Leaderboard

No, but sasquatches are reported to use all kinds of vocalizations just like man, including whistling, vociferous screaming and howling, diwn to a chatter/speech mixture that sounds amazingly like primitive human language. Listen to the Sierra Sounds. They are not required to speak French in order to be speaking, monsieur. Moreover, the use of signaling like whistles and wood knocking are forms of communications used by aboriginal people during hunts and warfare. Yes, among several other cases. They are reports to be considered as testimony. They remain unproven. But to ignore testimony is to limit oneself in the search for the truth. The more that testimony, trace evidence, and photographic evidence corroborates each other, the stronger theories become.

Yes, but doing so with full anonymity is nearly impossible. If complete anonymity from government is needed, a cheap cell phone from Walmart with calling card purchased with cash while disguised is the way to go. Foot morphology, hand morphology, reports of speech, and similarities to skeletal fossils ruled as members of the genus Homo, not to mention reports of hybridization with humans and repeated reports of sasquatch dna coming back as human.

Let me try another line here: First, it's becoming pretty clear that these creatures are human enough to justify these thoughts and conversations. If they are classified as not within the genus Homo, then pretty much all of paleo-anthropology will be in upheaval. The vast majority of the dug up ape man bones will be in danger of being reclassified. Secondly, being of the Homo genus and being aboriginal to the North American continent and United States in particular, our current government structure places their status not within the purview of our fish and wildlife departments (co-managed by state and federal governments), but purely within the authority of the federal government. This isn't wild speculation here. It's common sense based upon a broad view of government structure. It also pretty much explains the stand-offish attitude of our forestry, land management, and wildlife management agencies, and legally justifies their negligence toward this phenomenon to a certain extent. As a nation, we have not recognized the rights and status of this native peoples. These natural resource agencies have no boundaries, guidance, or authority to deal with these questions. Thirdly, that narrows us down to the appropriate authorities who must deal with this issue: the State Department and/or Bureau if Indian Affairs. Though I'm not completely certain about this, I believe that the State Department is required to negotiate a treaty with an aboriginal tribe, and that treaty ratified by Congress, before authority to administer that treaty is granted to the BIA. To our new forum participant (jsydor), DoD's legal authority is also limited by law, just like eveybody else's. They cannot run out willy-nilly and deal with the "wild Indians" until authorized by Congress in a declaration of war. Now, if an aboriginal hominid is shot dead on Ft. Lewis for trespassing and failing to respond to orders to halt, and the Army examined the carcass, realized that they needed legal guidance, and turned it over to "somebody else" (all of which I have every reason to believe has happened somewhere within the past century and a half), they've done their jobs and are absolved legally from further responsibility. This issue is a State Department issue, and to secondary extent, a responsibility of the FBI (our internal federal investigative agency, and who have likely recieved notification of sasquatchery from local and state law enforcement agencies). So, folks, there you have it. There is your legal reason why government has so fully failed to deal with this issue. It's a matter of law. Discuss......... That depends on your definition of the word "cooperation"........ I agree that we won't force anybody to talk without first producing a freshly dead sasquatch on a slab that they can't make disappear, or perhaps a significant skeletal fossil of recent life (within a thousand years or so). The trick is producing the proof in a way that they can't whisk away........

Right. So .. I think that question has a bit finer granularity as well. It's not just "who knows" ... I suspect many here have identified people they suspect of knowing more than they share. The whole question, i think, is who, among those who knows, will a) share, b) admit having something to share, c) admit there exists anything to share. So far, nothing verifiable. I don't think we're going to force cooperation out of anyone. If that would work it would have worked long ago. If there is a conspiracy to conceal evidence, then something of what is known about what is being concealed entices willing participation rather than coerced participation. .. or at least that's my best computed guess based on the available evidence. MIB

