Somerset Posted July 15 Posted July 15 What's the possibility that the US government knowingly allows Bigfoot to harvest humans within government controlled forests, national parks etc ? Hidden in plain sight because as we know the missing are not recorded, is someone turning a blind eye as long as the harvesting (mainly) stays withing boundaries and acceptable numbers?
norseman Posted July 16 Admin Posted July 16 20 hours ago, Somerset said: What's the possibility that the US government knowingly allows Bigfoot to harvest humans within government controlled forests, national parks etc ? Hidden in plain sight because as we know the missing are not recorded, is someone turning a blind eye as long as the harvesting (mainly) stays withing boundaries and acceptable numbers? The Dennis Martin case is an eye opener. We cannot prove anything but there is definitely obstruction from the Park Service over missing people. Just asking for a missing person list as a tax payer and being told it would be one million dollars to compile the list? (Per Paulides testimony) Should tell us everything we need to know. And we have debated this before? But I personally see NO WAY with all of the surveillance apparatus of the many government agencies that a 800 lbs primate has never been detected. Research the Lovelock giants for more obstruction from the government. Or the Smithsonian's special status that does not require them to follow US law. Great place to hide the bodies!
Silverback Sax Posted July 22 Posted July 22 "Allows" is an interesting concept when discussing 8 to 12' bipedal farel human like forest beings. I suppose they allow the silver back gorilla at the zoo to eat first as well!
NorCalWitness Posted July 22 Posted July 22 On 7/16/2025 at 10:07 AM, norseman said: The Dennis Martin case is an eye opener. We cannot prove anything but there is definitely obstruction from the Park Service over missing people. Just asking for a missing person list as a tax payer and being told it would be one million dollars to compile the list? (Per Paulides testimony) Should tell us everything we need to know. And we have debated this before? But I personally see NO WAY with all of the surveillance apparatus of the many government agencies that a 800 lbs primate has never been detected. Research the Lovelock giants for more obstruction from the government. Or the Smithsonian's special status that does not require them to follow US law. Great place to hide the bodies! I don't trust a thing Paulides says. But, yes, the government 100% knows about the Sasquatch phenomenon. The Smithsonian is heavily invested in narrative control and are not to be trusted.
norseman Posted July 22 Admin Posted July 22 39 minutes ago, NorCalWitness said: I don't trust a thing Paulides says. But, yes, the government 100% knows about the Sasquatch phenomenon. The Smithsonian is heavily invested in narrative control and are not to be trusted. Don't read Paulides account of it then. There are others…. Agreed.
Pembo Posted Friday at 10:23 PM Posted Friday at 10:23 PM On 7/22/2025 at 7:26 PM, norseman said: Don't read Paulides account of it then. There are others…. Agreed. But Paulides is (as far as I know and I’m trying to find his own words to make sure) the only source of anything weird What do you consider an “eye opener”? This case seems to be held up as the flagship m411 case but there’s nothing to it as far as I can see from my own investigation
norseman Posted 9 hours ago Admin Posted 9 hours ago 17 hours ago, Pembo said: But Paulides is (as far as I know and I’m trying to find his own words to make sure) the only source of anything weird What do you consider an “eye opener”? This case seems to be held up as the flagship m411 case but there’s nothing to it as far as I can see from my own investigation As a firefighter of 17 years? I can read this report and see a lot of weird stuff in it. https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/foia/upload/1969_GRSM_DennisMartin_dissapearance_REDACTED.pdf https://vault.fbi.gov/dennis-martin/Dennis Martin Part 01 (Final)/view The FBI never called it a kidnapping. There was no evidence for it. Meaning there was no evidence a adult human packed Dennis out of the park. So that means according to the FBI that Dennis was still lost in the park. So you’re telling me there is nothing strange about 1000s of people searching for a 5 year old boy that had a five minute head start and cannot find him? Also notice that the Green Berets kept adding to their force. This wasn’t just a group that happened to be in the area. And when do Green Berets do civilian SAR missions anyhow?
Pembo Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) Thank you for your reply Firefighting is a noble career and I'm sure that you've made a lot of people's lives better and safer, but I don't see how that's relevant to this particular discussion. I should say, I'm from the UK and nothing in our fire service's experience would necessarily be relevant but I accept that your services are different so I may be wrong. You seem to accept that there wasn't a kidnapping ( I say "seem" because it looks like your paragraph may be a case of "even if you accept this is true, how do you explain this?" and I don't want to put words in your mouth or suggest you accept/concede something that you don't). That said, I disagree completely with your evaluation. You say 'you're telling me there is nothing strange about 1000s of people searching for a 5 year old boy that had a five minute head start and cannot find him?' but that's not what happened. He went missing at 4:30pm. His father and a few other people started searching for him within 3-5 minutes (the details are sketchy). They were searching in terrain that, outside the field and off the trail, which is the terrain he went missing, is reported as being dense forest ('so thick is the green growth of trees that a squirrel could go from Gatlinburg to Cherokee, N.C some 30 miles over the mountain, without ever having to touch ground' - The Tennessean 6.20.1969), ('[Dennis] became separated after plunging into the thick tangle of forest and underbrush, home of black bears, wild hogs, and snakes' - Kingsport Times 6.16.1969) He wasn't reported missing to the Rangers for 4 hours, at 8:28pm. Some few people (no reports I have found state a firm number) searched during the night, during which there was significant rainfall. The first actual, co-ordinated search started at 5am the next day. According to the NPS report, this consisted of somewhere between 50 and 80 people (it's not clear whether 'leaders' were included in the count of searchers or were additional). In any event, some 12+ hours after he went missing, fewer than 100 people were looking for him (assume the higher number of 80 and add in family, who let's assume weren't counted as 'searchers' by the NPS). This is a million miles away from 1000s looking for him within 5 minutes. Assume he could move a conservative 1mph, over 12 hours, that would give a potential search area of 452m2. Slightly smaller than Los Angeles City limits, but covered in dense forest, rivers, caves and crevices. It would be a minor miracle if they did find him! The number of searchers for 6.16.1969 was approx 300, 6.17.1969 was 365 etc. The only day over 1,000 was 6.21.1969, a full week after his disappearance. As for the Green Berets - from the NPS report '[Ranger Mike] Myers also contacted U.S. Forest Service District Ranger on the Nantahala, who in turn made contact with Col. Kinney, commanding the Special Forces troops in that area. Col. Kinney requested and obtained permission from the Third Army Headquarters at Ft Benning, Georgia, to transfer 40 Special Forces to the search area. - 6.15.1969 I can't see anything suggesting that the Green Berets 'kept adding to their force.' They seem to have added 22 men on 6.18.1969, although I admit the seem to have had 71 by 6.25.1969 33 left the search on 6.25.1969 with the remaining 38 leaving the next day. It is mentioned in the NPS report and news papers that they were 'in the area' and familiar with the type of terrain in the area due to having been deployed in Vietnam. I understand that Green Berets don't get involved in SAR on a regular basis, but if they're available, and if this, as was obviously the case, caught the public imagination, why not? Are you willing to suggest why you think the Green Berets were involved? Absent another, better, theory, I don't see why the logical reason put forth shouldn't be accepted. Edited 3 hours ago by Pembo left out a number from original 1
