MarkGlasgow Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You don't have to pay to listen to these podcasts that Airdale and I are linking to. I'm aware of that Jay. I'm also sure you are more than aware of the point I'm making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) I'm aware of that Jay. I'm also sure you are more than aware of the point I'm making. You're saying its about money-- that if money is involved they cannot be trusted to always tell the truth in these gov/BF allegations. Edited January 28, 2015 by jayjeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 What government cover up? Historically there has been very little evidence to suggest there is such a thing in relation to BF. You simply cannot believe everything you hear. Especially when it originates from a pay per listen Bigfoot podcast. So you're saying that in general we should trust wikipedia more than a $200 Anthropology textbook ? I don't know if you're aware of this about cover ups, but the general idea is that they do not announce themselves in the news media of record. At least not until whistle-blown, like the NSA data collection thing. Which people seem to have such a short memory for it being firmly in "tinfoil hat" territory 5 years ago, but has now been post rationalised to "everybody knew it really". I bet if you did a poll in 2005 "Is gov really spying on ordinary cits" you'd have got maybe 15% yes, 85% no, then now ask, did you know in 2005 that gov was spying on cits and get 85% yes 15% no, people like to be on the side of history. They'll say now it was blatantly obvious, however, apart from a marginalised crumb here and there, future historians will have to hang it all on the Snowden revelations. Anyway, realistically, what we'll actually have at present until significantly whistle blown is marginalised crumbs. Some of us are going to be of the opinion that the crumbs infer a loaf of bread, others are going to wait for mainstream media to tell them what to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 At the end of the day, it boils down to this question... Why would the government want to cover up the existence of Bigfoot? What do they have to gain, one way or another? I've read many theories as to why the government would do this... Most are based on some kind of economic incentive, involving habitat and natural resources, while other theories focus on keeping the public in the dark in order to avoid mass hysteria or fear about using our national parks. Again, neither theory holds water, in light of other species, people and organizations that have or have had a very real and direct impact on natural resources and public morale. Why Bigfoot and not a rare species of owl? Why Bigfoot and not Exxon? Why Bigfoot and not one of the hundreds of serial killers we have read about in the news? I just can't see the motivation to keep it out of public eye. That being said, if the government really does have a policy ,to cover up the existence of Bigfoot, then this policy has been in effect for a VERY long time. This, more than anything, makes it very doubtful. A national cover up, spanning multiple decades, to keep the public from discovering a free ranging, native, North American animal, is very hard to swallow. Not to mention, the effort and financial resources needed would be very hard to cover up for any length of time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Yes, Flashman, I know which video you're talking about. On the following video a man recounts an event where he shot a sasquatch. If you listen during the 26:00 minute mark he tells about a park ranger who came to investigate the incident told him that another government agency might be contacting him. That tells me that there is some policy in the parks service to forward these types of events to another government agency. Unless, this event occurred in a State Park, this tells me that the "government agency" isn't the US Department of Interior. The National Parks Service is a under the US DOI; therefore, it would be redundant to forward any reports to "another" agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 That's semantics, I think NPS would refer to Fish and Game as another agency even while under same umbrella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 At the end of the day, it boils down to this question... Why would the government want to cover up the existence of Bigfoot? What do they have to gain, one way or another? I've read many theories as to why the government would do this... Most are based on some kind of economic incentive, involving habitat and natural resources, while other theories focus on keeping the public in the dark in order to avoid mass hysteria or fear about using our national parks. Again, neither theory holds water, in light of other species, people and organizations that have or have had a very real and direct impact on natural resources and public morale. Why Bigfoot and not a rare species of owl? Why Bigfoot and not Exxon? Why Bigfoot and not one of the hundreds of serial killers we have read about in the news? I just can't see the motivation to keep it out of public eye. That being said, if the government really does have a policy ,to cover up the existence of Bigfoot, then this policy has been in effect for a VERY long time. This, more than