Leaderboard

If someone brings in an actual body, and it can be determined that it is just an animal after all, I will be forced to alter my stance. But for now, I think Hypothesis #1 is the most likely truth....

Ethical calculus. Multiple issues, each with its own variables. 1. Some researchers simply want to know more, not necessarily to disclose more. They are engaged in a private pursuit shared only with those they consider to share their perspective. 2. Some want to be the first to reveal the sasquatch in the form of indisputable evidence, so they will guard the information they obtain until they have the ironclad case. They may pass on before everything they have learned is disclosed. 3. Some want to protect the squatch. This takes two forms: a. Learn all you can to prove they require protection. b. Prevent disclosure of their existence, thus protecting them from the greatest perceived threat to their existence, public knowledge of their presence and activities. 4. Some believe or know that some squatch engage in behaviors that threaten people, namely abduction and predation. Based on this there are three reasons they may keep what they know to themselves. a. They may sympathize more with the squatch than the victims and fear that the public will retaliate if they find out. b. They may feel that there is little that can be done about it anyway, and that the public will be incapable of dealing rationally with the knowledge. c. They may recognize that government can not manage squatch, and that government can not manage public reaction to knowledge of the squatch and their more threatening behaviors. Until recently I've been on the fence regarding kill, no kill based on the assumption that once the existence of squatch is proven, there will be a period of difficult adjustment followed by long term co-existence. My quandary was whether or not the taking of a squatch life (I consider them people) is necessary to achieve this outcome. Now, however, with the understanding that Paulides has provided, that there are probably populations of squatch that prey on people, the ethical calculus for me is greatly simplified. If squatch are preying on people, often young children, then the public needs to be aware of the threat, and the life of a squatch, one that engages in this behavior or not, is a small price to pay to establish public awareness and effective management of the threat.

I agree totally, hiflier. I think money is a huge factor in how things are going down here. I do also think, however, that there's a kind of collusion that goes on.... It may not be completely conscious; but many of us are afraid to process the information we DO have, and take some things to their logical conclusions..... So in effect, we collude with the moneyed interests. Otherwise, even money couldn't do it. The money people -- the disinformation people -- can't do their work without our cooperation. It's time to stop cooperating, is all. Or not. We don't have to make good choices for ourselves. Even when we make bad choices, we are still exercising our authority to make choices. So on some level, it doesn't matter what happens, and it's all good, and everything will be okay, no matter what! Here's another thing I think, actually.... I think it may not be an accident that the Big Reveal is taking this long. It may be that it is giving some of us more time to get more settled about our beliefs, thoughts, and feelings, so that, when the Big Reveal does happen, there will be many, many people who can speak knowledgeably and calmly about what the rest of the world will just be catching up with..... The TV show "Finding Bigfoot", for example, is doing a huge service for us, by allowing the idea of the Sasquatch people to seep into public consciousness -- again, so that, when we finally figure out these are real people, we will have had some "practice" thinking about them and coming to terms with the idea that they exist, and it won't be such a shock. Ha! Talked myself into feeling better about all this! I think it will be okay. I really do. P.S. And I also agree with you that science already has a type specimen.....and doesn't want us to know that.

I'm sure some researchers find it pointless to put alot of their findings in public because the whole premise is largely regarded as speculative at best, and they don't wish to debate with others the veracity of their evidence or the significance of it. Much of it cannot be shown to come directly from a bigfoot even though the circumstances and provenance compells them as individuals. Much of the data researchers can generate is viewed as potentially contaminated by either witnesses being victums of a hoax or the witnesses and researchers both are hoaxers or have misidentified things in their data or evidence. The researchers are seen as either.... your nuts, your gullible, your lying, your seeking attention, or your playing keep away with the supreme knowledge. There's always some angle to attack it. So maybe they just aren't as certain about their findings and can't fully support their convictions. I think BF is likely real and could benefit more from people being educated about them and their existence, but protecting their habitat is probably not as hard as you might expect when they live and thrive in diverse environments. We probably are pushing them out of some places but not likely wiping out all their habitat. Much of the habitat we call wooded land is regrowth. So the attitude that they are doing ok serves it's purpose until one is found dead and proven. When proven, we'll probably see that preserves only preserve's the trees while BF still roams where ever it wants much like the rest of the wildlife.