.

[Guest DWA]

I provided a link upthread of a news release from the Department of the Interior & the USFG from 1977 that clearly states why they would never officially recognize BF.

 

Actually, that document is pretty durned open-minded on the subject of existence, and describes what I'd do, were I the government official in charge of this sort of thing (if one exists, I mean):

 

Science has protocols for doing this.  We will wait for scientists to exercise those protocols, then take appropriate action.

 

I don't think governments are in the business of announcing these, but doing what is necessary when it is recognized that they exist.

[Guest]

I provided a link upthread of a news release from the Department of the Interior & the USFG from 1977 that clearly states why they would never officially recognize BF.

 

DWA addresses that quite nicely, as have I. There is no reason why the government would not officially recognize the existence of Bigfoot should their existence be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is, of course, putting aside that it is not within their power to do so, nor their responsibility to do so. Their responsibility begins and ends on what to do when/if Bigfoot should be declared real, towards that end the official response seems to be "If it happens we have a response planed."

All that remains is proving the existence of Bigfoot beyond reasonable doubt, which is something the government can not prevent.

 

[Cotter]

Spoken like a true estabilshment defender.

 

What's your motivation......comrade?

 

QFT

[Guest LarryP]

 

I provided a link upthread of a news release from the Department of the Interior & the USFG from 1977 that clearly states why they would never officially recognize BF.

 

Actually, that document is pretty durned open-minded on the subject of existence, and describes what I'd do, were I the government official in charge of this sort of thing (if one exists, I mean):

 

Science has protocols for doing this.  We will wait for scientists to exercise those protocols, then take appropriate action.

 

I don't think governments are in the business of announcing these, but doing what is necessary when it is recognized that they exist.

 

 

DWA, that news release is nothing more than what I call a pre-excuse. 

 

In 1977 the Department of the Interior along with the USFW service already knew and they wanted to have something in writing to cover their fannies looking forward.

 

They have zero intention of ever following scientific protocol to do "what is necessary" to recognize the existence of BF.

 

Sorry Bro, but that's not what you'd do.