anything, makes it very doubtful. A national cover up, spanning multiple decades, to keep the public from discovering a free ranging, native, North American animal, is very hard to swallow. Not to mention, the effort and financial resources needed would be very hard to cover up for any length of time. Free Merriam-Webster Full Definition of COVER-UP 1 a : a device or stratagem for masking or concealing <his garrulousness is a cover–up for insecurity There are probably 500 members or guests right here probably scratching their head at any given time reading, searching or asking the same question. If there is no cover-up, answers wouldn’t be concealed, therefore information would be forth coming flowing freely unimpeded hence, no cover-up. You and I wouldn’t meet because there would be no need for a Bigfoot Forum as people would quickly become tired or bored with the topic maybe. I am not certain that I subscribe to this cover-up talk, but you asked why and so I will provide my reasoning, if it’s even probable. Why would the government want to cover up the existence of Bigfoot? Economics, Fear, Public Order Besides the obvious economic chaos it could cause interrupting economies, monetary commerce through massive job loss and displacement there is the predicate unforeseen havoc it would surely cause namely public trust and order. The potential for populations of people en masse stepping off the emotional deep edge with such revelations could prove uncontrollable. There remains one more point worth discussing that is, disclosure. I think disclosure would undoubtedly would leave the door ajar leading the way to the next “what else†question. Bigfoot Sasquatch enjoys a very long old tradition of anecdotal and eye witness claims of disturbing behavior and much of it isn’t positive. Owl’s on the other hand haven’t been mentioned as destroyers of man or man-eaters and neither has Exxon oil. Thanks for the post you asked some good questions and made some good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 That's semantics, I think NPS would refer to Fish and Game as another agency even while under same umbrella. I knew a civil servant who was very high up in the DOI in DC. He never referred to Fish and Game, Indian Affairs, or Parks Service as "another agency". "Another agency" in his parlance would have been something that was non-DOI, like DEA , FDA, or State (short for State Department). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted January 28, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) If there is a government cover up (notice I used the word if) I can only think of one reason. Something about BF is presently classified or involves the military. I don't think it can be some genetically created by humans Universal Soldier that has been allowed to run loose in the woods because of how long it has been around. Perhaps the key is the frequent observation of UFO's, orbs, etc associated with sightings of BF. Has the government tied them together somehow? Has it gotten a BF body as has been reported so many times, and does DNA show that it is partially or fully not of earth origin? UFO cover up seems to involve several worlds governments. Why? What is so bad that several governments do not want their citizens to know about ET's? Mere existence of extra terrestrials? Maybe. Or is our technology so primitive that our governments are powerless to prevent UFO's from coming and going at will? Are we lab rats for extra terrestrials and our government knows it and either tolerates it because it cannot prevent it or is part if it? Is bigfoot a lab rat for extra terrestrials? Is earth a jail or zoo to a primitive species (BF) from another solar system? Some or any of these things could explain why there is a cover up with respect to BF because it could reveal that it is just part of a bigger cover up. Edited January 28, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) I knew a civil servant who was very high up in the DOI in DC. He never referred to Fish and Game, Indian Affairs, or Parks Service as "another agency". "Another agency" in his parlance would have been something that was non-DOI, like DEA , FDA, or State (short for State Department). If you had some actual knowledge about who park rangers or other law enforcement might have received a special directive to pass this type of information along to that would be more helpful. Even if the forestry service passed it along to the dept. of the Interior do they then pass it along to another agency? It could also be semantics as Flashman suggested, that saying dept. of Interior is another agency besides Fish and Game is just semantics. I don't remember how Wes Germer got his information, but he said the MIBs were from the department of the Interior. A lot of this goes back to were these people lying. Are there multiple people lying about being intimidated by government agents to keep quiet? Is Bob Garrett simply telling a lie about being harassed by the government and shut down? Is this and other incidents just a big scam? Is David Paulides just trying to sell books with his inferences? Edited January 28, 2015 by jayjeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I knew a civil servant who was very high up in the DOI in DC. He never referred to Fish and Game, Indian Affairs, or Parks Service as "another agency". "Another agency" in his parlance would have been something that was non-DOI, like DEA , FDA, or State (short for State Department). Riiight, and a banker in the corporate head office wouldn't say "another branch", a manager of a branch would though. If under the DOI there's a super secret sasquatch suppression special skills section security squad, a sub agency of DOI might refer to them as another agency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Have any other researchers been 'shut down' by the government? I can recall several UFO investigators claiming to be warned off by MIB but not so much within BF. Can't help but feel that if is policy to disable those who are asking the wrong questions then Paulides would have had a knock at his door too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Have any other researchers been 'shut down' by the government? I can recall several UFO investigators claiming to be warned off by MIB but not so much within BF. Can't help but feel that if is policy to disable those who are asking the wrong questions then Paulides would have had a knock at his door too. I addressed similar questions in posts # 126 and 127 of this tread, including the Paulides question. Read those. Edited January 29, 2015 by jayjeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 That being said, if the government really does have a policy ,to cover up the existence of Bigfoot, then this policy has been in effect for a VERY long time. This, more than anything, makes it very doubtful. A national cover up, spanning multiple decades, to keep the public from discovering a free ranging, native, North American animal, is very hard to swallow. Not to mention, the effort and financial resources needed would be very hard to cover up for any length of time. Well yes and no, the first likely cover up was likely by colonial authorities and land promoters trying to get settlers over here, who just didn't think it prudent to mention any particular incidents with forest devils, hairy savages, "mammoths", troglodytes or whatever the term de jour was. Then the second wave was probably railroad companies, opening up further areas for settlement, same thing, just didn't think it was good for business. From the 1800s, the USG didn't have any particular dirty work organisations and hired the pinkerton agency for investigation. Now as we went through the late 1800s, people were shooting everything that moved, and slaughtering all the game, ie, squatch food, and thus by proxy driving them out, so they would have been pretty much out of sight out of mind going into the 20th C. Then the government started the TLA thing in the 30s, the FBI first, and then REALLY got the hang of the cloak and dagger stuff and compartmented secrets in WWII. Since better game protection was allowing it to recover, Sas might have started making a slow comeback, or just merely be hanging on at this time. and increased military camps and installations in the land may have led to first army recognition of Sas sometime in WWII. However, I doubt they seemed too much of a "problem" at this point. Then we were in the post war world, after a decade had passed, maybe it became more clear that Sas could be a "problem" for some people. The CIA initiating and supporting a coup in Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, maybe proved what connections and lobbying could do, so while amateurs like Wallace held the line by claiming he made "all" the footprints, moves were maybe afoot by now in Washington. If the Lumber industry had not put it on the radar, than maybe experience in vietnam and the killing of a few rockapes, along with the first manportable night vision systems began to make the miltary aware of "what was out there". Maybe instead of just saying nothing, it was with the advent of such gear that they actually thought they could do something about it, and could be where things entered a deeper phase. Another thing to remember is that when the military STARTS covering something up you have a hell of a time stopping it. ... the reason at the time may only have been that they did not want to reveal how good thier night vision or personel detection systems were. Another possibility is that Roosevelt, having personal knowledge set something up along with the National Parks. Anyway, we get a range of timespans there, maybe "since forever" as far as some authorities were concerned maybe since the 30s, maybe since WWII , maybe only seriously, since late 60s, early 70s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Anyway, we get a range of timespans there, maybe "since forever" as far as some authorities were concerned maybe since the 30s, maybe since WWII , maybe only seriously, since late 60s, early 70s On podcast # 70 of Sasquatch Chronicles Germer interviews a retired police officer who claims he was recruited by the MIBs and allowed to read information on what they were doing. He didn't take the job. But, if true, he gives insight into what is going on. According to him the MIBs are from the dept. of the Interior. As far as when they began seriously trying to keep things under wraps he says it was in 1965. Here is a link to that podcast. https://www.sasquatchchronicles.com/sc-ep70-down-the-rabbit-hole/ Edited January 29, 2015 by jayjeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts