Forest Rangers & Pilots- Bf & Uap's

[VAfooter]

Not necessarily lose their job, but a transfer to Armpit National Forest or a desk job would not be out of the question, or you may just have to tolerate nonstop heckling from your co-workers. Also, lack of promotions, getting the dregs for work assignments, and other administrative actions can make a job much less enticing. The official line is that there is no such thing as BF. Saying otherwise is going against "company" policy. Plus, all of the usual reasons, saying there is can panic amongst the general population, fill the woods with heavily armed, and sometimes drunk, BF hunters, and other such things.

[Guest]

Given how poor the government is at keeping secrets, why would bigfoot be any different?

[Guest LarryP]

 The official line is that there is no such thing as BF. Saying otherwise is going against "company" policy. Plus, all of the usual reasons, saying there is can panic amongst the general population, fill the woods with heavily armed, and sometimes drunk, BF hunters, and other such things.

 

So the USFS and the FAA have a lot in common.

 

Given how poor the government is at keeping secrets, why would bigfoot be any different?

 

 

Your question is based on a false assumption. The government is very good at keeping secrets.

[Guest LarryP]

All of the same principles Mr. Davis points out regarding serious scientific inquiry into UFO's would also apply to most Zoologists with regard to Bigfoot.

 

 

Eric Davis, Physicist, Explains Why Scientists Won't Discuss Their UFO Interests

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/20/physicist-eric-davis-mufon-symposium_n_3620126.html

 

 

For a very long time, the scientific community has been wary of studying UFOs, and the scientists themselves hesitate to talk about their beliefs of unexplained aerial phenomena. But that attitude is changing, and many scientists are joining the discussion without fear of ridicule.

 

"UFOs are real phenomena. They are artificial objects under intelligent control. They're definitely the craft of a supremely advanced technology," says physicist Eric

Davis, a researcher of light-speed travel.

 

Davis, a research physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, studies propulsion physics, which he hopes will one day allow humans to travel easily and quickly through our galactic neighborhood.

 

He's aware of the public perception -- mostly from skeptics and debunkers -- that no legitimate scientists would ever touch the subject of UFOs.

"They're wrong, naive, stubborn, narrow-minded, afraid and fearful. It's a dirty word and a forbidden topic. Science is about open-minded inquiry. You shouldn't be laughing off people. You should show more deference and respect to them ... Scientists need to get back to using the scientific method to study things that are unknown and unusual, and the UFO subject is one of them."

 

Davis is one of several scientists who are presenting their views this weekend on a variety of UFO-related topics at the 2013 MUFON Symposium in Las Vegas.

The physicist, who recently won an award from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics for his study, "Faster-Than-Light Space Warps, Status and Next Steps," knows many colleagues who quietly study UFOs.

 

"There are scientists who are aware of evidence and observational data that is not refutable. It is absolutely corroborated, using forensic techniques and methodology. But they won't come out and publicize that because they fear it. Not the subject -- they fear the backlash from their professional colleagues. The impact on their career might be detrimental and they'd get bad publicity.

 

"It's not an acceptable, funded line of research. The National Science Foundation does not accept UFOs as a subject for scientific study."

 

It may come as a surprise that many scientists have been interested in UFOs for decades.

[chelefoot]

Speaking of the Forest Rangers not reporting... This makes me think of the reports in the Eastern Missing 411 (Paulides) - specifically of the Great Smokey Mtn National Park area. Paulides  describes Dwight McCarter as a retired premier tracker with vast knowledge, whose tracking skills is one of the best in North America.

 

During his research Paulides interviewed McCarter, who was often the lead FRanger on the cases in the Park. He admitted to David that he knew there were "Wild Men" in the park and he felt they may have been involved in some cases. Of course, nothing was ever said about the wild men during the investigations - where oddly the FBI would sometimes show up without even being called.

 

Then I recalled many of the newspaper articles (found by Tirademan) that I have read in the Premium area. There are tons of articles about sitings of the "Wild man" by people from all over during the 1800's and early 1900's.

 

It seems strange to me how it went from being not particularly uncommon for a siting of a "Wild Man" to occur during those days - to what it has become today after the "Bigfoot" entered the picture. You just don't see these "Wild Men" reports anymore. And when there is a Bigfoot report - it does not make the newspaper like the wild man reports did back in the day.

 

And where along the line did our thinking of these wild beings change from being "men" to animals?

 

I don't know.  I'm aggravated that now that I have read these books (or have started to read them).  I have way more questions now than I did before!

 

Anyway, the forest ranger was only willing to admit his knowledge of the wild men in the park, after his retirement. Of course, it has to be because of what he felt the repercussions might be.

[Guest]

My understanding of the wild men referenced by McCarter was that he was speaking more of the kind of wild men seen in Deliverance.

[Guest LarryP]

.

 

 

 Of course, nothing was ever said about the wild men during the investigations - where oddly the FBI would sometimes show up without even being called.

 

 

Anytime the FBI shows up uninvited it's a red flag.

 

I'm aggravated that now that I have read these books (or have started to read them). I have way more questions now than I did before!

 

 

 

 

The Missing 411 books also highlight the similarities between BF reports and UAP reports by highly credible witnesses.

 

In the latter case the CIA has been known to show up, gather all the evidence, tell everyone involved that they need to pretend that it never happenned, and the evidence is never seen again.

 

This has been well documented.

[Cotter]

^Hi Larry:

Any chance you can point me in the right direction to said documentation?
 

Thx.

[Guest LarryP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeNzsUWV8rc

[Guest]

 

.

 

 

Anytime the FBI shows up uninvited it's a red flag.

 

 

 

The Missing 411 books also highlight the similarities between BF reports and UAP reports by highly credible witnesses.

 

In the latter case the CIA has been known to show up, gather all the evidence, tell everyone involved that they need to pretend that it never happenned, and the evidence is never seen again.

 

This has been well documented.

 

Or, it could be that Paulides figured he could double dip and attract both the UFO and bigfoot believers. As for the FBI, it's routine for them to get involved in missing children cases, especially if the kid is under 12 years old, or if the kid is missing on federal land - that's well within the FBI's jurisdiction and they don't need an invitation.

[Guest LarryP]

And what about the CIA's keen interest in Japan Airlines flight 1628 ?

 

Did that fall under their jurisdiction?

[Guest]

Bigfoot was on a plane? I hope it was an aisle seat.

Edited July 26, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest LarryP]

You're not doing yourself any favors with the Sophmoric avoidance tactics.

 

If you had read the 411 books you'd know that in many of these missing persons cases the FBI would just show up and stay on the sidelines. But as soon as someone would report a BF in the search area they would suddenly become very active and suppress witness testimonies.

[Guest]

I've read some of the 411 series. I was not impressed, especially after I did some factchecking.    Paulides' accounts were less than comprehensive in many cases, and omitted or altered significant details.  I see no reason to give him credence.

[Guest LarryP]

Oh yes, the scofftic ad hominem tactic when you've got nothing else.