Semantics. What does, for instance, "US Forest Service knows NOTHING" mean? It seems .. I could be wrong here .. but it seems like you're thinking about them as the Borg, that whatever any one person in any agency knows, the whole agency knows instantly, that there's no natural compartmentalization. That's what I've tried to say here and in other threads and you seem unwilling to consider it. That fact is if you study organizations, information flows up and down but at each step there's a filtering process. What info is worth my boss's time to share with him? And what info is worth my time to share with my subordinates? It's very seldom about hiding, it's only about not wasting time exchanging information that is not valuable to part of the audience. What does that all mean? It means that I'm pretty confident at least some people in some ranger districts within the USFS know about bigfoot. That does not mean every employee within that ranger district does. It doesn't mean the knowledge is shared upward to the forest supervisor's office nor if it is, that it is shared back downwards into the other ranger districts within the forest. Likewise, if the info does get to the forest supervisor's attention, it does not mean it gets to the regional supervisor nor if it does, whether the regional supervisor shares it down into other forests in the region. Are you getting this? So, so far as how to answer your question ... I'm pretty certain some people within the US Gov't know about bigfoot but I do not think the US Gov't as a whole shares in that knowledge. They're not the Borg, not a hive mind, and not all parts are exactly identical. I hope you are not dead set on a binary answer. Both binary options, yes and no, taken in absolute, are wrong in this case. MIB PS: coming back to add ... looks like you addressed all my points while I was typing them up. Convergence. Yes. Granularity of answer.

Yes indeed RedHawk454 but the question was really about "Finding Bigfoot"s presence in the public arena and knowing that even people in official capacities at whatever level are people too and ONE of the tens of thousands of government employees/Park Service personnel might have been interested eough to look deeper into the subject? A lot of Sasquatch folks were exposed to the subject at a very young age way before the TV shows came along. Who knows, maybe some of them went into the forestry service BECAUSE of their interest in the subject. There's a guy very close to the top of the ranks that has a personal encounter so one could surmise that there are insiders who are in the know. And even if that wasn't the case, I find it nearly impossible to think that in 50-60 years at the national level in the U.S. Department of Agriculture no one is aware of the creature. Is awareness greater on the lower rungs of the ladder at say, Ranger Headquarters in the Six Rivers National Forest, but no one above that rank has any knowledge? Has anyone in any official capacity around Mount Saint Helens never heard or read the story about Fred Beck in Ape Canyon? I mean we have known about this stuff forever it seems and I for one am no one special. John Green's database has been on the web for almost 20 years and no one can tell me that government doesn't keep an eye on the web. Imagine a conversation like this going on in the official halls somewhere: "Hey you know? I ran across this database with a bunch of Bigfoot reports today. There could be something to this stuff. Maybe we should look into it." "No, we don't look into it. Got that?" Probably wouldn't happen like that but you get the idea. So a few people might know but most are told that it's just hands off. If people follow orders, which they more than likely do, then the subject will be hands off. Period.

Logic can .. has and will again .. be wrong, be mislead by lack of a representative cross-section of information. You might say if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck ... but what if it had other features like big floppy ears, a trunk, tusks, and lacked wings? Maybe that funny waddle and sound are completely taken out of context. The fact of the matter is, at least to the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence of a coverup. We have claims, second-hand stories, innuendo, assertion of what "must be", but not one single bit of tangible evidence for anyone to review. Less, even, than evidence of bigfoot where at least we have track casts and footprints anyone can see on the 'net or, if they make the effort, in person. We don't even have that to support the notion of conspiracy. We have nothing but BELIEFS. That's no better than the woo-bigfooters have to support their claims. I suggest that rather than trying to make a mountain out of a possibly imaginary mole-hill, we should focus on substantiating the mole-hill first. In other words, wait until the existence of this purported form is established, not just claimed, before reading stuff into it. MIB

For me the apparent cover up lacks a compelling reason. I do not buy economic impact. While that may be a factor in privately owned timber, the present US Forest Service is so anti logging and full of naturalist tree huggers, one would think they would embrace BF as a reason to end logging. If not at top levels who understand their department revenue comes from timber sales, lower levels would jump at the chance out BF to stop logging and save the precious forests. The international implications mentioned above cannot be associated with economics. As a matter of fact China has one province set aside as a reserve for their version of BF and Russian science is looking at their version seriously. Why the Western governments seem intent on keeping a lid on BF implies to me that they know something about BF that Russia and China do not. That smacks to me of classified information and military involvement. I know military installations have investigated BF activity as a potential security threat and the result of those investigations have been classified. Why? The only thing that makes any sense to me because all of this and the lack of a fossil or skeletal finds of ancestral BF is that BF did not originate on this planet. Like it or not, that theory seems to be the best fit of the facts we know.

Has worked for me. Has worked for me.