Is Sasquatch A Secret?

[Hammer102492]

Urkelbot, that's interesting to read about your dad and how the BF discussion relates to his time with the Forest Service.  Please thank him for me, and us, for his service to the preservation and discovery of nature for the USA. 

 

Thanks for sharing that.  It's cool to hear that perspective from someone on the inside.

 

I would love to talk to the rangers at Salt Fork State Park.  I have heard that they get asked about their opinions all the time.  Responses sounded similar to your dad.  They will not confirm, nor deny it.  They will be happy to tell you about what park guests have told them. 

 

On this Valentine's weekend, I have all good love for park rangers. 

(song playing now is, "Good Love" by the Grateful Dead 10-12-84 Augusta, ME.

[hiflier]

Hello Bonehead74 and All,

 

Here is post #17:


I'm not seeing the atomic fracking in there.

 

You're right, my aplologies. See post #37. But in a nutshell it contains details for this:

 

http://banslickwaterfracking.blogspot.com/2014/01/atomic-fracking-in-new-mexico-colorado.html#!/2014/01/atomic-fracking-in-new-mexico-colorado.html

 

"3 separate Nuclear Fracs Over 6 years

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/01/04/18748759.php#18748761

 

An even clearer description of 3 nuclear fracs over 6 years in the Southwest is given here:

http://www.nucleardiner.com/archive/item/natural-gas-fracking-with-nuclear-weapons

 

Test 1: Gasbuggy Nuclear Test, December 10, 1967

 

On December 10, 1967 Project Gasbuggy, a project under US AEC Operation Plowshare Program, exploded a 29 kiloton nuclear device at a depth of 4222 ft or close to a mile underground in an effort to release natural gas trapped in the rocks.

 

The test called for a 29-kiloton nuclear device to be placed at the bottom of a 4,240-foot deep shaft drilled in a "tight" shale formation known to contain natural gas. To a large degree the experiment went as planned: the underground cavity produced by the explosion, 80 feet wide and 335 feet high, filled with natural gas from the fractured surrounding rock. However the gas was too radioactive to be commercially distributed by public utilities.

 

Test 2: Rulison Nuclear Test, September 10, 1969

The Rulison test, part of the Operation Mandrel Weapons Test Series

 

Operation Mandrel was a series of 53 nuclear test explosions conducted in 1969 and 1970. This test series included a 1.2 megaton "calibration shot" code-named Milrow, which was detonated 1,220 metres (4,000 ft) underground at Amchitka Island, Alaska, and the 40 kiloton gas stimulation experiment code-named Rulison, detonated near Grand Valley, Colorado. The Rulison underground nuclear detonation took place in Colorado in 1969, to investigate the possibility of using nuclear explosions to extract natural gas from low grade deposits.

 

The test, a Plowshare Program experiment called Project Rulison, was performed by the Atomic Energy Commission and two corporate partners, CER Geonuclear and the Austral Oil Company, using a 43 kiloton bomb (greater than 2x the Nagasaki bomb), at the bottom of an 8,426 foot deep shaft.

 

Over 40 years later –

The federal government prohibits drilling and extracting below 6,000 feet within a 40-acre zone surrounding surface ground zero. (DOE)

 

Test 3: Rio Blanco Nuclear Test, May 17, 1973

 

Conducted under the Operation Toggle series 75 miles north of Grand Junction, Colorado

An underground nuclear test took place the Rio Blanco site in 1973, to investigate the possibility of using nuclear explosions to extract natural gas from low grade deposits. The test, the last in the Plowshare Program, was performed by the AEC and two corporate partners, CER Geonuclear and the Equity Oil Company, using three simultaneously detonated 30 kiloton bombs."

 

One would think that the explosions alone may have sent Sasquatch scrambling with a FEW, after a couple of days, hungry enough to "mutilate" cattle in surrounding areas. Now.....I'm presenting FACTS to form a reason for secrecy surrounding Sasquatch and why disclosure of the animal would upset certain shall we say "interests" and their exploitations. The ramifications of what was done in Colorado aren't over IMO.

Edited February 15, 2014 by hiflier

[JDL]

hiflier,

 

I read about this stuff for the first time and do a complete face palm.  It is difficult to believe that they would not understand that any gas extracted by means of nuclear techniques would be useless.

 

First, much of the product would simply be consumed over a very large radius.  Of course they would view this as an acceptable loss, rightly assuming gas from outside the zone of induced combustion would be replaced by gas freed from the larger radius of fracked strata.

 

But to realize that they did not understand the impact of neutron induced gamma activity simply boggles me.

 

All of these tests were before my time.  I wasn't trained in nuclear operations until 1982 and didn't become a nuclear target analyst until 1987.  But by '82 we knew enough to understand that this sort of endeavor was nuts.

 

I'll add these accounts to my stupid nuclear tricks file.

[hiflier]

Hello JDL,

 

You know? Sasquatch may not exist. But in thinking that it does I've attemted to piece together many things that would support not only it's existence but why, if it does, there is little or nothing in mainstream except for stupid media slamming and ridiculous dead-end programs on TV. It's the money, pure and simple. To think we are intelligent and then see us pulling stunts like those above is beyond my comprehension. Hiding Sasquatch existence is NOTHING compared to this kind of stuff! But hiding/ignoring Sasquatch existence helps further such debacles unmolested. So, "Is Sasquatch a Secret? yes, I truly think it is and for reasons both nefarious and greedy. Two terms right out of the Department of Redundancy Department LOL.

Edited February 15, 2014 by hiflier

[JDL]

In a figurative and probably literal sense, sasquatch is the skeleton in the government's closet.

[hiflier]

Hello JDL,

It is one of 'em. In the spirit of this thread's topic though one could arrive at the conclusion that were Sasquatch existence to be exposed or somehow proved then sensitive operations currently and in the past would also come to light by default. I've seen folks here take the Sasquatch subject headon with little progres. There are groups going after it, databases both (hidden and proprietary) full of reports, no official interest in the subject, and I think that if I'm not going to be in an active area with a gun then my other choice as one who wants proof is the attack the problem on the periphery. Gathering as much factual circumstantial eveidence as possible is one way.

It's always follow the money. So, who would be so interested in inflicting that kind of environmental risk on the public for the sake of wealth? National security, sure, that's a real sound reason that I cannot deny but the underlying reason for the national security IS the control of wealth. I find it hard to think that a "small potatoes" creature like a Sasquatch is all that important so then what is? It's the public sentiment for the creature that can never be allowed to surface. It would follow then that the "WHO" question, and the "WHO" agenda lies behind the government as well as all it's agencies. That said, again, I rest my case for the jury's deliberations and await the verdict.

Just lobbing my two rocks into the "camp".

Edited February 15, 2014 by hiflier

[bipedalist]

 

 As for nuclear fracking, I googled it and it was done 3 times in the 70's. Twice in Colorado and once in New Mexico. The tests produced less gas than predicted and the gas that was freed was radioactive. I don't think we have to worry about this becoming the norm.  source: Real Clear Energy.org

 

 

How unpredictable?  I dare say a 4th grader with a science show under his belt could have come up with the rationale for that result.  

 

Thanks for the search on that though.  Another one of those government studies that burned up a billion bucks probably.  

 

Why would the government have the need to prove or acknowledge something that walks on two legs, lives in the forest and can't be procured (allegedly), speaks and has eyeglow.  The phenotype pretty much takes care of that need I'd say.  That is unless it carries around nuclear launch codes it has pilfered.  

Edited February 16, 2014 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Agreed Bipedalist.  What a waste.  And now there is a radioactive leak at a site in N.M that I just read about today in the paper.

[hiflier]

Hello Hellbilly,

 

Could you link that please? I had found a paragraph that mentioned testing animals after the Colorado experiments but I stupidly failed to copy it. D'OH!. What a dope. My thread and after finding more to support it I nonchalantly figured I could just go back and get it. I closed the link and now can't find it. I can be such a doof!

[Guest]

The article was in my newspaper but I found this  http://news.yahoo.com/radiation-leak-detected-mexico-nuclear-plant-003137688.html

[hiflier]

Hello Hellbilly,

Heyt, thanks! I don't know why we haven't set up a program to ship this stuff to the sun. Even if it takes fifty years to get there who cares. The stuff is going to be here for hundreds. I say get rid of it. Surely it's got to be cheaper than digging caverns in salt and all the machirnery, personnel, and damage control?

Edited February 17, 2014 by hiflier

[Bonehead74]

Hey hiflier,

I think the big fear is that a spacecraft carrying the material could suffer a catastrophic failure in the upper atmosphere and spread contaminants across huge parts of the globe. Instead, keeping it all in a relatively confined area is seen as a lower risk.

[Guest]

Well, it currently takes ten-thousand dollars to send a pound of material into orbit per NASA fact sheet.  Might not be cost productive to send this stuff into the sun.

[hiflier]

Hello Leftfoot,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program"
 

"The exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available, but, according to NASA, the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle as of 2011 was about $450 million per mission.Space Shuttle program"

http://www.frontiernet.net/~docbob/shuttle.htm
 

The space shuttle wieghs about 4.5 million pounds (2.04kg) at lift off.

http://askville.amazon.com/fully-loaded-prelauch-weight-Space-shuttle-sits-launch-pad/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1271240

Adding up the figures from the above sight the launch weight is closer to 4.8 million pounds. From what I can see this is about $100 a pound or less for the cost of an average launch.

The maximum payload is around 55,000 pounds or around 27 tons. A mere pittance compared to the overall weight of the vehicle with boosters.

http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0205voiland.html

All values in the table below are approximate, especially those for coal.

"Reactor plant
25 tons of uranium:
    •about 24 tons of uranium
    â€¢almost 1 ton of fission products
    •500 pounds of plutonium
    â€¢a small amount of other actinide elements

The HLW (High Level Waste) requires expensive technology for its disposal. However, because there is so little of it and so much electricity produced by its formation, there is adequate money available for its treatment and disposal.
 

(My bold):
Consumers who use nuclear-generated electricity pay a tenth-of-one-cent per kilowatt hour to cover waste management costs. To date, a fund of $18 billion has been collected, of which $6 billion has been spent on a waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The fund accummulates another $0.75 billion each year."

 

So the way I see it the maximun payload of a shuttle is 27 tons. Spent uranium per year is 25 tons. Even with containment four launches a year should take care of getting it off the planet at an annual cost of $2 billion; Yucca has already spent 6 and the stuff will still be here. THEN what? Methods of getting into orbit are changing. In 50 more years who knows how slick, and safe it will be. Once in space low-energy consumption vehicles can aim for the Sun. Just sayin'......

 

I mean we spent $800 billion once for the 2007 corporate bailout. Operation Desert Shield cost $22 billion a month for ten years. So folks, there's something wrong with the picture. We can DO this!

 

Sorry, off-topic




 

Edited February 17, 2014 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

OK. Back on topic. I wqas doing search after search to see if there was ANY response from wildlife agencies regarding BF. Nope. Well, except for this one

 

http://wildlifedepartment.com/facts_maps/have_u.htm