WSA Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Always appreciate the view on those "on the ground", so to speak, MIB. There were a lot of economic losses with that trade-off in the 80's and 90's, and real people suffered. Trying to say if it was justified is a fool's mission. It surely depends on who you ask, and the forest can't speak up for itself either. Good point about maybe as many people leaving the woods as those interested in seeing more of it. I got to think though the consolation for those who would continue to frequent the woods would be, "Hey, they pretty much left us alone for centuries, and nothing has changed." As a matter of fact, that is my current take on it. Maybe I am just naïve, I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Plausible. Quite plausible from Les Stroud. Also, the species isn't going to be revealed until 'those in the know' can answer simple and basic questions about them which they probably can't answer right now, if they do indeed know about them. Are they dangerous? Are they potentially dangerous? Are they endangered? Until they know all this they are not going to want the public rushing into places where they know such creatures are around. Edited August 11, 2015 by Neanderfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted August 11, 2015 Moderator Share Posted August 11, 2015 WSA - I don't know either. I can argue either side ... and do. The real crux of my stance is to hold off making ANY decision. We simply do not know enough to make an informed decision. Some people are more comfortable with a choice made even if it is wrong .. their comfort list is right choice, wrong choice, delayed choice. Mine is right choice, delay choosing, wrong choice. They have to do what they have to do, I have to do what I have to do. I hope they are frustrated by lack of opportunity to choose. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 11, 2015 Admin Share Posted August 11, 2015 Plausible. Quite plausible from Les Stroud. Also, the species isn't going to be revealed until 'those in the know' can answer simple and basic questions about them which they probably can't answer right now, if they do indeed know about them. Are they dangerous? Are they potentially dangerous? Are they endangered? Until they know all this they are not going to want the public rushing into places where they know such creatures are around. I dont think they give two hoots about you ending up in a 411 book. But they certainly care about a wildlife court injuction against their next mine site or oil pad. It happens already......,..there are grizzly bears in central Washington and Idaho, thats not apart of any grizzly recovery zone, which means no Federal big stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 that's Les Stroud? nice tin foil hat he is wearing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I don't think they give two hoots about you ending up in a 411 book I think 'those in the know' (scientists, park rangers etc) would most certainly give two hoots about not being able to answer any questions about the species. Imagine it goes like this. A sasquatch is brought in dead. Or body parts, proving it's existence without doubt. Press conference revealing the species. Questions from the press. None of which can be answered by anyone. That is not a road the 'people in the know' will be wanting to go down. Sasquatch wont be revealed to us all until they can answer the questions that will be forthcoming.They will be wanting to find out as much as they can before revealing to the public there are 8 ft scary looking ape men running around the woods, not only for the interests of the public but also for the benefit of the species. That is the way it WILL be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 15, 2015 Admin Share Posted August 15, 2015 I meant the oil executives....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 (edited) Oh really? Well how is it that the timber and mining industry knows all about bigfoot enough to create a government/industry blackout and the rest of the world knows nothing? Oh come on I suppose it is the major incompetence and failure of the bigfoot research establishment since they perpetually come up empty handed. Heck all the bad guys can find them soooo why not you researchers? Remember you guys are the knowledgeable ones not them. Now before you start whining consider that whenever a non bigfoot interest contingency is in the field doing what they do the BF proponents cry that they don't find bigfoot because they're not looking for bigfoot. Well the mining industry isn't looking for bigfoot and neither is the forest industry or the oil and gas industry. They are looking at forests and geology not for a few silly apes. So the next time a scientist is in the field you better give them credit for being able to spot that thing since those dullard lumberjacks and their handlers sure have pegged it to the point they're keeping it hush hush. Edited August 16, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 those dullard lumberjacks Heyy, I resemble that remark! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 Why all the condescending attitudes lately? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DTRobers Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 The "conspiracy of silence" argument has been honed to a keen edge by the UFO (as alien craft) proponents. They have even used some of the same arguments such as fear of economic disruption and damage to religious and scientific authority. I can agree with WSA that given the knowledge of the existence of BF some special interests would opt to deny and cover-up. I just cannot believe that such an effort would be successful. With the population level and geographic distribution pre- supposed by the sightings data, the timber industry may as well deny the existence of the squirrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Hello All, Silence too is not the same as denial. How many of us have actually ASKED the various industries point blank or their field operatives about whether or not they know of such creatures? I've seen a lot of supposition even on the part of myself but I personally have never directly broached the subject with loggers, frackers, etc., or other organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I worked in the forest industry here in Ontario for 34 years, the last several years in management. No talk of bf, ever. People don't want to hear that however. They'd rather believe folks who speculate and who really don't have a clue about what they're talking about. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 But wait! I hear constantly from BF skeptics that there is no plausible reason the timber industry (or mining or gas) would have any reason to hide the existence......... hmmm..... Anyone who thinks this animal is real thinks it is likely-to-certain that shoot/shovel/shut up has happened out there on timber lands, probably more than once. Logic and human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts