dmaker Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 ^^ But then again a negative answer is seen by many here as evidence of a conspiracy theory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 So what's your point? That he only said they had a bigfoot so it wouldn't look like a cover up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Do you understand the significance of this??? The main park ranger said there is a bigfoot in his park, do you know what this means??!!! Yeah me neither, but it maybe could be cool I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 15, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) ^^ But then again a negative answer is seen by many here as evidence of a conspiracy theory...Well you know what, when you've actually layed eyes on one of these things so are beyond the "Do they exist or not?" debate and have then gone on to research about them for the best part of 15 years with the understanding that so little of the powers that be even give the subject time of day, you have to wonder why that is, because there must be a reason for it. Edited July 15, 2014 by BobbyO 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 ^Bobby, I've said before and I'll say it again. If BF exists (and I lean very strongly on the 'heck yeah' side of things), then there are entities that know about it. Plain and simple. If I were to actually see one, I would be even more of an advocate for some sort of cover-up. I don't think you can have a situation where BF exists, and some sort of group/entity is not aware. That raises even more questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 In order for park rangers across the nation to be engaged in a cover up then orders need to be coming down from the national park headquarters. I don't think this is the case. My bet is a few park rangers are aware of BF, but keep their mouths shut, or they can kiss the cushy job good bye. This fellow wants the truth to be known but also loves his paycheck. The BF ridicule factor stifles disclosure imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 15, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 15, 2014 Not necessarily. Unless the ... whatever title the head person for the specific park is ... wants to retire stationed at that park, they need a promotion or lateral transfer. That's less likely to happen if they join the kooks who believe in bigfoot in making public statements. It doesn't take official policy, just observant self-interest. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 15, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Do you understand the significance of this??? The main park ranger said there is a bigfoot in his park, do you know what this means??!!! Yeah me neither, but it maybe could be cool I guess. Well, for one, it means **** Dodge has got hirsute biped company in his neck of the woods, lol. Edited July 15, 2014 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 In order for park rangers across the nation to be engaged in a cover up then orders need to be coming down from the national park headquarters. I don't think this is the case. My bet is a few park rangers are aware of BF, but keep their mouths shut, or they can kiss the cushy job good bye. This fellow wants the truth to be known but also loves his paycheck. The BF ridicule factor stifles disclosure imho. Agreed, I think it would just be a case of they don't want to say anything if for no other reason than the stigma attached to saying you have seen a BF. And this fellow is retired from the USPW, so he wouldn't worry about his job there, but from what I found, he is still head of a boating company and probably wouldn't want to talk about it for the same reason. We have to face reality, if you say you have seen a BF, many people are going to dismiss you as dishonest or mentally unstable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 15, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted July 15, 2014 ^Bobby, I've said before and I'll say it again. If BF exists (and I lean very strongly on the 'heck yeah' side of things), then there are entities that know about it. Plain and simple. If I were to actually see one, I would be even more of an advocate for some sort of cover-up. I don't think you can have a situation where BF exists, and some sort of group/entity is not aware. That raises even more questions. Well honestly Cotter, i try not to think this way. But.............Sometimes when i think about it, there's little other conclusion that i can legitimately come to that isn't actually bordering on the absurd but i don't for one moment believe that this Animal can stay undetected under the noses of your military and 400m people, i can't believe that. So the logical conclusion then is to think that certain people are not telling the truth or being openly honest with the masses. I'm certainly not saying everyone who works for any type of Government or Military entity are part of some huge cover up, but we as civilised humans can be a little more discreet than that when we want to be and we generally put the fear into others in this day and age with financial threats without even opening threatening as that is generally something that will stop people from being openly honest. Put it this way, if you asked me to answer the "Do they know or don't they know ?" question, then i would for sure say they know, because they couldn't not know. So then beyond that i have to think about the questions that come with that answer, and that's why i can only generally assume that certain people aren't telling the truth entirely. I don't really care that they don't to be honest as there must be a reason why they do that, but no one can tell me that the powers that be are oblivious to this things existence and i'll go to the grave believing that. EDIT : There wr go, that's what i'm saying, George and Rock just said the same as i did and our replies crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I don't necessarily think an active cover up is needed. Just a 'don't ask, don't tell' type policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 I think his comment is strangely worded. "We have a Bigfoot." Just one? Does it appear regularly? It sounds like a pet. How would this guy respond if asked if there are bears there? Would he say "we have a bear"? Or elk or any other animal? We have a Bigfoot. Just weird... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Lights Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Has anyone considered when he said "we've got one", that he actually means they've got one captured or have a specimen and that's why he's not really forthcoming about it? I actually think this possibility is remote, but you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 EDIT : There wr go, that's what i'm saying, George and Rock just said the same as i did and our replies crossed. Great minds think alike Bobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 15, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted July 15, 2014 I don't necessarily think an active cover up is needed. Just a 'don't ask, don't tell' type policy. Yeah that kind of thing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts