frap10 Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 ^^^ Wow SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT that's really something there.
Guest Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 However, it could be said that fits inside general wildlife management policy these day, corridor left for everything, not just BF. You start paying attention, where you accept BF is a possibility however, and some actions seem highly suggestive that TPTB are aware of them. TPTB in this sense, meaning those who are in charge of that area, Forestry, Parks, State, province or regional park management etc.
Guest Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 I've often speculated that a prime reason for a government cover-up of Bigfoots would be motivated by an awareness of the restrictions they'd cause to things such as logging and other environmental manipulation. It would be inconvenient, no doubt, if a protected species that's so massive and presumably intelligent lived in areas that the US government wanted to cut down or otherwise change! So I'm agreeing with recent posts on this one. Mind you, I'd argue the government might have nicer motives too, if there is indeed a cover-up. For example, might the discovery of Sasquatch cause some kind of mass hysteria, making people feel unsafe and leading to people and Bigfoots alike being shot in the woods needlessly? I might think twice if I was in government before making such an announcement myself, to be honest...
Guest Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 ^^^ Good post – Seems like there might be something to that. 1997 the government took ownership of about 69 percent of forested land in Western United States. Over eighty percent of the lumber industry comes from private lands and the big disparity there is quite obvious. Since 2008, the grab for more and more land has been nonstop. IMHO Source: http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFactsMetric.pdf
Guest Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Related to this I am seeing something that seems to be a pattern with the Washington DNR. My first research contact was on a mountain at the edge of human development in Clark County. This area had been BF active with multiple sighting and vocalization reports since the 1990s. Little or no logging. Logging started and now the mountain itself has been about 60% logged. Logging started on the NW habituated side and moved over the top to the East. Curiously the logging ran right over very active hiking trails with no effort to take them into consideration. Well I thought that was probably it for logging but then started seeing the tree survey markings on trees. But it seemed that they left a corridor of trees, heading off the mountain off to the East away from humans, down to an area at the foot of the mountain, where I had started having BF contact. The area suddenly got very active. Again this corridor seemed to have nothing to do with the multiuse recreational trails which ended up in the clear cut areas. They logged right over them. Logging started taking big zones of trees down with clear cut but there was a big corridor of cover that was not logged which pointed East. One particular area where I had my zapping encounter had signs posted that it was a designated special habitat area. I have never seen those signs anyplace else. Things were stable for a couple of years, then clear cutting started that ran right up to the posted special habitat area. That was left alone and logging completely surrounded the area except for, you probably guessed, a corridor of trees left, heading off to the East. With that logging BF activity in the area stopped. I floundered around trying to figure out where the BF went. Going here and there but never exploring the area just East of my last contact area. My last time out, I spent some time looking at USGS maps and decided to check out an area just East of my last active area. I had never been in there as the only open road in is posted no trespassing. I found a blocked of with boulders, logging road, near the road posted no trespassing and hiked on foot. Not knowing what to expect other than what I had seen on Google Earth. Sure enough pointed right at the area where I had a couple of years of BF contact was a narrow finger of forested cover pointed right back towards my previous contact area to the West. This densely wooded area leads around through some timbered drainage, with active creeks, behind the area posted no trespassing, and is a corridor leading off to the East, off into Skamania County. Suddenly light bulb came on, and the pattern hit me. The DNR seems to be herding the BF who have lived in the area for probably 100s of years off to the East, away from hiking trails, homes being built at the edge of the woods, and away from human habitation. If I did not have the continuous experience in the area lasting years and just visited casually, the pattern would not have been as obvious. But it seems to be a pattern to leave a corridor of tree cover heading East. Coincidence? Maybe. But if I knew BF was in the area, wanted to log the area, and encourage them to move East, into the uninhabited areas to the East, that is how I would do it. At this point, within a few years, I fully expect those fingers of forest cover that have not been logged will be logged and completely cut off BF that have moved East from returning due to lack of cover. That is very interesting stuff. I wonder if you could send someone, perhaps a high school student, into the local USFS office to ask for a copy of the Timber Harvest Plan that covers the area with the corridors you have identified. Perhaps state they are doing a "project" for school or something...once you have the paperwork examine the plan to see what the process is for identifying the timber to be harvested vs. that timber that was left. That criteria should be universal to any USFS approved plan...once you identify the specifics of the corridors, then go request some other THP...where no BF activity is suspected...and see if the same rules are being applied. If you smell a rat acquire another plan or two and see if you find a clear pattern of "tuning" the process when BF is a factor in the plan...if so you'd have a pretty valuable piece of evidence to support your hypothesis.
SWWASAS Posted February 23, 2015 BFF Patron Posted February 23, 2015 It is not USFS timber. It is state timber. Right now if there is a plan rather than let them know I am onto it I would rather see where it points. I was up there today again and have not found any BF sign. Deer and elk tracks so that is encouraging. Windy so lots of tree knocking together so not sure what is nature and what is not. Just need more time to learn the area.
ThePhaige Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Both of these interviews go into the whats and whys very well I feel, both from different sides of the belief and research camps. Will Jevning http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/5/039/show_5039619.mp3 Ron Morehead http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/5/008/show_5008663.mp3 Edited February 23, 2015 by ThePhaige
Guest Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 I understand your reluctance to give them even a hint that you are on to them, that's why I suggested sending in someone else, and 10-4 on the state sale they'll have a plan too, but again your point about maintaining the lost profile possible is well taken. I hope your efforts continue bear fruit!
BobbyO Posted February 23, 2015 SSR Team Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) However, it could be said that fits inside general wildlife management policy these day, corridor left for everything, not just BF. You start paying attention, where you accept BF is a possibility however, and some actions seem highly suggestive that TPTB are aware of them. TPTB in this sense, meaning those who are in charge of that area, Forestry, Parks, State, province or regional park management etc. Definitely, but a very interesting post anyway SSW. SSW can I ask, what type of approximately land size are we talking here too, that the special habitat area is and that they logged ? Are we talking a few square acres, or hundreds or thousands ? Thanks in advance for your reply. Edited February 23, 2015 by BobbyO
Guest Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 The more I think about this hypothesis, the more I like it...it's a beautifully subtle solution for the problems a government might face if they were aware of Bigfoots..... And like the old proverb says, "You've got to be careful, when a presumed mythical nine foot ape-man potentially disrupts your logging, not to make the general population aware of their existence". Something like that, anyway!
Lake County Bigfooot Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) The U.S. forest products industry produces $200 billion in sales a year and employs about one million workers. The forest production industry is also the leading generator and user of renewable energy. In 2011 the U.S. forest production industry recovered 66.8 percent of paper consumed. One need not think to hard about this, it is all dollars and cents, you discover a rare unknown primate in the US Forests, hmmm who is going to come running to its rescue? Can you imagine the pressure to limit harvesting the forests? Look at those numbers again one more time, yah that is all you need to know. Edited February 23, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot 1
SWWASAS Posted February 23, 2015 BFF Patron Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Bobby that special habitat area is about 10 acres. There is evidence to me that there is a lava tube there but I cannot find an entrance. I can see where a portion of it has collapsed so I have spent some time looking for an entrance. It is heavy timber with a lot of down stuff and hard going. Once when it was active I got growled at. As I write this it is recently completely clear cut all around it but there is an regrowth area leading away to the East that has 12 foot trees on it that provide good cover. I was thinking about my theory last night. Meldrum stated someplace that he thinks BF may have a 1000 square mile range. That is 100 x 100 miles. What I have been thinking about forced migration is way too conservative. A BF could easily move 20 miles in a day toting the juvenile that I know this group had. So for all I know I could be looking 50 miles from where they moved to. So I am probably looking too close in. East along the South Fork of the Lewis is probably a good guess. It has to be traumatic for them to have a favorite places where they have been for a very long time, clear cut. They have probably been there since they moved back after the Yacult burn. That was over 100 years ago. For those that claim that human presence in the woods is so common, how could BF stay in hiding? This project is a good example of why that is wrong. When you look at a USGS map of this area there are dam few trails. I know the area very well. Most of the trails are not where I would consider BF habitat. Too far from water in most cases and in areas were you do not find deer tracks. I know from footprint finds BF avoid human trails. They cross them but normally do not use them. Probably only 10% of the logging road have open gates or are not blocked off by boulders and ditches or both. I know where I need to go to look, but in most cases cannot get there. Unless there is an old closed off logging road to provide access you cannot get where you need to go. Even with a closed logging road, then you are limited by how far you can hike in a day and get out before dark. I can look at a USGS map, pick out very likely spots with running water and lots of cover, but there is no way to get in there. The only thing I can think of that would allow an extensive search of some of these places, is helicopter insertion and extraction like some sort of military operation. Fly in, set up camp, scout around, and be extracted to go to the next place. But that requires landing zones. Stream beds could be used for that a but the forest service would take a dim view of blowing down landing zones. Most logging roads are not wide enough to land a helicopter on either especially if they are little used and grown over. Edited February 23, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Guest Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 The U.S population during 1900 was roughly 76,094,000 and by 1999 the population jumps to 272,690,813 and with that comes a greater demand on the lumber and land as development and infrastructure expand. In 2010, the U.S. is around 308 million and rapidly closing in on half billion people. What does that mean for the lumber industry? I have a degree in this area of study but I’ll leave the answer for you to place the pieces together and draw your own answer as it pertains to Bigfoot and U.S. growth. All of this conjecture on my part but it is my take on it.
BobbyO Posted February 23, 2015 SSR Team Posted February 23, 2015 Well I don't think Dr M is correct on his 1,000 square mile guesstimate on the range of a Sasquatch as I think that's just a nice round number that his brain was comfortable with as giving and it's completely baseless, but if we are to look at it, this is what you'd be looking at. And for the record I've only used an approximation location from my centre point from what SWWA has given from his previous posts so it may not be that accurate either. This is what a 1,000 square miles range would be, from the Lewis River and Lake Merwin. Obviously we don't know if these things when int his area would be at the centre of that kind of range or on the boundaries but it gives you an idea of what type of area we'd be looking at if Dr M is even anywhere close to being accurate. And if this is close to being accurate too, I'm thinking that these ones would be the same ones that the Guys from the Sasquatch Chronicles radio show ran in to too, similar locations.
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Compare Meldrum's range with that of the Mountain Gorilla and Meldrum is being generous.
Recommended Posts