Where Have All The Giants Gone?

[hiflier]

Hello All,

I used the words explosive and greed in the same post. Shouldn't be hard to fill in the blanks. If Sasquatch is discovered to be officially real by science then the natural resource industries' money flow will be bottle-necked. So many discussions on this Forum mention not telling anyone if a body is found as it will be confiscated, disappear, and never made public. Most will disagree with me on the next point: Dr. Melba Ketchum tested and got the real thing but backed off for reasons yet to be known. I think she knew the negative economic, political, and industrial impact of such a find and so stopped short. No one was going top peer review her work in any scientific journals for the same reasons.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that this is true. Proof would be economically explosive. Period. And would send ripples through the wood and fuel extraction industries along with all the other activities both recreational and otherwise. It really is all about the money so If Sasquatch exists- which I think it does- then I simply do not trust the industries that are working in the same areas where the creatures are. I think that the creatures therefore are at tremendous risk if anyone thought there was potential knowledge of the animal's existence. This is my stance on the matter and it's why I push for a body for science. Not to halt industry because thousands of families depend on them for their livelihoods. It's to keep the local populations that inhabit the same areas the resource industries are operating in from eradication by those very industries in order to protect their profits.

Yep, I sound like a crackpot. I don't care. I don't for a minute trust those outfits to not touch a hair on that creature's head. Truth be known I think the opposite has been happening and Sasquatch is real trouble.

Rant over....off soapbox....apologies for being off topic.

Edited December 20, 2015 by hiflier

[ohiobill]

Have you read H.V. Hart's analysis of Dr. Ketchum's study?

 â€œYou have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.†― Robert A. Heinlein

H V Hart Distinguishing Related Species w Preface (1).pdf

Edited December 20, 2015 by ohiobill

[SWWASAS]

Well Hart sure blasted Ketchum's conclusions out of the water. The other thing that came to mind as I read through the paper is that there is a lot of interpretation and statistical analysis going on when trying to match DNA samples, either known or unknowns.

The next time I am around a logger in an environment where they might feel free to talk (like a bar) I am going to ask if they get any pressure or direction from who they work for with relationship to BF. I will not ask if they have seen BF. I will ask if they are free to tell others if they see one. I have heard, and I have no independent verification, that if they tell anyone about a BF sighting they will be fired. They do not want their logging operation shut down.

I know first hand about someone's dealing with the forest service. Someone I know found footprints near Mt St Helens. On their way back to their vehicle to get casting materials they ran into a forest ranger. Told him about the foot print thinking he might be interested. When they got back to the footprint location, the footprints had been eradicated. I do not know if that is policy, or just the action of the individual ranger. I eradicate BF footprints myself, after I document them. Part of the reason is to keep active areas unknown to BFRO (I know I'm bad) and part of the reason is I hope the BF that made the print will see me doing it and appreciate my effort.

Edited December 21, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Twist]

I get that industries, such as forestry are big business and there has always been the belief that BF would devastate them if known to be true, which leads to all forestry workers being threatened with their job if they talk.  To me I believe this is a conspiracy to help perpetuate the myth why they do not speak about them.  Forestry work is hard manual labor, any hard manual labor job goes thru employees, some come in and don't cut it, this means there are a lot that leave the industry.  What is keeping them from speaking on BF, they no longer fear losing their job.  What's the next reason, they fear the black SUV's rolling up if they speak? 

[ohiobill]

Well Hart sure blasted Ketchum's conclusions out of the water. The other thing that came to mind as I read through the paper is that there is a lot of interpretation and statistical analysis going on when trying to match DNA samples, either known or unknowns.

Almost amazing considering Dr. Hart not only took the time and effort to fairly and honestly consider Dr. Ketchum's work but also offered to help her repeatedly despite the reception he received. I don't think most people realize how difficult it must have been to write up his work in a manner that is understandable by forum members with minimal exposure to DNA testing and yet still remained suitable for peer review. The fact that he paid out of pocket to ensure open access for members here is incredible when compared to the secrecy most researchers place on their efforts. I think it illustrates how honest and open research could benefit the whole field. It should be pointed to each and every time anyone posts nonsense about selfish and disinterested scientists failing to address the evidence available.    

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I get that industries, such as forestry are big business and there has always been the belief that BF would devastate them if known to be true, which leads to all forestry workers being threatened with their job if they talk.  To me I believe this is a conspiracy to help perpetuate the myth why they do not speak about them.  Forestry work is hard manual labor, any hard manual labor job goes thru employees, some come in and don't cut it, this means there are a lot that leave the industry.  What is keeping them from speaking on BF, they no longer fear losing their job.  What's the next reason, they fear the black SUV's rolling up if they speak? 

 

Most jobs require you to submit a CV and references, which most employers check. So future employment is at stake. Even if that employment is in a totally different field, any indication of a bad employee can torpedo that person's chance of landing the job.

