MIB Posted July 30, 2013 Moderator Posted July 30, 2013 I think the first one is an exaggeration. Second point, they'd have to be using all that technology in the right direction at the right time. Unless they've got a particular reason to be looking in our local woods, I'd guess that high tech is focused on our enemies military installations. I do think they know, but I think you're overdoing the dramatic with your reasoning. MIB
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 (edited) There is no need for a government coverup. The only possible reason could be for timber interests. But even that is a long shot. If Sasquatch existed in the 1800's and the government knew the cry would have been to kill the daarn things so we can mow down the forests without them bothering the timber crews or attacking homesteaders. But nothing of the sort happened and that is a telling note especially since the 1800's was a time rife with zoology discoveries and expeditions to all corners of the globe looking for new species. Thank you Charles Darwin BTW. Still nobody lifted a finger to either dispose of the bigfoot beast or to discover them an pin a scientific name on them. If they knew they didn't care and if they didn't care then it wasn't important enough to them. After all the Native Americans didn't depend on Bigfoot like they did the Bufflo and we know how that all turned out. That said the only reason to cover or uncover anything today is money and Bigfoot real or imagined has never been anything to either create money or cause a loss of money to the powers that be. Edited July 30, 2013 by Crowlogic Language
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 My thoughts on this topic follow deductive reasoning. Modern technology has the ability to read the date on a dime from outerspace, can we agree on this? The government possesses this technology and has control of it, can we agree on this? If there is a sasquatch anywhere within our borders, such technology could easily observe them...can we also agree to this point? From these points, if there is a sasquatch at all, the government has observed them--does this sound reasonable, given the previous 3 points? The government has admitted to nothing. Conspiracy? Define conspiracy.Why would they deny what they have in all most liklihood observed? To prevent mayhem or bedlam, public paranoia, militia-like responses from the public, or maybe....just maybe, to keep us all in the dark; after all, knowledge is power yes? Why would the government be paying people to watch the forests with space cameras. Do these even exist with that kind of power? Sources?I don't see why the existence of Bigfoot would cause mayhem, bedlam, etc. Most people would barely care outside of thinking its really cool they are actually real. There are bears, cougars, wolves, bees out there with actual documented cases of attacks and killing people. There are zero proven cases of Bigfoot attacks so why would people be afraid?
BobbyO Posted July 30, 2013 SSR Team Posted July 30, 2013 There is no need for a government coverup. The only possible reason could be for timber interests. But even that is a long shot. That said the only reason to cover or uncover anything today is money and Bigfoot real or imagined has never been anything to either create money or cause a loss of money to the powers that be. Crow you're contradicting yourself. And of course Sasquatch has never been anything to cause a loss of money, how can it if it doesn't exist ? The spotted owl can cause loss of money though, and LOTS of it, because that does exist. Add an unclassified upright primate right under your noses and we are back to what you said initially " MONEY " and nobody should doubt the power of that when it comes to the powers that be.
AaronD Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Why would the government be paying people to watch the forests with space cameras. Do these even exist with that kind of power? Sources? Pointing Accuracy: In order to take images of distant, faint objects, Hubble must be extremely steady and accurate. The telescope is able to lock onto a target without deviating more than 7/1000th of an arcsecond, or about the width of a human hair seen at a distance of 1 mile. Aiming Hubble is like holding a laser light steady on a dime that is 200 miles away. http://space.about.com/od/telescopesandoptics/p/hubbleinfo.htm Described by NASA as “Stubby Hubbles,†the spy satellites weigh in at 1,700 kg (3,700 lb) and look like a cross between the Hubble and a dustbin. The optics are superior to the Hubble’s, which is impressive, since the Hubble can see a dime perched on top of the Washington Monument. http://www.gizmag.com/spysatellite/22813/ 1
Guest Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Has anyone thought that it could also throw a wrench in the whole public education system? That could get pretty expensive too...... Agree completely with AaronD, knowledge is power as well as $$$! They know & anyone who believes the gov't wouldn't cover something like this up is smoking' crack! Oh yeah, they only want to protect us. They are smarter than us & we need protection from the Almighty Gov't. They always have our best interest at heart.
MIB Posted July 30, 2013 Moderator Posted July 30, 2013 The economic impact goes far beyond timber. Anything based on resource extraction ... timber, mining, energy production (gas, coal). We assume but don't know for sure the extent of the "turf" (I hate to say habitat) they use. If it's not just forest in remote places, we could be talking about land set asides right up to the city limits impacting private land holdings, agricultural use, etc. It's bigger than just timber, we just don't know how big. Further, if gov't really knows about bigfoot, if they've had them in the lab, etc as some suggest, then they may have confirmed some of the "woo" stuff. Maybe there are weaponization concerns, national security issues in play. Who knows? ... and until we know what is, we don't know what isn't. Until we know more, I think it pays to keep all the questions open and all possibilities on the table, even the ones we personally think unlikely. MIB 2
Guest Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 The only shady stuff I know about is what David Paulides brought up in his investigation..........the US Park service would not disclose to him the number of missing persons in any park let alone the whole park system. And I think this has a lot more to do with public image than anything else. Kinda like asking the CIA if they still torture people or if they have any secret wars going on. Ultimately they are worried about their jobs, or even possibly criminal proceedings, or being sued. Why are we accepting his claim on that? Has he ever produced a FOIA request that was denied, or a letter on DoI letterhead saying that they would require whatever insane fee he claims? I know he claims they refused, but has anyone ever seen proof?
southernyahoo Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Who said anyone accepts anything? Does the US Park Service track the info Paulides was seeking?
Guest Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Southernyahoo- just to mention, in one of David Ps' other books he had visited the Ca. DFG and was given info./files to bigfoot sightings that they had. It is of my opinion that he hadn't recieved anything that they don't give out. Also just thinking of the liability of knowing about the Sasquatch and not doing any mediation on the subject and then someone goes missing or killed or whatever.
dmaker Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 The notion that the US, Canadian and Mexican governments have agreed to actively cover up Bigfoot is, well to put it bluntly, silly. On the one hand the gubmint is covering it up, yet on the other hand we have TV shows broadcasting weekly and networks offering $10 prizes to bag one. Those are not very congruent scenarios. If the gubmint cared enough and was successful ( as people are indirectly stating) in covering up Bigfoot, then surely they could censor TV shows so that they don't encourage people to make a hobby out of looking for the creature. What a pile of hooey. The only thing this silly conspiracy theory does is provide smoke screen cover for the lack of a specimen to date. We can't find Bigfoot because the gubmint covers it up! Please...
Guest Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Dmaker- you certainly have a right to your opinion,however let me ask you this--- can the governmental officials block your right to speech in the public forum(in the case of bigfoot tv progams - tv)? just wondering what that might look like!
Cotter Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 If BF exists, the gov't knows about it. Period. There are indeed interests that would want to keep an undiscovered primate (presumably endangered) hidden. Take a look at natural resources and energy. Timber, all sorts of minerals, dams, power lines, highways, developments all would now be under scrutiny until the powers can get a handle on what this creature's population, habits, and requirements are. The proverbial e-brake would get thown on a lot of projects. Also, if this creature is adept at seeing at night as is claimed, there's a TON of information within the eye structure the military would want to know about and utilize. Theres a public fear factor involved, a religious one as well. And of course, the trust that the governments want from their subjects. BF is unique, it doesn't require a full fledged cover up, more of a damage control (when one of these does get killed or aggressive), and a keep your mouth shut approach. The bigfoot community itself does the best job of keeping this creature from discovery. Sure, the mexican, american, and canadian gov't have not acknowledged it. But they are nothing more than a few hundred year old european transplants. The TRUE governors of North America (for thousands of years) have acknowledged it, and are simply being ignored.
dmaker Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 I'm sorry, but I'm not buying one ounce of this conspiracy theory. This is a discovery that has great interest in the Natural Sciences, but not too much else in my opinion. The general public would be interested until some thing flashier came along. I just simply do not understand that weight that people place on Bigfoot. If it exists, it's an animal. It will not shake the world to it's core. I do not, personally, perceive a great amount of public fear or religious turmoil. Why would there be? It's just another ape ( most likely if it's anything at all). I don't, either, see this being the proverbial wrench in the works of industries that rely on harvesting natural resources. Maybe I am being naive, but I doubt it. I think some people place way, way, way too much importance on Bigfoot. Ptangier, not sure I follow your question. Why would it matter what people write on message boards when we have nationally broadcast tv shows that encourage people to go find Bigfoot in their spare time? And Cotter, I do not for a second believe the government knows about Bigfoot if it exists. IF it exists, and the government knows, then so would we. There simply is no logical reason to cover it up. Anything else is just conspiracy theory hokum in my opinion.
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 30, 2013 Posted July 30, 2013 Pointing Accuracy: In order to take images of distant, faint objects, Hubble must be extremely steady and accurate. The telescope is able to lock onto a target without deviating more than 7/1000th of an arcsecond, or about the width of a human hair seen at a distance of 1 mile. Aiming Hubble is like holding a laser light steady on a dime that is 200 miles away. http://space.about.com/od/telescopesandoptics/p/hubbleinfo.htm Described by NASA as “Stubby Hubbles,†the spy satellites weigh in at 1,700 kg (3,700 lb) and look like a cross between the Hubble and a dustbin. The optics are superior to the Hubble’s, which is impressive, since the Hubble can see a dime perched on top of the Washington Monument. http://www.gizmag.com/spysatellite/22813/ That applies in space but not through earths atmosphere. The whole point of a space telescope. "If the Hubble Space Telescope pointed to Earth, what resolution would the images have? Hubble's so-called angular resolution — or sharpness — is measured as the smallest angle on the sky that it can resolve (i.e. see sharply). This is 1/10 of an arcsecond (one degree is 3600 arcseconds). If Hubble looked at the Earth — from its orbit of approximately 600 km above the earth’s surface — this would in theory correspond to 0.3 metres or 30 cm. Quite impressive! But Hubble would have to look down through the atmosphere, which would blur the images and make the actual resolution worse. Unfortunately, Hubble will never be turned towards Earth since a) the brightness of the Earth could be damage the telescope and its instruments; there is no particularly interesting astronomical research to be done there (this is the province of geophysics); and c) Hubble orbits the Earth at such a rate that any image it took would be blurred by the motion." http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/faq/
Recommended Posts