georgerm Posted 11 hours ago Author Posted 11 hours ago On 10/14/2026 at 6:59 AM, NCBFr said: Based on my reading of hundreds if not 1000+ reports, I am a firm believer that the Federal Government as a whole fully understands BF and for reasons you can only guess feels it is best not to reveal them and even protect them where possible. For instance, what are the legal or even constitutional issues if they are some form of relic hominem? Even worse, what if they have an alien origin (which I do not believe but there are plenty of BF/UFO related reports). I have seen them and ran in to them multiple times over the last 30 years in NC and NJ (and may have a den/hunting blind build by them 100 yards from my back yard) and no longer care to get proof of their existence. I doubt I would reach for my camera or phone if one posed for me. Just leave them alone like they leave me alone when wandering through the woods. Quote Based on my reading of hundreds if not 1000+ reports, I am a firm believer that the Federal Government as a whole fully understands BF and for reasons you can only guess feels it is best not to reveal them and even protect them where possible. For instance, what are the legal or even constitutional issues if they are some form of relic hominem? Thanks for the reply NCBFr. Yes, the Forest Service and the BLM fully understands BF or partially understands since they have thousands of employees who travel the back roads of dense forest and many have witnessed bigfoot. These employees have reported their sightings to their bosses. The reports eventually reach the top echelons where they say nothing except bigfoot is a mythical creature, and it you keep talking about, it you will be fired. They know public knowledge of bigfoot could shut down logging in vast areas of America so they don't spend a dime on bigfoot studies and verification.
georgerm Posted 11 hours ago Author Posted 11 hours ago (edited) 10 hours ago, xspider1 said: Those are good questions, georgerm! I have quit jobs for ethical reasons so, I kind of get it. Life is too short to live a lie, forever. I am of the opinion that Government(s) are not capable of keeping secrets for very long, which is a good thing. The truth eventually becomes obvious to everyone except hard-core denialists. I believe that many witnesses to the paranormal just see no real benefit in trying to convince others. They probably only tell their experiences to people they trust and perhaps (like me), they don't give a rat's ass about those who only ridicule. Sometimes, it seems perfectly reasonable to let simpletons bask in blissful ignorance. Quote I am of the opinion that Government(s) are not capable of keeping secrets for very long, which is a good thing. The truth eventually becomes obvious to everyone except hard-core denialists. In order to gain a bigfoot secret, the government has to study the creature which they won't do because public secrets or proof of bigfoot could help shut down logging. Remember how public studies of the Spotted Owl helped environmentalist shut down logging in a few public forests? "The northern spotted owl has been a focal point of environmental and economic conflict in Oregon for more than three decades. Listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, it depends on mature and old‑growth forests, making timber harvest practices a central point of contention.", internet Edited 11 hours ago by georgerm
georgerm Posted 10 hours ago Author Posted 10 hours ago 49 minutes ago, georgerm said: In order to gain a bigfoot secret, the government has to study the creature which they won't do because public secrets or proof of bigfoot could help shut down logging. Remember how public studies of the Spotted Owl helped environmentalist shut down logging in a few public forests? "The northern spotted owl has been a focal point of environmental and economic conflict in Oregon for more than three decades. Listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, it depends on mature and old‑growth forests, making timber harvest practices a central point of contention.", internet Call this site below up on youtube to learn more about the Spotted Owl. oregon's spotted owl helped give rise to the endangered species act. 50 years later, has it worked
georgerm Posted 10 hours ago Author Posted 10 hours ago oregon's spotted owl helped give rise to the endangered species act. 50 years later, has it worked
norseman Posted 10 hours ago Admin Posted 10 hours ago 22 hours ago, MIB said: The federal government is not a homogeneous entity, it is a complex system with distinct parts in groups and tiers. I do not think there is a single means to stop 2.4 to 3 million federal employees, plus 1.3 million active duty military people, plus 3.5 million (plus) private contractors ultimately paid by the US government from talking to someone if there was a secret. That is only people currently in federal employment of some sort, doesn't include those who used to work for the US gov't in some capacity who would also know if the federal government as a whole fully understands bigfoot. So, with as much respect as possible given that I'm ridiculing your conclusion ... I find your "belief" functionally preposterous simply because a conspiracy of silence involving up to 8 million current people and several 10s of millions including living past employees is absolutely unworkable. I hope when you look at it in those terms, you also understand how preposterous it is. If we break it down a bit and just look at how many current federal employees, direct and indirect, work in areas overlapping historical bigfoot reports who would have to be silenced, it's still a number in the tens of thousands. It is not only that their awareness that bigfoot exists that has to be suppressed, but that they have been threatened with something if they do not maintain that secrecy. If you think that is possible you do not understand how absolutely stubborn people get when coercion is attempted. I don't know what I would do, not with absolute certainty. I might decide not to take a picture, I might decide to do so for personal reasons (counting coup?) only, or I might decide to to share ... it is hard to say for sure until I find myself in that situation. 'til then, all is speculation. That is more or less my approach though I do deliberately put myself in locations where I think they might be more likely to be. They don't have to silence them. All they have to do is attach a stigma to it. Which they have done so. This was going on with Commercial Pilots who had witnessed UFOs reporting it to the FAA. It was a great way to get your medical pulled. Step out of line and things will get hard for you. We know this tactic from other fields. If your a witness your either mistaken, a liar, a drunk or you belong in a padded room. There is zero chance in 2026 that the government doesn’t know Sasquatch exists. Military, Border and LE surveillance has picked up anomalies 100 percent. 🤷🏻♂️ We have them on highway cameras and even a eagle cam. There is no doubt in my mind there is better footage archived somewhere. So why the pushback? Why the obfuscation? 1
xspider1 Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago 2 hours ago, norseman said: ... There is zero chance in 2026 that the government doesn’t know Sasquatch exists... There is no doubt in my mind there is better footage archived somewhere. Footage doesn't prove Sasquatch, remember? So, if the Government knows, what is their collective basis for knowing?
norseman Posted 7 hours ago Admin Posted 7 hours ago 38 minutes ago, xspider1 said: Footage doesn't prove Sasquatch, remember? So, if the Government knows, what is their collective basis for knowing? Correct. Just like leaked UAP footage doesn’t prove to science aliens are real. But that’s not the same thing as saying the Government doesn’t know about UAPs. They do. And they have swamp gas’d the entire subject for 70 years. Sound familiar? Um let’s just start with the over ONE TRILLION dollar per year DOD budget?
MIB Posted 6 hours ago Admin Posted 6 hours ago 3 hours ago, norseman said: They don't have to silence them. All they have to do is attach a stigma to it. Which they have done so. I don't think that is true. Of all those millions of employees it only takes a single person, a single whistle blower, to bust the lid off. There are enough disgruntled ex employees who left on bad terms already, stigmatized already, to not give a crap about anything else the federal gov't might do, to have aired the story decades ago. There are enough people with principles to have done it if there was any coercion attempted. You can't coerce silence with threats, there are too many people with principles who simply will not knuckle under. You can't sell it on some sort of higher moral ground because too many people simply don't respect that. You can't keep people from talking to spouses, you can't gag spouses. This ain't the Manhattan Project. Nor are these those times, people do not have the respect for authority that those times, those events, required. There is no way there's a gov't wide conspiracy. I find it ridiculous. That does not mean there's no knowledge at all in some compartments within government. That's not what I'm saying at all.
norseman Posted 6 hours ago Admin Posted 6 hours ago 5 minutes ago, MIB said: I don't think that is true. Of all those millions of employees it only takes a single person, a single whistle blower, to bust the lid off. There are enough disgruntled ex employees who left on bad terms already, stigmatized already, to not give a crap about anything else the federal gov't might do, to have aired the story decades ago. There are enough people with principles to have done it if there was any coercion attempted. You can't coerce silence with threats, there are too many people with principles who simply will not knuckle under. You can't sell it on some sort of higher moral ground because too many people simply don't respect that. You can't keep people from talking to spouses, you can't gag spouses. This ain't the Manhattan Project. Nor are these those times, people do not have the respect for authority that those times, those events, required. There is no way there's a gov't wide conspiracy. I find it ridiculous. That does not mean there's no knowledge at all in some compartments within government. That's not what I'm saying at all. I am not saying that people stay silent. I am saying that those who don’t stay silent are marginalized and branded a crackpot. You’re a witness yourself? Can you go to the USPS? USFS? BLM? USFW? Which government agency is going to take your sightings report? Paul Freeman was a Forest Service employee? Did any of his evidence make a dent at the USFS? How about Lyle Laverty? He ended up running the whole show? Did he ever launch a formal inquiry? No. There MUST be a government wide conspiracy. Because any federal agency isn’t going to give the subject the time of day. And they do it not by keeping a secret. They do it by ridicule. And I trust your testimony or BC witness’s testimony way more than I trust some bureaucrats obfuscation! You have seen it with your own eyes? Why does the government marginalize the subject? Either you are delusional or a liar? Or THEY ARE! 🤷♂️ I have had run ins with Fish and Game. They lied about hound hunting and got it banned. They lied about Wolf reintroduction. And they are lying about Grizzly Bear reintroduction. Now Washington state is launching an investigation into Paul Allen’s sister funding anti hunting groups that had ties to F and G commissioners. As far as I am concerned? If their lips are moving? It’s a lie. And this just state level corruption….. How many years did I pay into this system? Disgusting. https://sportsmensalliance.org/evidence-against-washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission/
OnlyASize12 Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 28 minutes ago, MIB said: I don't think that is true. Of all those millions of employees it only takes a single person, a single whistle blower, to bust the lid off. There are enough disgruntled ex employees who left on bad terms already, stigmatized already, to not give a crap about anything else the federal gov't might do, to have aired the story decades ago. There are enough people with principles to have done it if there was any coercion attempted. You can't coerce silence with threats, there are too many people with principles who simply will not knuckle under. You can't sell it on some sort of higher moral ground because too many people simply don't respect that. You can't keep people from talking to spouses, you can't gag spouses. This ain't the Manhattan Project. Nor are these those times, people do not have the respect for authority that those times, those events, required. There is no way there's a gov't wide conspiracy. I find it ridiculous. That does not mean there's no knowledge at all in some compartments within government. That's not what I'm saying at all. I agree. I work in the IT crew for the state environmental agency here in Vermont. Been here thirty years. There is no mass conspiracy. There are staff here who LIVE to spit in the eyes of the political leadership. NO WAY could a broad secret be kept year after year. Heck, my interest is know with my coworkers and when we got a request to help out with an odd email reporting something scary in the woods, they came to me for insight. I can buy any isolated incident being hushed up. A small number of people with a GOOD reason CAN keep a secret. They ALL need to really feel the secret needs to be kept. Some broad conspiracy across 50 states plus the federal government across 200+ years of staff hired for reasons other than commitment to concealing the existence of a large primate in the woods.....not reasonable. OnlyASize12
norseman Posted 3 hours ago Admin Posted 3 hours ago 2 hours ago, OnlyASize12 said: I agree. I work in the IT crew for the state environmental agency here in Vermont. Been here thirty years. There is no mass conspiracy. There are staff here who LIVE to spit in the eyes of the political leadership. NO WAY could a broad secret be kept year after year. Heck, my interest is know with my coworkers and when we got a request to help out with an odd email reporting something scary in the woods, they came to me for insight. I can buy any isolated incident being hushed up. A small number of people with a GOOD reason CAN keep a secret. They ALL need to really feel the secret needs to be kept. Some broad conspiracy across 50 states plus the federal government across 200+ years of staff hired for reasons other than commitment to concealing the existence of a large primate in the woods.....not reasonable. OnlyASize12 Again. No secret needed.
Huntster Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 3 hours ago, MIB said: .........There is no way there's a gov't wide conspiracy. I find it ridiculous. That does not mean there's no knowledge at all in some compartments within government. That's not what I'm saying at all. ^ This. ^ Moreover, even within certain agencies (like the Army), few have the odds of encountering these creatures. But some do. I've used the example of Ft. Lewis, Washington. It's right on ground that is surrounded with regular sightings, is actually on ground that looks like a migration/movement area, has plenty of recorded sightings itself, and has been an Army post for over a hundred years. If sasquatches exist, and if that area is as density rich as reports indicate, and with the Army being there for a century, there are people within the Army family who know about it. I was an Army soldier (engineer), and then an Army civilian on Ft. Richardson, Alaska, for 35 years. I worked for the engineering organization that literally owned the post. We signed off buildings and lands to commanding officers of various units, but we were ultimately responsible for them (and we held the tenants responsible for proper use and damages). I was an "outside" engineer. Roads, grounds, railroads, bridges, etc. We had an environmental branch which included a Natural Resources Officer, who was responsible for wildlife. He set the hunting regs on post in cooperation with the state fish and game agency. Ft. Lewis has/had the exact same organizational structure. If sasquatches exists, they exist there at least in movement through the place leaving sign and encounters with soldiers and Range Control. Eventually, the Natural Resources Officer is going to know and share that knowledge with the Public Works Director, who will then share it with the Commanding General's Chief of Staff. Where the knowledge goes from there is certain to vary. But my experience is that's how it looks at the lower, local end. I'm also pretty well versed in what we call "unofficial lines of communication". All of us civilians, unlike both the enlisted and commissioned active duty personnel, worked there for decades. We didn't come for a three year tour, and then rotated out. We owned the place. Literally. And we worked together for decades. We were like brothers and sisters. We still are. And we talk to each other. Some word gets around. Some is hush-hush. Depends on what it is, and who you trust. On Ft. Rich, we talked openly about the wildlife. Those of us in the exterior trades and activities had regular contact with the bears, wolves, and moose. Lots of it. And we shared those experiences with others. If I saw a sasquatch, would I have talked? Yup........to a few folks. Certainly not all. 2
xspider1 Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago (edited) 5 hours ago, norseman said: Correct. Just like leaked UAP footage doesn’t prove to science aliens are real. But that’s not the same thing as saying the Government doesn’t know about UAPs. They do. Ok, I think what you are trying to say is that some people in Government know about Bigfoot. Please correct me if I'm wrong (lol) but, you don't think that everyone in Government knows about Bigfoot, right? So, as I see it, this is the disconnect: Surely, some Government employees, past and present, have witnessed what we describe as Bigfoot. However, if anyone of those people had definitive proof (as you indicate, think: bodies on slabs) then, I would only have to believe that that indisputable evidence, i.e. proof, would have been exposed by now. I can see why many people don't come forward and insist to their Government bosses that they saw a Bigfoot. However, if they know they exist, which we define as absolute proof, then I think they most likely would have taken that absolute proof higher up. So, to summarize: if no absolute proof then, why risk ridicule, your job, etc. etc.?? Edit to add: Thank-you for your Service, Huntster! I think you summarize the situation very well and from a position of actual experience. Where reported Bigfoot sightings, footprints, howls, smells, structures, etc. etc. go from there, without definitive proof, is absolutely nowhere. Edited 1 hour ago by xspider1
norseman Posted 1 hour ago Admin Posted 1 hour ago 40 minutes ago, xspider1 said: Ok, I think what you are trying to say is that some people in Government know about Bigfoot. Please correct me if I'm wrong (lol) but, you don't think that everyone in Government knows about Bigfoot, right? So, as I see it, this is the disconnect: Surely, some Government employees, past and present, have witnessed what we describe as Bigfoot. However, if anyone of those people had definitive proof (as you indicate, think: bodies on slabs) then, I would only have to believe that that indisputable evidence, i.e. proof, would have been exposed by now. I can see why many people don't come forward and insist to their Government bosses that they saw a Bigfoot. However, if they know they exist, which we define as absolute proof, then I think they most likely would have taken that absolute proof higher up. So, to summarize: if no absolute proof then, why risk ridicule, your job, etc. etc.?? Edit to add: Thank-you for your Service, Huntster! I think you summarize the situation very well and from a position of actual experience. Where reported Bigfoot sightings, footprints, howls, smells, structures, etc. etc. go from there, without definitive proof, is absolutely nowhere. When I say Government, I mean the people who control it. Whom ever has the power to stigmatize a subject. Project Blue Book claiming a UFO is nothing more than swamp gas. People who make April Fools jokes on the official U.S. Forest Service website about Bigfoot. Etc. This isn’t the actions of low level people. This is an active decision by the people who run the show. 1
Huntster Posted 44 minutes ago Posted 44 minutes ago 1 hour ago, Huntster said: .........If I saw a sasquatch, would I have talked? Yup........to a few folks. Certainly not all. Oh, I need to add something: I was a supervisor in the Roads and Grounds shop for a few years. Had one of the men in the shop come to me with a sightings report, I would have most definitely handled it differently than if I'd had the sighting myself. If I'd seen one myself, I would be included to report it to my supervisor...............but if I had a low opinion of him, I probably wouldn't report it. But if I was the supervisor, and it was reported to me? I would go to the site and look for sign first, but whether or not I found anything, I would have definitely brought it up my chain of command. I would probably skip the Branch Chief and go directly to the Public Works Director. It's just a matter of responsibility.
Recommended Posts