norseman Posted 1 hour ago Admin Posted 1 hour ago 1 hour ago, Pembo said: Thank you for your reply Firefighting is a noble career and I'm sure that you've made a lot of people's lives better and safer, but I don't see how that's relevant to this particular discussion. I should say, I'm from the UK and nothing in our fire service's experience would necessarily be relevant but I accept that your services are different so I may be wrong. You seem to accept that there wasn't a kidnapping ( I say "seem" because it looks like your paragraph may be a case of "even if you accept this is true, how do you explain this?" and I don't want to put words in your mouth or suggest you accept/concede something that you don't). That said, I disagree completely with your evaluation. You say 'you're telling me there is nothing strange about 1000s of people searching for a 5 year old boy that had a five minute head start and cannot find him?' but that's not what happened. He went missing at 4:30pm. His father and a few other people started searching for him within 3-5 minutes (the details are sketchy). They were searching in terrain that, outside the field and off the trail, which is the terrain he went missing, is reported as being dense forest ('so thick is the green growth of trees that a squirrel could go from Gatlinburg to Cherokee, N.C some 30 miles over the mountain, without ever having to touch ground' - The Tennessean 6.20.1969), ('[Dennis] became separated after plunging into the thick tangle of forest and underbrush, home of black bears, wild hogs, and snakes' - Kingsport Times 6.16.1969) He wasn't reported missing to the Rangers for 4 hours, at 8:28pm. Some few people (no reports I have found state a firm number) searched during the night, during which there was significant rainfall. The first actual, co-ordinated search started at 5am the next day. According to the NPS report, this consisted of somewhere between 50 and 80 people (it's not clear whether 'leaders' were included in the count of searchers or were additional). In any event, some 12+ hours after he went missing, fewer than 100 people were looking for him (assume the higher number of 80 and add in family, who let's assume weren't counted as 'searchers' by the NPS). This is a million miles away from 1000s looking for him within 5 minutes. Assume he could move a conservative 1mph, over 12 hours, that would give a potential search area of 452m2. Slightly smaller than Los Angeles City limits, but covered in dense forest, rivers, caves and crevices. It would be a minor miracle if they did find him! The number of searchers for 6.16.1969 was approx 300, 6.17.1969 was 365 etc. The only day over 1,000 was 6.21.1969, a full week after his disappearance. As for the Green Berets - from the NPS report '[Ranger Mike] Myers also contacted U.S. Forest Service District Ranger on the Nantahala, who in turn made contact with Col. Kinney, commanding the Special Forces troops in that area. Col. Kinney requested and obtained permission from the Third Army Headquarters at Ft Benning, Georgia, to transfer 40 Special Forces to the search area. - 6.15.1969 I can't see anything suggesting that the Green Berets 'kept adding to their force.' They seem to have added 22 men on 6.18.1969, although I admit the seem to have had 71 by 6.25.1969 33 left the search on 6.25.1969 with the remaining 38 leaving the next day. It is mentioned in the NPS report and news papers that they were 'in the area' and familiar with the type of terrain in the area due to having been deployed in Vietnam. I understand that Green Berets don't get involved in SAR on a regular basis, but if they're available, and if this, as was obviously the case, caught the public imagination, why not? Are you willing to suggest why you think the Green Berets were involved? Absent another, better, theory, I don't see why the logical reason put forth shouldn't be accepted. Firefighters were apart of the SARS mission. It’s relevant to me because I never had Green Berets ever show up to ANY emergency I was dispatched to in 17 years. It’s not my evaluation. Thats the FBI’s evaluation. He was not kidnapped. (My opinion was that he was kidnapped. But not by someone who operates conventionally) It is in the report that Green Berets kept adding to their numbers. Which seems odd if they were “just in the area”. And it’s amazing to me that they haven’t been “available” since that specific search. They are constantly training out of Ft. Bragg. How many missing people are there in the SE US? Yes, It’s odd. Why would you include armed soldiers in a SAR search? Because you need shooters. There is a threat. If Dennis was just lost? And as many people searched for him? They would have found him. Maybe they would not have found him alive, but they would have found his body.
Pembo Posted 10 minutes ago Posted 10 minutes ago Thanks for the reply. I hate to not reply fully but there’s something I wanted to quickly check. - you say the green berets were there because of a threat but what threat specifically do you believe was there? Any sources for those threats would be great. any sources for the green berets being armed above and beyond the rangers? I’ve read (but can’t confirm without diving deep back in) that it was sidearms identical to nps rangers
Recommended Posts