Campsite Destroyed

[Trogluddite]

Flashman,

 

That's "Trogluddites!"

[Cisco]

There were many periods, in this country's history, in which we faced larger internal threats than giant, bipedal apes. Just to name a few....Native Americans facing colonists or colonists facing Native Americans, civil war, the Cold War, Aids, etc

None of these threats were covered up. Why is a Bigfoot worse? Certainly they're not as deadly as any of the events I referenced above?

Even if the government decided to keep BF top secret, for whatever reason, it's an impossible task, otherwise we'd not be discussing this in an open forum.

I think government cover up is just an excuse or convenisnt scape goat for some people. For example: show us the crystal clear video of the bigfoot you claim to have filmed. Sorry! The government bad guys took it from me but I swear I had it!

Which is more likely? The scenario describe above or a massive government conspiracy with no purpose or gain...

[bipedalist]

.....  Is David Paulides just trying to sell books with his inferences?  

 

Maybe not lying but certainly hyperventilating on hyperbole!

[Airdale]

It occurs to me that one of two options has been placed before those of us who believe/know that Sasquatch exist. Obviously many employees of those agencies responsible for overseeing the various aspects of public land management have encountered these creatures. Also, some of those people have eventually been promoted into the higher echelons of their respective agencies. We also have the thousands of reports of encounters from a vast cross section of the populace including people in professions that require highly developed powers of observation. Evidence in the form of foot prints, the PGF, vocalizations, etc., is plentiful.

 

Considering the above, at least some of these agencies are well aware, or at the least have very strong evidence, of the existence of a North American primate. This leads me to the conclusion that either these agencies are grossly incompetent and/or negligent in their duty to further investigate and inform/educate the public regarding a possible threat to those who recreate on public lands, or, there is at the least some effort, for whatever reason, to suppress this information whether through overt cover ups, obfuscation or omission.

 

The above conclusion is the most innocuous that I'm lead to. If even some of the information beginning to percolate out in recent months is true, it would seem to go well beyond mere suppression of information.

 

If there are major flaws in my logic please point them out. I realize those who do not believe in Sasquatch will see flaws and I'm sure will voice them as is their prerogative. The viewpoints that are of interest to me are from those who know/believe they exist but see options I've missed.

[jayjeti]

Airdale, that sounds plausible.  There are indeed park rangers who know they exist, and as you reasonably speculate, it's a good chance many of those would move up in the ranks.  The question of why it is not acknowledged, at least to some degree, is a good question.  

 

In April of 2014 there was a video of a U.S. park ranger describing a bigfoot burial that he witnessed, but at all the sites where the video was posted it is now labeled private and is no longer available.  The caption with the video read as follows, "this report comes from the high Sierra in California.  A forest ranger witnesses a Bigfoot burial after a camp was ransacked by a clan of bigfoots." 

 

Maybe the Parks Service didn't like him being on video and that is why it is no longer available.  That alludes to the latter part of your question, in light of them not being more forth coming about BF, if you add all these other references to possible government cover up, is that what is really happening.  Here is a link to the "Bigfoot Evidence" article and video in which the ranger retold the episode, although the video no longer works and the article doesn't describe much.  The video was not up very long before it disappeared.  It's kind of like Bob Garrett's youtube site went down and his videos are no longer available.

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/04/watch-park-ranger-witnesses-bigfoot.html

Edited January 29, 2015 by jayjeti

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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?  

 

The civil servant I knew died 15 years ago. But he was with DOI for about 30 years before that.  Granted the jargon might have changed in the decade + that has passed, but the person I knew NEVER referred to services/bureaus within DOI as "another agency", which is a rather vague appellation.

 

I currently have to deal with HHS at times, and believe me, I've never had a civil servant or an appointee tell me that "another agency" will be involved in my case. I've always been informed that  someone from the  Office of Civil Rights will be following up with me or the OIG will contact me. Never "another agency" unless it's something the Justice Department needs to look into. Government employees might be incompetent, but rarely are they vague.

Edited January 29, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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

 

Depends on the business. Capital One has a banking division and a credit card division (and investment division). Those divisions, themselves, are subdivided into smaller departments/divisions. The times I've had to call Capital One because I have a funny charge on my card, the customer service person doesn't tell me "Well, Ms. Rabbits, you can expect another agency to contact you within a few days."  I'm told "You can expect the Fraud Investigation Division to contact you." See, the private sector, like the public sector,  typically doesn't use vague terminology.

[Guest]

There were many periods, in this country's history, in which we faced larger internal threats than giant, bipedal apes. Just to name a few....Native Americans facing colonists or colonists facing Native Americans, civil war, the Cold War, Aids, etc

None of these threats were covered up. Why is a Bigfoot worse? Certainly they're not as deadly as any of the events I referenced above?

Even if the government decided to keep BF top secret, for whatever reason, it's an impossible task, otherwise we'd not be discussing this in an open forum.

I think government cover up is just an excuse or convenisnt scape goat for some people. For example: show us the crystal clear video of the bigfoot you claim to have filmed. Sorry! The government bad guys took it from me but I swear I had it!

Which is more likely? The scenario describe above or a massive government conspiracy with no purpose or gain...

 

Mark Glasgow & Cisco

 

I guess if your assumption is correct, we can all just go back to our respective places and rest well knowing its all settled. Set aside the history and everything you think you know and consider what follows in the next few sentences. But allow me to add, we as members of modern society tend to only believe what we are spoon fed through our education and reading. If it isn't taught to us then it is convenient for us not to believe.  Then some on other hand are so gullible and ask why or why not? Down below I have taken the time to an example in brief, demonstrating why people arrive at such conclusions. Details provided below are brief but you will have to look up the source and read the whole report in its entirety for the rest.  I said it before, I'll say it again, I am not certain if I buy into the conspiracy talk either, but somebody has got to place the cheese on the cracker here.  If there is danger lurking out there don't you feel we should know? As a society we are duty bound to protect the public. I mean after all, isn't that is why we have laws in the first place? If not, why not?  - Just Saying .....  Good Luck!

 

Date: October 2002

 

Place: DeSoto National Forest Stone County, Mississippi

 

Summary: Half-eaten dog surrounded by large tracks found by timber USDA surveying crew. Sources reached out to University of Southern Mississippi Anthropologist Department for assistance. Local zoo officials in Hattiesburg were also asked to send their primatologist to the scene immediately. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks could not or would not make a claim as to what made the tracks. Person(s) or agency(ies) unknown sent an email to all DeSoto National Forest “instructing them to deny any knowledge of it and not to encourage anyone to hunt the creature that made the tracks and ate the dog.†It was further stated that all employees were instructed to “stay clear†of the area. Local authorities and federal agencies arrived on scene and the area was “raked clean.â€

 

GCBRO

http://www.gcbro.com/MSstone0003.html

 

 

Edited January 29, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

Heh, you can smell some cross jurisdictional dust up in that one. You'd think USDA would be in-on it with having forestry and natural resources. However, just going to look what zone that's in, possible it's in the corner of one of the plains states areas and they might not have had to deal with this sort of thing often and not have the standing orders that other areas have. Though also, you can imagine that they had disputes in other areas and were just trying to **** off the DOI by trying to take things that way.

[Guest]

If I was going to put money on a specific DOI department, this one seems to fit best...

 

http://www.doi.gov/pmb/oles/kimthorsen.cfm

 

They've got the LEOs, they've got the aviation, they've got the "public safety" remit/justification.

 

Current Dep Assistant Sec, seems to have the right kind of resume also. Sierra national forest, early in career, maybe means she was indoctrinated early.

 

[jayjeti]

Summary: Half-eaten dog surrounded by large tracks found by timber USDA surveying crew. . . . †It was further stated that all employees were instructed to “stay clear†of the area. Local authorities and federal agencies arrived on scene and the area was “raked clean.â€

 

GCBRO

http://www.gcbro.com/MSstone0003.html 

 

 

Did they label it USDA choice.  Sounds like a family picnic.  They can't have people seeing those tracks where a dog was eaten.

 

Another destruction of tracks was noted in a "Ghost Theory" article.  Two men found BF footprint tracks for a long distance down a road.  The road had a thick layer of dust that created a perfect medium for footprints, with the possibility of thousands of footprints on the road.  They told a U.S. Forestry Service supervisor about the tracks, who said he was going to photograph them, and within hours a truck used for fire fighting sprayed water on the tracks, destroying them all, only spraying the section of road where those tracks were laid.  This was noted by BF researcher William Jevning whom the men contacted after telling the supervisor.  Jevning immediately went to the site that day finding all the tracks destroryed.

 

 

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2011/10/01/bigfoot-researcher-believes-us-forest-service-covers-up-bigfoot

Edited January 29, 2015 by jayjeti

[Guest]

Does anyone know what state that man, Garrett, hails from? This is old but its interesting and frightening if true.

 

The Bigfoot Bulletin of October 31, 1970, published by California researcher George Haas, carried a fantastic letter from an army trainee named Nick E. Campbell at Fort Ord, California. He related that two Texas National Guard privates, one of them a minister, had told him that at Longview where they lived, there were reports from about 1965 of a giant hairy creature roaming the back country between there and Jefferson, Texas. They said that the creature had reportedly killed a couple of people. Reverend Royal Jacobs told him that as a teenager he was a member of a posse that hunted the creature and he had seen the body of a person the creature had torn apart. 

 

Source: The True Story of Apes in America, Loren Coleman, Paraview Pocket Books, ISBN 0743469755

 

Destroying Tracks

August 7, 1994

Sasquatch Provincial Park, British Columbia

Mr. M. Jasmin and Ms. S. Pool report by phone to Thomas Steenburg: Several families camping in the park have Sasquatch sightings and hear strange screaming coming from the hills at night. John Green and Bob Titmus investigate and find someone had quickly trampled over and destroyed all possible Sasquatch footprints in the area.

 

Source: http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/british_columbia-sasquatch-sighting-reports.pdf

 

Summary: Searchers find bodies and notice large tracks

 

News Article: Three Spanaway searchers combing a densely wooded hillside near Issaquah last weekend claim they found a half dozen enormous footprints. The searchers discovered what they think are Sasquatch tracks during a search for more bodies in an area where the remains of two Seattle-area women were found last summer. The searchers were Mrs. Marie Watson, a member of Northwest Bloodhounds Search and Rescue Team, her son Robert, 18, and a friend, Jay Stockwell. The trio was planning for a major search scheduled for the area next Sunday. The area was where partial remains of Janice Ott, Denise Naslund and an unidentified woman were found last summer. Mrs. Watson said the huge prints appeared to have been made with a bare foot and were imbedded an inch into the mud. She estimated they had been there a week. Robert, who wears a size 10 1/2 shoe, said the prints were six inches longer and three inches wider than his boots. The stride between tracks was much longer than a man's, he said. Mrs. Watson, a well-known and experienced Northwest tracker, said the prints definitely were not human. "They were not from human feet," she said. "The one I examined had a kind of thumb and an arch." Mrs. Watson said she was frightened by the size of the tracks and somewhat fearful since her bloodhounds had been left home. "I wasn't even thinking about a Sasquatch, and when I saw them, I thought My God in Heaven," she said. Mrs. Watson isn't sure what made the deep tracks in the lonely woods above Issaquah, but something big obviously did, she said. The question is - What was it?  

 

Source: Searchers report huge footprints, Tacoma News Tribune, Wednesday, February 19, 1975, Washington

Edited January 29, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Cisco]

It occurs to me that one of two options has been placed before those of us who believe/know that Sasquatch exist. Obviously many employees of those agencies responsible for overseeing the various aspects of public land management have encountered these creatures. Also, some of those people have eventually been promoted into the higher echelons of their respective agencies. We also have the thousands of reports of encounters from a vast cross section of the populace including people in professions that require highly developed powers of observation. Evidence in the form of foot prints, the PGF, vocalizations, etc., is plentiful.

 

Considering the above, at least some of these agencies are well aware, or at the least have very strong evidence, of the existence of a North American primate. This leads me to the conclusion that either these agencies are grossly incompetent and/or negligent in their duty to further investigate and inform/educate the public regarding a possible threat to those who recreate on public lands, or, there is at the least some effort, for whatever reason, to suppress this information whether through overt cover ups, obfuscation or omission.

 

The above conclusion is the most innocuous that I'm lead to. If even some of the information beginning to percolate out in recent months is true, it would seem to go well beyond mere suppression of information.

 

If there are major flaws in my logic please point them out. I realize those who do not believe in Sasquatch will see flaws and I'm sure will voice them as is their prerogative. The viewpoints that are of interest to me are from those who know/believe they exist but see options I've missed.

 

I think Airdale has made an excellent point. Perhaps it's not that the government is trying to cover up the existence of Bigfoot, on a grand scale, but rather they are unwilling to confirm the existence of Bigfoot and discourage any talk or comments from public officials, because it's not been proven to exist.

 

Using an example from Airdale's post; if a forest ranger or rangers, observe Bigfoot in the area, would they be encouraged to speak openly about this sighting? The answer is no; they would have to keep quiet because they would be perceived or judged as being crazy.

 

I'm a partner in a privately owned company and even though my partners and associates know that I have an interest in Bigfoot, they also know I would not discuss this interest in front of clients. Simply because there's a stigma that's associated with people that believe in Bigfoot. The government is the same as the company I work for. They don't want the stigma of being associated with this subject matter as it does not "officially" exist.

 

This holds true for many other things, aside from BF, such as UFO's, ghosts, etc.  I may not believe in ghosts but who am I to judge?

 

Imagine how the world would look upon us if the FBI announced that it believed in the existence of ghosts, trolls and Chupacabras? I'm sure some special interest groups would think this was great but most people would instantly lose confidence in the FBI. Bigfoot, from the public's perspective is really no different.

 

The bottom line is that government employees, agencies or officials cannot discuss topics such as Bigfoot without leaving themselves open to ridicule or scorn. They have to be seen as above board in all ways. Until BF is acknowledged by the government, he won't officially exist. I have no doubt that cops, rangers, soldiers and all sorts of government officials have seen these creatures. However, the agencies they work for will not officially acknowledge these sightings for the same reason I stated earlier

 

Therefor, the government is not trying to cover up the existence of Bigfoot, they are just stating that he has not been proven to exist. All public servants will "officially" have to follow the same position. There's a significant difference, in my mind, between this and a cover up.

 

Again, there's no logical reason, I'm aware of, for the government actively trying to stop us from proving the existence of Bigfoot. Otherwise our ability to hunt, hike and camp in national forests would be restricted. TV shows like finding Bigfoot, would not exist. This website would not exist.

 

This is really a matter of official denial and not a policy of trying to keep us from knowing. After all, it really is a bit late for a cover up; don't you think?

 

Whenever I hear "cover up" as a reason for why proof cannot be produced or made available, as it pertains to Bigfoot, I immediately question the claim or testimony.

[jayjeti]

I think Airdale has made an excellent point. Perhaps it's not that the government is trying to cover up the existence of Bigfoot, on a grand scale, but rather they are unwilling to confirm the existence of Bigfoot and discourage any talk or comments from public officials, because it's not been proven to exist.

 

 

Airdale can speak for himself, but I don't believe he reached the solid conclusion you are tying to him.  He does note many Park Ranger's do know of it's existence, but the Parks Service still deflects any acknowledgement of it.  He also raisers the specter of all the allegations of covering up the existence of bigfoot.  If those allegations are true then the reason the Parks Service is so uncooperative is wider in scope than simply being unwilling to confirm the existence of an unconfirmed creature.   Although just the act of disavowing and not acknowledging evidence because it is unconfirmed is itself a cover up.

 

You arbitrarily dismiss all these testimonies of intimidation and cover up on the premise, it seems, that you can't believe they would do that.  And I find it difficult to believe also, as do many, which makes us all cautious in approaching this.  But there are multiple claims of it, more than has been mentioned in this thread.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jayjeti

[Guest]

 Otherwise our ability to hunt, hike and camp in national forests would be restricted.

 

There is a lot of suspicions about that too... it's often muttered about that trails and logging roads get closed when an area gets active. Others find their active areas in previously "closed off" areas, i.e. maybe not under actual prohibition, but made very difficult to get to. That's the removing the people from the bigfoot part, then there's the removing the bigfoot from the people tactic, where an area gets clearcut a decade before it seems mature. Another "cure" observed was in a campsite that was getting apparent activity, it was closed down for a while, then reopened with floodlights everywhere.

 

I have to honestly put it as "suspicions" though because if the responsible agency is called on it, they have some plausible sounding reason. For example, it's suddenly the recognised breeding area of a recognised rare critter, or there's a fungus they don't want spread, or there's a beetle infestation they had to clear cut to get rid of. Also, finding an obstructed access area to contain high activity can be explained by the presumed intelligence of the subject realising humans aren't going there much at the minute and making themselves at home.