Leaderboard

Linda Newton-Perry is a known hoaxer and has zero credibility where bigfoot is concerned. Sorry.

Norseman, the spotted owl appears to have been brought on by the greenies and Clinton as you stated. My limited knowledge tells me it was a political war in Washington and big timber, workers, and many forest service employees lost out. The greenies and Clinton won out. Now big timber has fewer and fewer logs to buy from the feds. Private loggers depend on the Forest Service and BLM to sell them logs since private land was clear cut drastically in the 70's. In my opinion, the forest service is still very pro timber cutting. Our economy in Coos Bay depended on loggers, timber mills, and massive transportation systems. It's getting worse and worse. Many storefronts are empty and jobs for all the workers are absent. Our country lost out on tax revenues yet prevented massive clear cutting. The greenies did slow down mountains from being logged bare. Now my guess is big lumber has its lobby working hard on the politicians that pressure forest service supervisors. Much of the forest service is still pro logging imho. Could the feds be holding the bigfoot card with one stored away? This tightly held knowledge coud hold big lumber hostage. The feds keep the greenies in the dark and alls well. Private timber companies are using massive steel gates to close off their private roads. Guess what this does? Keeps greenies from getting to BLM and Forest Service land.............................. hmmmmmm Can the feds close their land off too? Hello Bonehead. Please PM me so we can avoid slander in the written form, libel. ....... ouch. Using critical thinking and expert research helps when dealing with someone of questionable character. It's harder to find the truth but worth it if the truth is there.

I think that there are two components to this. 1. A minimal effort to dispose of remains on an occasional need-to-know basis, and 2. The larger decision not to disclose to the American public that they are known to exist. The first aspect is made possible by public skepticism. Even if a dozen or so people see a dead bigfoot, and someone comes along to collect it, and even if there is eyewitness testimony and cell phone footage, the incident is generally regarded by the larger public as either a hoax or an urban legend. The second aspect must be avoidance of societal disruption. I agree, if environmental activists during a liberal administration gleefully leveraged the spotted owl, you'd think it would be ten times worse with bigfoot under the current administration. But that hasn't happened, so there must be one heck of a perceived downside. We know that in the case of alien life consultants advised the government against public revelation due to projected societal disruption. Without linking bigfoot to aliens or UFOs, there are some arguable parallels to how society may be projected to respond to the revelation that bigfoot exist. I, for one, believe that the government is incapable of controlling them and that society would demand that they do so. Revelation would also require classification and potential grant of "human" rights. How do you deal with them then? I believe that enough of the public would regard them as dangerous that the government would be under pressure to assure public safety and at the same time another part of the public would be demanding humane treatment. You can't control the bigfoot (if you could, what would you do, put them on a reservation?), and you can't deny public access to every place bigfoot may be, so why put the government in a position where it has to deal with the issue and the associated cost, which has probably been projected to be the same as conducting a small war? Even if a number of human lives are lost every year due to Missing 411 type scenarios, from the governmental perspective it may be regarded as an acceptable status quo based on simple economics, but only so long as the public remains clueless.

Apes evolving to eat meat when plant foods declined? Happens. BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html