[SWWASAS]

I get that industries, such as forestry are big business and there has always been the belief that BF would devastate them if known to be true, which leads to all forestry workers being threatened with their job if they talk.  To me I believe this is a conspiracy to help perpetuate the myth why they do not speak about them.  Forestry work is hard manual labor, any hard manual labor job goes thru employees, some come in and don't cut it, this means there are a lot that leave the industry.  What is keeping them from speaking on BF, they no longer fear losing their job.  What's the next reason, they fear the black SUV's rolling up if they speak?

First of all logging is pretty automated now. While trees are still cut with chain saws most all the handling is done with heavy equipment. So there is not a lot of unskilled manual labor any more. And in this area, the unskilled stuff like replanting is done by Mexican crews. They are not going to run around shooting their mouth off when most are probably illegals. Then there is the natural tendency of people, even BF researchers, not to be honest about what they are doing out there in the woods. Only one of my neighbors knows what I do in the woods, and he all but said he thinks I must be nuts, because BF is not accepted to exist by science. So loggers are faced with that same social pressures not to talk about what they see. Oh they probably talk among themselves like we do but not to the general public. Most of us fear our sanity being questioned more than government black SUV's.

[Guest DWA]

There really isn't a 'why aren't they confirmed?' out there that can't be easily answered by the denial inherent in the 'skeptical' approach to the topic.  

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Denialist's logic:

 

"Why aren't they confirmed?"

 

"Because they don't exist."

 

"How do you know they don't exist?"

 

"Because they aren't confirmed."

 

 

 

[Twist]

 

I get that industries, such as forestry are big business and there has always been the belief that BF would devastate them if known to be true, which leads to all forestry workers being threatened with their job if they talk.  To me I believe this is a conspiracy to help perpetuate the myth why they do not speak about them.  Forestry work is hard manual labor, any hard manual labor job goes thru employees, some come in and don't cut it, this means there are a lot that leave the industry.  What is keeping them from speaking on BF, they no longer fear losing their job.  What's the next reason, they fear the black SUV's rolling up if they speak?

First of all logging is pretty automated now. While trees are still cut with chain saws most all the handling is done with heavy equipment. So there is not a lot of unskilled manual labor any more. And in this area, the unskilled stuff like replanting is done by Mexican crews. They are not going to run around shooting their mouth off when most are probably illegals. Then there is the natural tendency of people, even BF researchers, not to be honest about what they are doing out there in the woods. Only one of my neighbors knows what I do in the woods, and he all but said he thinks I must be nuts, because BF is not accepted to exist by science. So loggers are faced with that same social pressures not to talk about what they see. Oh they probably talk among themselves like we do but not to the general public. Most of us fear our sanity being questioned more than government black SUV's.

 

well according the following article, they are actually in demand of up to 20k forestry workers by 2020

 

"https://www2.viu.ca/forestry/Careers/Forestry-in-BC.asp"

 

And by your account, trees are cut by chainsaw (human operated), and are picked up via heavy equipment (operated by humans) Where is the automation?  As far as I know, and feel free to correct me ( I love learning knew things ) there are no "automated" machines that cut and collect trees on a mountain side. We are still using humans or human operated apparatus to cut a log and a human apparatus to collect the log.  

 

According to "http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1757e/i1757e.pdf"

 

There were 234,000 forestry employees in N.A and Central America. Sure, some of those are not in the "BF" area as we know it, but even a percentage of that still constitute a large number of people that could report a BF.

 

If they are covered up by forestry workers as we are lead to believe.  Are we really to believe that, out of that many people, none of them, based on fear of future employment, come forward to admit that big business, aka forestry, has threatened their life and or livelihood? 

Edited December 23, 2015 by TWlST

[Guest DWA]

None of this discussion really means anything against the evidence, as careful perusal of same would show.  Just the way it is.  I do get tired of the way this discussion goes round and round and round stuff like this, and the evidence remains unaddressed.

[dmaker]

Denialist's logic:

 

"Why aren't they confirmed?"

 

"Because they don't exist."

 

"How do you know they don't exist?"

 

"Because they aren't confirmed."

Wrong. They are unconfirmed because there is no proof. Provide proof, and they will be confirmed. 

[Guest DWA]

...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the evidence remains unaddressed.

 

I remain totally unconvinced that anyone coming here to talk about anything else could really care, and wonder, as always, what motivates it.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Denialist's logic:

 

"Why aren't they confirmed?"

 

"Because they don't exist."

 

"How do you know they don't exist?"

 

"Because they aren't confirmed."

Wrong. They are unconfirmed because there is no proof. Provide proof, and they will be confirmed.

In that case replace "Why aren't they confirmed?" with "Why isn't there any proof?"

[dmaker]

There is no proof because either the animal does not exist, or no one has collected proof yet.