Guest DWA Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) I should note that I said something I shouldn't. "The government knows it's got too much going on without trying to anticipate what all those loopholes are and how to deal with them." When people who happen to work for government get reports or incidents, they have to think about what their jobs are, not about what 317 million give or take Americans want to know. Better. I think. [edited to line up with current Census figures a tad better] Edited February 10, 2014 by DWA to eliminate political mention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 DWA- true,true true, unfortunatly. They have jobs, families and pensions to protect. any delving into studies on government time without prior notice leaves them open to all sorts of counter reactions IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 ^^^And yet there are those who do at least something: the clandestine database gatherers Meldrum cites; Mionczynski; Freeman; Oregon Caves and Everglades NP personnel who clearly aren't taking the "deny" approach. I doubt they're being driven by silly flights of fancy. My experience in government tells me that government organizes around things it is mandated to do. This isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Hello ptangier, It certainly would seem so BUT if the creature DOESN'T exist as assumed for this topic, then there is nothing TO study. However, a simple official "look folks it doesn't exist" would imply that a study had been conducted which wouldn't be good either. The Whitehouse has already addressed the Space Alien issue by saying there's "not enough evidence" and it would seem that in the Sasquatch arena they won't even say that. But then, has anyone really asked them? Sure the questions have been put to different individuals within perhaps a report investigating occasion however, is there any known advance of the inquiry further up the ladder? Not to my knowledge. Should there be? Edited February 10, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 From the government's perspective the disclosure of bigfoot would be like opening Pandora's box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) The U.S./State governments have no obligation to search for, collect, classify or announce the discovery of a new animal species or sub-species. They do have the responsibility for the protection of people who typically work or visit lands and building owned by those governments. They also have the obligation of investigating and prosecuting cases of aggressive behavior, injury or death on property owned by them, WITHOUT needlessly alarming the public. In cases where wild or feral animals are involved, they have no obligation to publicize the actions taken to remedy the problem. There is an appointed committee, sanctioned by congress, that has the specific authority and mandate to secure and utilize personnel and equipment from any branch of the armed services or any other agency when necessary to protect the public from any dangers arising on lands owned by the U.S. government or by animals or humans that use national lands as refuges after committing acts of violence outside those lands. There is no specific mention of bear, cougar, wolves or bigfoot in the group's generalized acknowledgement of responsibility. The DOI, F&WS, and DOA are doing everything they can to provide new, restricted access habitat for BF, including the purchase of large cleared tracts of delta farmlands which will be replanted to return it to its once pristine "old grown oak" forest state. (Three large tracks of low-lands were recently purchased in this state; more are being considered.) The State of Alabama has purchased huge tracts of land - taking some by eminent domain - in various parts of the state. The largest track very likely has as many BF per area as the PNW. For folks to believe our national and state governments don't know about BF means the governments have succeeded in their "mushroom policies". Edited February 10, 2014 by Branco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Hello JDL, Big time. From what I've seen, around this Forum at least, The discussions show a high level of intelligence and investigative abilities on both sides of the issue from all camps. Proponents, opponents, and skeptics. The reasoning power here is really, really good IMO. In fine tuning the subjects discussed avenues of how one can take things further do occur; limited only by one's willingness to risk the obvious labels as well as placing one's self in the troublemaker category. Of course the way forward will not be for the timid now will it. I'm not privy to the information regarding who might the likely candidate to break the deadlock. All I know is it hasn't been accomplished yet. Personally I would very much like to see either an official memorandum or at the very least a nod or shake of the head from someone in a high level oversight position. Probably not an achievable goal but I think people "up the ladder" might like to know that there are those that are endeavoring to release them from any bonds of silence and remove them from any chance for even mild transfers or retaliation. A firmly thought-out plan for orderly contact and any subsequent carefully non-threatening dialogue, might be beneficial Hello Branco, Thank you, and thank ALL of you for bringing yourselves to the task. I appreciate your involvement in this subject and did, and do, think it needed to be brought to the surface as I know future members will have these questions as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Attention please: I understand that this topic involves the government and its possible knowledge of Sasquatch, but our rules state that we don't discuss politics at all. We can mention the government and different bodies that deal with various aspects related to Sasquatch, but we have to be careful to NOT mention political figures or structures. Thanks for your efforts folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Branco, They're actively setting aside land for BF? Can you elaborate on how that has come about? Not wanting to debate politics here. Just want to understand policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Hello See-Te-Cah, As the initiator of this topic I would be remiss in not acknowledging your caution. Thank you for reminding me and the rest of the members of the parameters within which this thread should abide to remain compliant to Forum rules and guidelines. I am actually quite surprised that the topic has made it this far and I would like to commend the contributors for their reserve and sensible discretions. I don't think anyone wishes this thread locked and all know to tread lightly on a subject as delicately balanced as this one. I realize as most here that we're on a knife edge and should think twice this far into the topic before hitting either the "post" or "submit" button. I myself do not think it can, or maybe should, go much further as I think the point is well addressed and so it probably should be left standing as it is without further elaboration. That's my take on it anyway. How about the rest of you? Edited February 10, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think likely scenarios are on the board. Good finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 Hello DWA, Yes, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Well he's not a secret anymore.....good job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I think at times we underestimate, intentionally and unintentionally, the thoroughness of our government. When our government is interested in something, it is the most efficient machine on this planet. Nevermind all the scandals and other "leaks" which really makes no difference to our government. We attempt to use such mishaps as proof of the governments incompetence. At the risk of conspiracy, I'm convinced our government is more efficient than we have idea of. It was efficient enough to give the people this "just for show" government when if you really pay attention it's obvious there is a sector of government (at the least) which answers to not us. There is something ULTRA fishy about the whole squatch stuff! It can't be as simple as no one wants to be the one to break the news. If it were as simple as, "Hey, there are large North American primates living in the woods". What would be so bad about that? It's much more complicated than that. There's no problem informing people when there are bears in an area, if squatch is only an animal, no matter how big, what would have been the problem of simply adding it to our fauna? We have other dangerous animals which sometimes live in proximity to humans. If they were merely apes...there wouldn't be this look the other way and whistle attitude. That in itself tells us there's something different about them. Is it not funny that NO COUNTRY has verified the existence of squatch? Every country has people who are TRYING to verify them but...they are just so close, yet so far from it. When you step back and REALLY think about it ...IMPOSSIBLE! I say it again, IMPOSSIBLE! How can an APE (for those in that camp) avoid WORLDWIDE human confirmation? Maybe I should start my own thread but, can some of the many brilliant people who believe or KNOW they exist explain this? As I type this it made me sit up and take what I ask into perspective. There is a species human or ape, which has avoided 100% confirmation by the ENTIRE PLANET! And we're speaking of beings that are from 6 to 12 feet tall!!!! Yeah, this definitely may need a new thread...I'm probably too sleepy to make it now however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 NO ONE IS LOOKING. How many times do I have to say this????? This is not only my assertion but THE ASSERTION OF THE GROUP DOING THE MOST LOOKING! There is no more incorrect belief held by more people than that there is some sort of round-the-clock sasquatch hunt going on. Patterson/Gimlin. NAWAC. that's IT. No one else has employed techniques with a significant chance of succeeding for a significant time. PERIOD. The only thing close to serious - not in terms of intent but in terms of resources applied - in the history of squatchery is the debate over Patterson's film. Which has ended in the common-sense conclusion that a real animal is on that film. Until people start getting back into the country for weeks, on horseback, or until NAWAC can devote sufficient time to bring out a specimen, forget it, unless somebody gets luckier than any Powerball winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts