Guest Suesquach Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Ok Rex. How do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 20, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 20, 2015 No , my point was that bigfoot is definitely not putting a dent in the deer population. I have noticed that myself but instead of seeing deer out in the woods where I used to see them, they are down in the populated areas. Still rural, still good habitat, but in among humans. I have had two that frequently bed down in my back yard. They probably think the back yard of a BF hunter is about the safest place in the world. No BF would ever come in there when I have those cameras handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I think the reason you are seeing them in neighborhoods is related to chronic drought conditions, that, and I've always lived near water so I imagine they do too. If there is more of them, then you are more likely to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 22, 2015 BFF Patron Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Ok Rex. How do you know? Rex? Also, what are the chances that this bigfoot body helo netting from the Mt. St. Helen's disaster was as a result of Wildlife Services Agency coordination and not military? That is, if it really happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Fish and Wildlife Service. Bureau of Land Management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagniAesir Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Well I don't believe that the logging industry has anything to do with it In the 1980's thousands of loggers lost their jobs, many went bankrupt, if the secret was there it would have been spilled More recently I know of a logging company that offered to transport some researchers to their camp and feed and house them for two weeks, because they wanted to know what was scarring some of their loggers I don't buy that a secret that large could be kept for that long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 22, 2015 BFF Patron Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 Fish and Wildlife Service. Bureau of Land Management. One of a collage of agencies that would be interested. Did you read and check the links of the first two posts in the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I don't think that there is any mandate to specifically protect bigfoot and I don't think that there is a specific mandate to protect the public from bigfoot. I do think that government agencies know about bigfoot (they can't be that incompetent), but consider them a headache, simply because their missions would become much more complicated if the greater public awareness created demand for action and management of an inherently unmanageable species. So if there is any activity that could fall under the heading of cover-up, I believe that it is sporadic, occurs only when necessary, and is driven by agency self-interest and the intent to avoid public demands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 ^^^ IMO, spot on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted April 22, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted April 22, 2015 Rex? Also, what are the chances that this bigfoot body helo netting from the Mt. St. Helen's disaster was as a result of Wildlife Services Agency coordination and not military? That is, if it really happened? Could be, sort of. The location was declared a disaster area and military helicopters brought in for the rescue and recovery operations. There were a number of people killed or trapped in remote locations and due to the ash falls and down trees, the only way in and out for a long time was helicopters. I have a neighbor with the USGS that was supposed to man Johnsons ridge that day. He was on his way there when the mountain blew. A number of campers and hikers in remote areas were victims too. So the helicopters were there and could be tasked as necessary for whatever. After the humans were recovered, then they would have started taking care of other things like BF bodies and dead herds of elk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Good plan. Better yet, get your own logging company going and hire BF to be loggers. Big, powerful, live right there, and know what forest you need to keep for them to live in. Let them run down a deer for lunch break or just set up a buffet line instead of paying them. They might cause a ruckus when they come to town to cash their checks. They might cause a ruckus when April 15 rolls around and they have to pay state and federal income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 I've been meaning to start a topic on the value of a Bigfoot body and will do so in the next few days. I can promise you, if I was a logger and had to choose between my job or going public with a dead body, I'd go public with the body. It would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It would create revenue from RX companies, academic and scientific organizations, tourism; just to name a few. It would have to be done correctly and not "a la Dwyer" so to speak. Hypothetically, it would create an enormous amount of revenue. Granted, this is without exploring the moral issues and simply looking at the financial side of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 23, 2015 BFF Patron Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Could be, sort of. The location was declared a disaster area and military helicopters brought in for the rescue and recovery operations. There were a number of people killed or trapped in remote locations and due to the ash falls and down trees, the only way in and out for a long time was helicopters. I have a neighbor with the USGS that was supposed to man Johnsons ridge that day. He was on his way there when the mountain blew. A number of campers and hikers in remote areas were victims too. So the helicopters were there and could be tasked as necessary for whatever. After the humans were recovered, then they would have started taking care of other things like BF bodies and dead herds of elk. Yes but with 300 mph pyroclastic flowsof superheated gases at 660 deg. F my understanding is that many humans in the area of direct blast and roll were for all intents and purposes vaporized into empty space like the victims of Pompeii who are not real people but simply outlines of hollow cremations by superheated components. Still, not everyone or every animal in every nook and cranny was subjected to the same blast and heat and superheated flows, at least within ten to twenty miles or so as the compass shows. Most fatalities seems to be on the northern exposures as I remember. Edited April 23, 2015 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I've been meaning to start a topic on the value of a Bigfoot body and will do so in the next few days. I can promise you, if I was a logger and had to choose between my job or going public with a dead body, I'd go public with the body. It would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It would create revenue from RX companies, academic and scientific organizations, tourism; just to name a few. It would have to be done correctly and not "a la Dwyer" so to speak. Hypothetically, it would create an enormous amount of revenue. Granted, this is without exploring the moral issues and simply looking at the financial side of the equation. It depends what the laws regulating a "find" on Federal or state lands say who is the "owner" of that find. In the treasure hunting world, the famous case of the Atocha is a sad reminder of what lengths the government will go in order to claim a treasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 As with any topic on which science's absence has left a vacuum, speculation runs rampant. My hunch is that there's far less going on here than speculated. First off, government has no obligation to inform the people about new species. Were I a higher-up, I would offer that counsel in the most extreme terms on this subject. All one has to do is a light scan of the BFF to see all the florid theses that would ignite upon such an admission by government. The ensuing management problem - for which that term is an extreme understatement - is something for which any government should rightly consider itself totally unprepared. Look at the problems reintroducing wolves and bears to places they once were known to occupy. Just taking what the evidence seems to suggest, no florid theses appended, into account - bigger and faster than us by a lot; a stealth ambush predator; a potentially nasty customer in any potential encounter involving human aggression or, maybe worse, defensiveness - who in the world would think our government would want any part of that mess? "You can't handle the truth!" Maybe on some topics most of us can't...and the government knows the risk is something it is, among other things, too busy to take on with what is already on its plate. I've been meaning to start a topic on the value of a Bigfoot body and will do so in the next few days. I can promise you, if I was a logger and had to choose between my job or going public with a dead body, I'd go public with the body. It would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It would create revenue from RX companies, academic and scientific organizations, tourism; just to name a few. It would have to be done correctly and not "a la Dwyer" so to speak. Hypothetically, it would create an enormous amount of revenue. Granted, this is without exploring the moral issues and simply looking at the financial side of the equation. It also doesn't take into account the successful shooter's (or finder's as the case may be) ability to control his/her rights through the inevitable chain of custody, a problematical issue to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts