What About The Bones? Research Paper Now Available.

[BigTreeWalker]

For one thing you base your opinion on the assumption that a body has never been brought in. Read the threads about bringing in a body. I see a general consensus that there will be problems when a body is brought in and they will have to be overcome.

Yes if we do submit for publication that narrative of Mr Townsend's will be removed. I think the original analysis, though it didn't go into as much depth in considering the evidence as the main paper, is more suitable for publication and is the reason I have included links to it.

[dmaker]

Stories about bodies are useless.

[BigTreeWalker]

Agreed. But you know that isn't the point I'm trying to make. The point is there will be hurdles to overcome regardless of the evidence presented. Even the most foolproof plan will have hitches when it comes time for the presentation. How did Bright put it, otherworldly. With a mindset like that there isn't going to be any open minded consideration of evidence if it is suspected of being in support of bigfoot. You are definitely right in one respect. Mr Townsend shot us in the foot with his interviews. We made that challenge in the paper but the one she accepted was from one of his interviews.

[SWWASAS]

"A body could not be denied"?     If any one of a half dozen accounts I have read about what happened when a body is present is true,  the body is confiscated by some government agency and disappears.    Then the denials start with the government not admitting the body existed.     Pretty convenient if you can threaten the original possessor of the body with some sort of arrest for interfering with law enforcement.   I wonder how many BF have been shot only to have it confiscated and the shooter threatened with arrest for some sort of game hunting violation if they did not keep their mouth shut?    

 

We do have one example of obvious government obfuscation regarding bigfoot.    The government has made the mistake of putting it in writing.       The US Forest Service has fabricated a story to explain what happened at Ape Canyon near Mt St Helens saying that miners in the cabin were harassed by rock throwing youth not retaliating BF after one of their kind were shot.      Why would the forest service do that?    It is even published in literature they hand out to tourists.   For a long time they would not even admit that a cabin had existed there but at the same time published a report about the youth group.       But recently the cabin has been found and appears to have been burned.    The miners never returned to the cabin so did the Forest Service burn the cabin?   There is no evidence of forest fire in the area.    Why would someone burn the cabin at the risk of setting the forest on fire?    But if you look at newspaper articles published at the time,   what the Forest Service  say happened could not have, because the papers reported the youth group that the Forest Service claimed threw rocks at the cabin, was headed back to Portland the morning when the attack on the cabin occurred.   The date and account of the BF attack on the cabin was reported in the Kelso paper and the return of the youth group to Portland was reported in a Portland paper and according to the newspaper accounts,  the siege at the cabin could not have been the youth group, as the Forest Service alleges.   The youth group had left Spirit Lake early for the return to Portland but the miners reported that rocks were being thrown at the cabin till dawn.    And it is probably a 4 hour daylight and much longer at night hike from the cabin site back to Spirit Lake at the time, so if the youth group was involved,  they could not have been back at Spirit Lake in time for the early morning return trip to Portland.       Certainly a rock throwing youth group would never admit that activity or tell adult chaperones, so how would the Forest Service ever hear about it?    The miners reported they shot a BF that fell off the cliff  and that started the altercation.   If that was a young man, instead of a BF, one would think a missing,  wounded or shot dead young man would be mentioned in the papers.   But that is not mentioned.     Finally why would the Forest Service feel the need to put anything in writing to explain what happened that long ago unless it is to obfuscate the truth of what happened that night reported by multiple bigfoot witnesses?   

Edited November 3, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[dmaker]

""A body could not be denied"?     If any one of a half dozen accounts I have read about what happened when a body is present is true, ..."

 

 

They are not.

[jayjeti]

"A body could not be denied"?     If any one of a half dozen accounts I have read about what happened when a body is present is true,  the body is confiscated by some government agency and disappears.    Then the denials start with the government not admitting the body existed.     Pretty convenient if you can threaten the original possessor of the body with some sort of arrest for interfering with law enforcement.   I wonder how many BF have been shot only to have it confiscated and the shooter threatened with arrest for some sort of game hunting violation if they did not keep their mouth shut?    

 

 

 

Those are my sentiments.  There have likely been many bodies that the government has confiscated and covered up.  The government might be a bigger hindrance to getting a body than sasquatch's elusive nature.  Here's a possible body of a bigfoot that was found and covered up by the government, but I have no way of knowing if this is real on not.

 

http://pass-oregon.beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2014/01/possible-bigfoot-bones-found-near-grants-pass-oregon-2462824.html

 

 

 The miners reported they shot a BF that fell off the cliff  and that started the altercation.    

 

Actually, they shot at one and probably hit it the previous day and the cabin was attacked that night.  The following morning as they were leaving they saw one and shot it and it fell off of a 400 foot cliff.  

Edited November 4, 2015 by jayjeti

[JDL]

Same with the Si-Teh-Cah skeletons once on display at the Mark Twain Museum in Virginia City, Nevada.  They are now in the possesion of the BLM, not on display in any of their Museums, or those of their partnering Museums, and no longer available to the public.

[JDL]

Consider also the many reports of large skeletons excavated from Indian Mounds in the 1800's and sent to the Smithsonian.  Presumably also Si-Teh-Cah skeletons, or of mixed race, these were commonly viewed as evidence of certain historical accounts of giants from the Old World along with artifacts with Old World writings on them (suggesting prior claim to American lands), and were perceived to jeopardize the Doctrine of Manifest Destiny at the time.  So these skeletons and artifacts that appeared to be of Egyptian, Judean, Norse, Welsh, and other origin simply disappeared when sent to the Smithsonian. 

 

The person responsible for this was John Wesley Powell, the first Director of the Smithsonian's Bureau of American Ethnology when it was established in 1878.  Powell claimed in his first annual report that archeologists and anthropologists were assigning unwarranted significance to their finds by linking them to "tribes of antiquity" from the Old World, described it as a "misuse" of archeological evidence, and suppressed further investigation along those lines.

 

What is now described as the Powell Doctrine is a matter of public record and direct evidence of government suppression of the existence of anthropologically significant data that could rewrite currently accepted history.  This goes back to that first report from 1879.

 

So it is not such a farfetched thing to postulate that government suppression of anthropological information occurs.

 

http://siris-archives.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!87586!0&term=

Edited November 4, 2015 by JDL

[SWWASAS]

Once the cover up starts those involved and their successors have to maintain it. One thing the Government does not want to happen is proof that they have been lying to the American People. I think what JDL mentions is the most likely explanation for any coverup of BF that goes into the present day. Knowledge of such a coverup does not go down to lower pay grades either. Heads of departments and various bureaucrats at higher levels may know and when subordinates encounter evidence to the contrary they are cautioned that the information sensitive and is not to be released to the public. They know if they blab they will get fired, demoted or various other punishments. Loosing or a reduced paycheck is a good incentive to keep your mouth shut. Then of course if you properly deal with sensitive information in a way that pleases your superiors, you become part of the conspiracy and one that can be trusted for higher levels of responsibility. It becomes a self sustaining and increasingly strong policy in any agency. And whats more, nothing is ever put in writing that could be gotten through a freedom of information act request.

How do I know that such things happen in Government? Because I have been there and have been part of it. It is a lot easier to claim you do not know, or did not see or hear anything when that is precisely the answer your supervisor wants to hear from you. But by doing so you become part of the conspiracy of coverup.

[Bodhi]

To be clear, there is evidence, just no body.  And yes, I know you'll first say "What evidence?  There is no evidence."  And then when presented with a list of available forensic evidence say that it isn't actual evidence and go into a rote denial of whether or not any forensic evidence short of a body is evidence.  We've all heard it.  And we've all recognized that it is just your subjective opinion.

 

And yes, you'll point to various hoaxes as if to say "If one is a hoax, then they all must be hoaxes".  A logical fallacy.

 

And you'll refuse to consider that the sheer volume of data and forensic evidence that has amassed has any value, and so on.

 

So yes, you've got us....we have no body.  And yes, we understand that you'll cross your arms, stick out your lower lip and stamp your foot until we do.

 

But the majority of us are more objective, and we'll move on.

Well, why not declare that the animal is real and start up the zoo exhibits? I see this claim made by you repeatedly; there really is evidence if the skeptics/scientists would only look.  Clearly, the "evidence" has been found lacking, not just by the skeptics on this forum but the vast majority of mankind. So maybe demanding that we are all blind you might re-examine your first principles? The objectivity you claim seems more like delusion and claiming that volume equals evidence is a logical fallacy and I'm pretty sure you know that.

