Government's Plausible Deniability?

[Gotta Know]

There is a story here in WA state about a 19 year-old woman who decided to go on a solo spiritual "vision quest" yesterday/last night, deep in the Gifford Pinchot Wilderness located in Skamania county (Article link below). She has not yet returned. Did I mention this is BF central?

 

Yeah, this gal took off in the middle of the night, and part of her "quest" was to do this completely naked with a minimum of gear. Just insanely stupid on so many levels. She has not returned as of this writing, and I can't imagine this turning out well. I hope I am wrong.

 

Not in any way to excuse her youthful recklessness, but when I heard about this story all I could think about was her vulnerabily with our big hairy friend in the neighborhood. Maybe she "knows" about BF and this is part of her quest. But I have to think she is innocent to the very real dangers of this creature, in part because it is not "real" in the sense that he's not officially recognized by the Govt.

 

So yeah, the rabbit hole I am going down is that I think the government DOES know, and by not coming out with the info with formal warnings, people like this will continue to go off and make poor choices. Not that it will altogether stop said choices, but in this case it's just an invition for disaster because it's kept secret from the public.

 

Hey, there are officially recognized bear and cougar out in the woods. That should be enough, right?

 

I don't know. If this gal comes to harm by some "unexplained" force or accident (or never found, period), I'd feel pretty crappy if I were the head of the Fish and Game, MIB or whatever organization that "knows" but that is not sharing.

 

Sorry for the rant. I think people would make better choices if they "knew", and maybe that's the whole point. Recreation $ would be cut in half at least, and that's just one industry.

 

Again, I hope she's okay.

 

http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Naked-woman-missing-in-Wash-forest-210884511.html

And yeah, I think the Gov't is operating on plausible deniabilty, and that just sucks.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Gotta Know

[LeafTalker]

I hope she's okay, too.  

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I think it's worth mentioning that many things can go wrong when out in the wild like that so we can't really pin this down on Bigfoot or any other creature with mythical status...

Edited June 11, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

A nude female and a male BF is not a good idea. Totally make them insande. She had a compass, and a knife. Could be a bear also.

 

Is this a BF hotspot? Skamania Cty: 53 reports, Second highest in Washington. Not good.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Wag

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I find myself wondering whether the likelihood of abduction, rape, and/or murder increases if a female is discovered without any clothes on by a male individual. We know that those types of people who actually are sick enough to perpetrate violent crimes of this nature likely stick to less populated areas, increasing their chances of getting away with their crime. I just think that it is far more likely that she would meet with foul play from a human than a sasquatch. Not saying it is impossible, but I don't buy it.

 

It seems we are saying that because she was naked, a male sasquatch is going to be far more "interested" in her, and I find that extremely unlikely. Think about this for a moment: in just about all mammals that I can think of, sexual attraction is something that is ingrained in the animal. It is NOT a choice. Even with humans, one cannot "choose" who they are attracted to. It just does not work that way. And an attraction for another species, although not unheard of, is relatively rare in my opinion. Therefore it stands to reason that sasquatch may not be attracted to a human at all. But I also understand that since the two species are so similar, this type of attraction could theoretically take place. It is hard to say what the likelihood is of this happening. 

 

Another thing to consider is whether sasquatch females have a mating season similar to other mammals. It is possible that male sasquatch will only attempt to mate with a female when that female is ovulating, or when releasing a certain kind of pheromone that lets the male sasquatch know that she is fertile. Because let's not forget the purpose of mating in the first place...It is a biological event that triggers reproduction and survival of the species. Humans are one of the only species that have sex recreationally, and I am not convinced that such an underdeveloped animal as sasquatch would behave in such a manner. I say that they are underdeveloped because, although obviously intelligent to some degree, they seem to lack any form of advancement or refinement that would allow for a comparison to humans on that level. So what I am saying is that "if" they were all that smart, they would be more advanced. This is partly why I developed the idea that they are only intelligent in their own environment, and that they would pale in comparison to human intelligence when doing things that are not instinctual or necessary for their survival.

 

Basically I suspect that they are not a very mentally reflective species.  And because of this, I feel that it is likely that they are governed more by instinct, and therefore are attracted to sasquatch females with the select purpose of producing offspring for the continuation of the species. Obviously they may not know "why" they have urges and attractions for sasquatch females, like us humans do, and this also may say something about their intelligence. Anyway, I suppose that since our two species are so similar, a male sasquatch could be attracted to a human female. It is not out of the realm of probability. But here is my question...IF a sasquatch was biologically/sexually attracted to a human female, would they simply act on their urges immediately, or kidnap the person and take them somewhere? 

I feel that this would require predetermination about what they were going to do. Again, not out of the realm of possibility. So what I think is that IF a sasquatch kidnaps a woman, they are doing so for more than a biological and ingrained sexual attraction for that particular person. And while a kidnapping does not have to require planning, and can be spontaneous, actually "wanting" to kidnap a human being would imply to me that the sasquatch has some reason for doing so. And I am a stickler for sighting reports, concluding this is probably the best evidence we have at our disposal, at least for researchers at this moment in time, and this sighting record tells us that sasquatch do in fact kidnap people. So because of this long standing Native American belief, mixed with accounts such as that of Albert Ostman, I am not entirely discounting the idea that sasquatch would kidnap a female strictly for reproductive purposes, as some Native American accounts make it perfectly clear that this was the reason for abductions.

 

Now let's say that this is the case. I think this could possibly have grave implications for my idea of a large, increasing, and thriving sasquatch population in North America. My reasoning is as follows: If a sasquatch must look outside their own species for a partner to mate with, it is quite possible that there is not a very large selection of females within that population. Granted, there are other possible explanations that may explain this behavior. For instance, sasquatch could be more attracted to humans than to other sasquatch, although I find this unlikely outside of a small percentage of their population, as it would seem to indicate a flaw in natural law, to some degree anyway.

 

The one possibility however that is more likely in my opinion, and the one that still allows for a large and thriving population, is the explanation that because the population is so large, there are not enough females to go around. It would not surprise me to find that there were more males than females within a population, considering that there are ample reports of lone sasquatch sightings. My sighting was of a lone male sasquatch. And if sasquatch truly form family groups, females are HIGHLY unlikely to not have a male companion. A male on the other hand is much more likely to not have a female companion. So for this reason I think it is possible that there just aren't enough females to go around. And females are a commodity in a variety of mammalian species, especially among primates. Why? Because females are often the selectors, and the males the selectees. This would mean that the sasquatch who do not have female companions are likely to be less of an "alpha" male type of sasquatch. 

 

Do you guys remember the report of the person who said that he had a sasquatch companion as a kid? Something about a female sasquatch who would sit beside him and listen to him talk. I don't know if the story is true, but he said that a male would show up and skulk around the outskirts of their vicinity, and that this male was obviously distressed about the female interacting with this kid. And he mentioned that the male would make various displays, a trait characteristic of an alpha male, who always must defend their female commodity. But what really got me about that encounter was the fact that the female seemed to put the male in his place. If this is true it would seem to me that they are acting on much more than instinct alone. First of all, instinct would have kept this female away from a human male, even if he was a child. And second, a male generally will not be deferrent to a female, unless the female has a choice in exactly who she chooses among the male population. I am making a slight leap in logic with some of this, but I think most of you will fill in the gaps. And again, I am not attempting to state fact, only possibilities as well as opinions.

[Guest]

There is a woman supposedly on an older BF tonight show. She 'interacted' with a lone male, and eventually it followed her home, banged on her door, for a couple months. Misread signals' was the diagnosis. Moral of the story is if female, be very careful around squatch. Squatch males are known to approach human females more often. *Edit*

We'll see if they find her, she still has some time. Not sure what night-time temps are though, and its wet. So, not much if any time.

Edited June 11, 2013 by BigGinger
To Remove Inappropriate Content

[roguefooter]

So a woman goes missing in the woods and you feel this somehow is related to Bigfoot, a Government cover up, and the MIB?

[Gotta Know]

According to local news it will be in the 50's tonight. They found her tracks that made it to a gravel road and then disappeared, so perhaps she got picked up?

 

You guys basically went where my fears took me, but whether a Sas or human male this was simply not a smart choice this young woman made. And I apologize for taking this to a dark conclusion; so far no news is good news. This whole event just really struck me as even more unfortunate due to the lack of gov't disclosure.

