ShadowBorn Posted December 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 4, 2012 The goverment knows and has no intention on letting the world know. The government is so compartmentalized Why should one hand know what the other is doing keep it kiss no harder then understanding what this means. if you want answers go out into the field and figure this out your self,The truth is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Naw, gov shoulkd come clean...after all they "care" about a lot of other special interests right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 If she finds out something we're not supposed to know then yeah, I'm sure there will be some roadblock to mainstream media. Has anything so far been on the TV news? Or is it squeeking through the blogs and forums and such? Oh, you mean like calling here a loon? Or focusing on her being a veterinarian or all this mud-slinging which will surely be brought up by the MSM? Or the tomfoolery in bigfooting in general? Or the poor behavior of various "head of large bigfooting" organizations? Or the hoaxes? Or letting the info only get into small time media outlets? Or while large media outlets make a joke out of it without research? Or misquoting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 *Funny story*: I composed this post, tried to preview, and the site was acting funky...So I copied it to clipboard, and the WHOLE WEBSITE WENT DOWN. I am putting on my tinfoil pith helmet, and will now sit in the corner and cry. Also, here is my post: I have now twice read "UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realties", by John B. Alexander. http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/B007K4H8VS He makes a very good point, one SURE to disappoint conspiracy theory buffs: That most government agencies try to NOT take responsibility for investigations that would cost said agency resources. That there may be INDIVIDUALS within an organization that collect information, or even take a phenomenon seriously, but when they retire, the information usually retires with them. He posits that the Air Force "We do not investigate UFOs" line is essentially honest...That to do so would divert resources from other work they consider mission critical. You might be surprised to learn that he is not skeptical of the phenomenon of UFOs, and is quite convinced they represent a real, measurable set of events, often witnessed by highly qualified observers...But after years of asking, he is EXTREMELY skeptical of a massive coverup conspiracy, and hads had opportunities to ask a heady group of science and technology pioneers what they knew about any such coverup. They mostly said "We are not studying that, but I bet SOMEONE is." The book is an excellent read, and whether or not you are interested in UFOs, it is a very good look at the processes that would be necessary to sustain any 'Big Brother" type conspiracy over decades. So, my answer: I think there may be people within government (remember, the Government is NOT a monolithic entity, where everybody believes the same things, or is even in agreement on principals of GOVERNING) who have seen sasquatch, taken believable reports, and perhaps collected evidence. I expect that when THAT happens, they try to 'pass it up the chain', only to find that no one is interested in it, or is actively denying the data, to avoid taking on responsibilities for some new phenomenon, which, ultimately, could cost their department funding, or even CUT funding for other, more critical work. Think about how thin our National Park Service personnel are spread...Can you imagine them VOLUNTEERING to spend money on the sasquatch question, when they can barely protect the massive park lands in the U.S.? No conspiracy, except the conspiracy of indifference and self protection. Again, the book is NOT sasquatch related (although some of the Skinwalker Ranch stories are quite alarmingly similar to shape shifting multi-dimensional bigfoot stories!)...But a worthwhile read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 Oh, you mean like calling here a loon? Or focusing on her being a veterinarian or all this mud-slinging which will surely be brought up by the MSM? Or the tomfoolery in bigfooting in general? Or the poor behavior of various "head of large bigfooting" organizations? Or the hoaxes? Or letting the info only get into small time media outlets? Or while large media outlets make a joke out of it without research? Or misquoting? Something like that, among other things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Never heard of Skinwalker Ranch, is it a real place? And if so, why would you name it that? Holy heebie jeebies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Madison: Yes, it is a real place...Skinwalker is what some southwest Native Peoples call a witch or wizard. I do not know where we are rules-wise in linking to paranormal websites, but a quick google search will give you plenty of links to creep you out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I would think Skinwalker Ranch would be a joke on Skywalker Ranch (which really is a Ranch in CA under their tax codes, and they have to keep X number of cattle there to keep ranch status, but apparently it saves them a lot of money). St. G- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 Madison: Yes, it is a real place...Skinwalker is what some southwest Native Peoples call a witch or wizard. I do not know where we are rules-wise in linking to paranormal websites, but a quick google search will give you plenty of links to creep you out! You can talk paranormal so long as it is distinguished from anything that could be considered religious, or political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Mapletoffe, "perceived wrong doing"...Really? there was a lot of actual wrong doing. talk to an aboriginal person sometime or if thats out of your comfort zone read a book about government run schools. as far as a reason for a conspiracy i dont think so. We have not intentionaly harmed BF (as a whole), we don't owe them anything. plus i dont think BF would have much use for a government check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Mapletoffe, "perceived wrong doing"...Really? there was a lot of actual wrong doing. talk to an aboriginal person sometime or if thats out of your comfort zone read a book about government run schools. Nakani, I don't disagree with you, but in line with the forum rules, I was trying to keep clear of the politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Its not politics, its just the facts. I just had a problem with the word perceived, you made it sound like aboriginal people were just making this stuff up. sorry everyone back to our topic now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Mapletoffe, "perceived wrong doing"...Really? there was a lot of actual wrong doing. talk to an aboriginal person sometime or if thats out of your comfort zone read a book about government run schools. as far as a reason for a conspiracy i dont think so. We have not intentionaly harmed BF (as a whole), we don't owe them anything. plus i dont think BF would have much use for a government check. Thank you! I was about to say the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Hesse, I think you may have miss understood what the word perceived means in the context of my post. By the definition below, it means that the present Governments have "Become aware of or come to realize" the mistreatment of First Nation people carried out prior North American governments. perceived past participle, past tense of per·ceive (Verb) Verb Become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand. Become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, esp. that of sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 ok ok.. We can make a new thread called "Is Mapletoffee a nazi indian hater?" and discuss this further or we can talk conspiracys. I vote lets talk conspiracys. ps. just kiddin around MT its all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts