Is Sasquatch A Secret?

[AaronD]

I'm in tune with Delta Zu's post.....if sasquatch was a mere animal, or some primate for those who gulp evolution, it would have been found by SOMEone, SOMEwhere in the world; but nadda. All we're allowed to have is blobs and other ambiguous suggestive evidence. I don't think it's any coincidence that Ketchum's study went belly up, or that Smeja's kill ended up being a "bear" C'MON!!! The guy is a seasoned enough hunter to know a bear from something else!!! And Ketchum isn't incompetent or she wouldn't have been successful enough in her field to own a DNA facility. Yes, SOMEone, SOMEwhere, doesn't want sasquatch to be known, and this entity has enough power to control the media and sway the general public opinion......the question this leaves, then, is WHY? What about sasquatches is so taboo for us to know????  Simple--the truth would contradict what we're SUPPOSED to believe Come to the tar pit--join the PMP

[roguefooter]

Just because the field if Bigfoot is lacking people in the field doesn't mean there aren't people out there.

 

There are always people out in the woods and in the mountains- they may not be looking for Sasquatch but they would certainly notice one. People that spend weeks and months out there like long distance hikers, campers, fishermen, hunters, bird watchers, tree huggers, equestrians, spelunkers, trackers, mountain bikers, and the list goes on. They're always out there and they also tend to be camera ready. The internet is chock full of nature photography and video footage by these people.

 

I can't really think of anything that a Bigfoot researcher would do that would make them any more prone to encountering a Bigfoot over anybody else.

[hiflier]

Hello roguefooter,

 

^^ All true. And folks DO claim to see them. The databases are chocked full of anecdotal accounts. There are accounts logged by those in positions of Law Enforcement and other official capacities as well. Enough of those types of individuals that official investigations had to have existed in some capacity or another. You and I have both entered a plethora of people who are in the woods for whatever reason and reports support that. If I were the government I would make the effort to scour all corners under my jurisdiction for any threats or perceived threats to personell corporate or otherwise who need to be in the remote environs of my country. 

 

If I can fund the mating habits of the fruit fly I can fund a search for an extraordinary creature such as Sasquatch to see if the stories are true and what danger they pose to livestock and society in general.  

[Guest]

Which has ended in the common-sense conclusion that a real animal is on that film.

 

I disagree, the most common-sense conclusion is that the subject of the film is questionable. But for the sake of the discussion I'll concede that the subject is a real Bigfoot. The continued existence of the PGF should serve as proof positive that there isn't and never has been a concerted coverup of the existence of Bigfoot. Think about this for a second, the film was produced in 1967, during the Cold War. The government and all the agencies thereof had a lot more clout to engage in such a coverup at that time, so why didn't they simply buy the film and any copies or even confisticate it if there was an active coverup?

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Well, actually, as all serious analysis of what's on the film points to an authentic subject, and nothing has been unearthed but spurious character allegations in favor of a hoax in 46 years, "authentic" is the common-sense conclusion.  It's only our general denial of the subject that causes us to toss the serious analysis and focus on the character allegations, which simply don't have merit given all that's known about this film.

[hiflier]

Hello Leftfoot,

 

I mostly agree with you on the cover-up aspect. There is no cover-up per se and by and large I do not subscribe to one in this thread. There is a big difference between a cover-up and a feigned indifference which INHO is the safest route for government to take. Also it keeps any "discovery attempts, sightings, reports, and beliefs strictlt in the private sector-  us in other words. To express no official interest in the subject is the best avenue to assume to keep pressure off any agencies directly involved with the management of public lands. There are Sasquatch Forums and groups galore but none are anywhere near "official" in either capacity or connection. Personally I think it the only solution that keeps the government isolated from culpability inall areas Bigfoot.

 

That is why anything I've posted is and can be only circumstantial in it's content.

Edited February 11, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

^^^^Well, actually, as all serious analysis of what's on the film points to an authentic subject, and nothing has been unearthed but spurious character allegations in favor of a hoax in 46 years, "authentic" is the common-sense conclusion. It's only our general denial of the subject that causes us to toss the serious analysis and focus on the character allegations, which simply don't have merit given all that's known about this film.

There is also the low quality of the film, which means that the costume doesn't have to be great, and the movement of the creature which isn't outside the range of human movement. I'm a long time science-fiction fan and having seen some of the things done at the same time period I can't say that it isn't a person in a costume.

And thus the sensible conclusion is that the film is questionable. But all this is beside the point though.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Leftfoot

[Guest DWA]

^^^All I can say is:  Bill Munns.  Required reading.  But your last sentence is right.

[hiflier]

Hello Leftfoot,

Yes, it is beside the point. And while the PGF is a remarkable debate there is already a place for it. Hope I'm not being rude here but if you can steer back onto the topic it would be best

Edited February 11, 2014 by hiflier

[JDL]

Like Bill Munns.  Like the Nat Geo analysis, too.  When a group with the stature and resources of Nat Geo draws a conclusion based on modern forensic analysis, you've got to take notice.  I don't think it would have been possible, though without Bill's prior work.

[Guest]

I'm not familiar with his work. Do you have a link?

[Cotter]

As DWA put it, required reading.

 

;-)

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/38562-the-munns-report-2/

[Guest]

I was hoping for a link to his actual work, preferably one that doesn't require a PHD to understand.

[Cotter]

Try this one.

 

http://themunnsreport.com/

 

This is where I read it initially.  There is some more 'advanced' understanding required at times.

[Guest]

  Regarding the Smithsonian and possible cover ups, on a recent " America Unearthed" a Smithsonian scientist named Dr. Dennis Stanford strongly believes that people called Solutreans  crossed an ice bridge from Europe(14,000 to 25,000 years ago) and predated the Clovis people. Scott Wolter is blown away that somebody from there would challenge the "status quo" because he says it is widely believed they are involved in cover ups and suppressing the truth. Stanford even thinks the Solutreans shared their tool making skills with the Clovis people. Clovis tools have been shown to be remarkably similar to stone tools found in Solutrea France.

 

I was blown away by the show and thought I am glad that there are people out there fighting to uncover the truth about whatever is being kept from the public.