Edited June 11, 2013 by BigGinger
To Remove Inappropriate Content

[roguefooter]

Surely you can't be serious?

[Guest wudewasa]

May she return safe and have found what she has sought.  Good health and happiness to all my relations!

[LeafTalker]

I don't know, Wag and Gotta Know..... Maybe the dangers are not as great as you're supposing.

I think JP is right on a lot of counts, including the one that suggests that Sasquatch people may not have quite the same responses we do to nakedness.... They're naked around each other all the time, no? I don't think they have the same massive confusion we do about bodies.

I love the story JP mentions at the end of his post. It's yet another amazing story I'm not familiar with, but speaks to a respectfulness that many humans have observed in Sasquatch people.

Scott Carpenter posted a story once about a young woman who recalled waking up in a tent and realizing a male Sasquatch was in the tent with her; but all he did was touch her back with his finger many times, very tentatively, over some agonizingly long period, like 45 minutes to an hour..... She finally called out, or some human approached her tent (she was camping near the grounds of her own house, or something like that), and the Sasquatch took off.

Edited to add: And 'amen' to what wudewasa said.

Edited June 11, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Gotta Know]

I think the government knows that Sasquatch is real. I think that they are negligent for not sharing that information. I think that people like this young woman (or hikers, or hunters, or morel pickers or anyone who is recreating in obvious BF habitat) could make dangerous decisions that they might not otherwise make if they were better informed.

 

As I said, my first instinct when I heard this story was "uh-oh." Of course, I'm addicted to this and other sites and now consider myself "informed" regarding BF and its possible dangers. That puts me in what, a tiny percentage of 1% of the country's population? I can arm myself and take other steps when out in the woods to hopefully ensure my safety. I might be able to recognize signs of an animal and decide to leave the area if I feel threatened. I equate increased awareness to increased safety.

 

That this woman took the actions she did suggests to me that she figured she knew what to expect from the (known) critters of the woods. The truth is different than that and I think she, and others, deserve to be told. Less conspiracy than just bothered that the reality of a huge primate in our woods is not officially recognized by now.

 

 

 

So a woman goes missing in the woods and you feel this somehow is related to Bigfoot, a Government cover up, and the MIB?

[Guest]

-Is that forest service road drivable or is it blocked off?

 

 

 

-Actually, the 'government' and the news media hide all sorts of information about crimes because of fear of racism etc. BF issues are pretty few and far between. One person missing is really nothing, compared to what goes on. Illegal immigrant drunk drivers kill about 3000-4,000 Americans a year, no one reports on it. Etc.

 

A few people getting napped by BF is nothing in the grand scheem of things.

 

There are more than enough stories out there about a BF being shot and the Forest Service shows up and the body goes away. Someone has quite a collection. 

 

When I was going to go look for a BF head/skull (from a BF report)- I considered I would sell it in Japan, through a middle-man, but not sure how I would find one. But I was severly paranoid about it. I figured $200,000- $400,000 if a full skull and madible.

 

I think JP is right on a lot of counts, including the one that suggests that Sasquatch people may not have quite the same responses we do to nakedness.... They're naked around each other all the time, no? I don't think they have the same massive confusion we do about bodies.

 

No, they are covered in hair, not BARE SKIN. And most females don't walk around naked, naked = sex.

A female human walking naked, a lonley squatch male. Not very pleasant. And of course, no tire tracks on the gravel road? How about boot prints? Yea, the cover -up begins.

 

And remember, she did this in the second squatchiest county!

Edited June 11, 2013 by Wag

[Gotta Know]

Here's the most recent update. Some very interesting new info. Why did she go down such a steep trail? Why do her tracks just disappear after crossing the stream? Story includes a good vid. Very tough country.

 

Oh, and my local Seattle news talked about her tracks coming out at a road; obviously incorrect.

 

Hoping for the best for this woman.

 

http://www.kptv.com/story/22555411/naked-vancouver-woman-missing-in-a-skamania-forest

-Is that forest service road drivable or is it blocked off?

 

[Guest UPs]

I sure hope that she is okay and doesn't pay the ultimate price from possibly using poor judgement. News reports can be very inaccurate so let's hope that is the case here. Dogs should be able to pick up her scent quickly and if so, she should be found. I certainly believe bf has preyed on humans, but I believe it to be a very rare occurrence.