[JDL]

First, Bodhi, I am a scientist, a licensed professional chemical engineer.  I'm also a West Point graduate and served on the faculty at West Point for four years.  I hold four US patents and ten international.  I don't make wild claims.  But I'll tell you this:  I have had not just sightings of bigfoot, but encounters with them.

 

You are entitled to your opinion that bigfoot does not exist, and others, who may not have seen a bigfoot yet believe in them, are entitled to their positions as well.  In fact, your belief system, devoid of personal encounter, is exactly equal to theirs in validity.

 

All you can do is say that you do not accept the current evidence.  That does not equate to non-existence, just opinion, and when you act on that opinion you are simply proselytizing your particular belief system.  That does not make you an authority.

 

If anyone asks me, I do state that they are real, but I will tell you that from my experience they are no more animals than we are.  They are a sub-aboriginal people.

 

And I don't much care whether or not you believe me.

[MIB]

It goes beyond big skeletons disappearing.    The fact that they existed, whatever they were, is quite adequately documented.    Anyone arguing otherwise has failed to do their homework and is not to be taken seriously.  

 

Since they are purportedly in the hands of a museum, not gov't hands, the notion of a gov't coverup to hide the fact there was a gov't coverup has less strength.   If they wanted to, they could sweep the whole thing under the carpet by saying "oh, look at this neat box of dusty bones found in the archive", put them on display somewhat quietly, and go on as if nothing ever happened.  

 

Whoever has them, if they weren't outright destroyed, has almost certainly done DNA testing on them by now and knows what they have.    I don't see investing the effort to keep them hidden, and knowingly feeding conspiracy theories by doing so, merely to preserve the reputation of some long dead museum curator.    That doesn't add up.   Something has to have been learned that makes the continued effort worthwhile. 

 

It could be a lot of things.  It doesn't have to be bigfoot, early European entry to the Americas, red haired aliens, etc.  'til we know what it is, we don't know, we can only speculate.   It could bring ownership of resources into question.   It could have some bearing on validity of treaties and tribal financial reparations.   Or it might indeed be proof of bigfoot ... "we don't know" means we do not know.  

 

MIB

 

PS: gotta "plus" JDL .. sub-aboriginal people ... I have several ideas what they might be and most of the probable ones fall somewhere under that umbrella.   Nicely said!

Edited November 4, 2015 by MIB

[SWWASAS]

JDL, but Bodhi and others like him seem driven to try to make sure others do not believe you either. My question has always been why do they care and why do they spend so much time and effort trying?

MIB I suspect a lot of these skeletons have been returned to Native Americans for reburial. That act has been very convenient for the government to get rid of things that are outside of the official history. It took a court order to stop the Government from immediate burial of the Kennewick Man. An obviously ancient Asian man in central Washington does not fit the "Official" history of the United States.

Edited November 4, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[MIB]

Easy-peasy if you step back a couple steps so the forest is visible through the trees.

 

On a meta-level, it is "religion": dogmatic belief vs open minded questioning vs dogmatic disbelief.   It's about hairy folks in the woods rather than some guy called J.C. nailed to a tree, but the pattern is the same.  

 

Scoftics/denialists are to bigfoot as active athiests are to that religion we can't talk about, not merely ignoring what they don't believe, but trying to destroy others' belief.  They present it ... and maybe even perceive it ... as a service to others when in fact it is entirely about hiding their own insecurity from themselves .. entirely self serving, "others" are just pawns in their internal head game.

 

... and they get really, really huffy when you point it out to them.  

 

Anyways, we should probably get back to bones, especially bone stacks in the woods and research papers.   So far all I've found are disarticulated carcasses.   This idea of stacked / organized bones in the woods intrigues me.  It's a new thing to keep my eyes open for.  

 

Question for BTW ... you may have answered this when I was not paying attention: in the stacks so far, do they seem to be single animal, single use, or does it look like "whatever made them" has brought several kills to the same site for consumption?   My notion is that a site which has seemingly been used several times, especially if one is recent, might be good candidates for trail camera "sets".

 

MIB 

Edited November 4, 2015 by MIB

[Guest]

JDL,

What is "sub - aboriginal" supposed to mean?