MIB Posted November 27, 2017 Moderator Share Posted November 27, 2017 13 hours ago, LeafTalker said: The trick will be to try to be kind to those civil servants who really did think they were doing the right thing, at the same time that we stop this practice of hiding the truth from everybody. Those who actually know have access to understanding those of us who don't know don't have. We have to consider the possibility they ARE doing the right thing, we're just naive .. and letting our feelings of entitlement interfere with careful judgment. Until the WHOLE public can deal with the truth, a level of secrecy is necessary because there is no way to separate the public who can from the public who can't. You can do great harm to those who trust you by making mistakes about who you, in turn, trust. Life isn't always conveniently black and white, especially when you have to deal with real people with real human flaws. MIB 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 27, 2017 Admin Author Share Posted November 27, 2017 16 hours ago, Twist said: Is it crazy to think that its easier to get people / gov't workers to fudge the numbers of known carnivores vs. the existence of a large bipedal ape like thing? I believe there to be a difference in the amount of "cover up" ability based directly on the level of sensationalism associated with the information. Does that make sense, it does in my head..... Dont we have forest service employees who have come out? Paul Freeman and Charles Branson? come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, MIB said: Those who actually know have access to understanding those of us who don't know don't have. We have to consider the possibility they ARE doing the right thing, we're just naive .. and letting our feelings of entitlement interfere with careful judgment. Until the WHOLE public can deal with the truth, a level of secrecy is necessary because there is no way to separate the public who can from the public who can't. You can do great harm to those who trust you by making mistakes about who you, in turn, trust. Life isn't always conveniently black and white, especially when you have to deal with real people with real human flaws. MIB Just what do you think "those who actually know" know? There is N O T H I N G about the BF that the government can tell anyone who has had actual experiences with them: N O T H I N G. The ONLY thing that the government knows that we only have hints of is the extent of its own malfeasance. THAT is what is being hidden from us: the corruption, the double-dealing, and the cow-towing to moneyed interests (and other interests, too; but for convenience, we'll leave it there for now). And sure, what's also being hidden are the stupid, ugly "experiments" on the poor bodies of whichever BF have sadly been caught in the traps of these human monsters. And all this under the guise of "protecting" the public. Can you not see that anyone (and I'm not including you in this; I'm talking about hypothetical "officials") who alleges to be slowing the release of information for OUR benefit is only protecting their own hineys???? They are serving themselves -- not you. (And I'm not talking about low-level officials here; like SWWASAS says, compartmentalization is a real thing, AND some people have the misguided belief they are "helping". I'm talking about those at the very top, who know full well whose interests are really at stake.) This is not about entitlement, unless by entitlement, you mean, the right to be treated like the fully empowered, sovereign, awake (or awakening) being that you are. We have the right to be treated that way, and we are not being treated that way. The fact that we are not being treated that way, however, does not mean that we necessarily have the "right" to foment rebellion and chaos. Progress does not have to happen that way. All you have to do is tell the world what you think about things. You have to be brave enough to stand by your own truth. That's all it takes. JC didn't shoot anyone; Ghandi didn't shoot anyone; MLK didn't shoot anyone. They just spoke their truth; and all the rest of us saw -- and felt deeply -- the truth of their words, and began the work of turning the ship around. And it has been turning around -- so you're completely right, in a way. We've all witnessed the "slow and gradual" process of getting up to speed on this "phenomenon". There are TV shows about it, for heaven's sake!!! Many of them!!! Not just one! The favorite joke of a while back was, "Polls show that there are more people who believe in BF than in [fill in your own political movement/whatever here]." There are LOTS of people who know the BF exist. There are even lots of people who know they are being actively lied to. So it's all good. It will all be fine. Just don't sell yourself (or anyone else) short. Edited November 27, 2017 by LeafTalker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) GOOD GRIEF LeafTalker you sound just like 'someone I know' LOL. Didn't know you had it in you. Welcome to the 'other side' of midnight. I see it as one cannot look at the amount of surveillance technology deployed and at least wonder if Sasquatch has ever been detected. To me the answer is obvious, of course it has- and a long time ago. I've also wondered just how much surveillance has been placed on the ground in the vicinity of BF habitat if not right in that habitat. I also wonder what policies and methods are in place in order to not only monitor their locations but also to 'corral' them toward certain regions simply by taking advantage of the creature's natural tendency to avoid Humans. Shouldn't be too hard to steer them into areas that are so remote no one will see them and, by default, reports fall off . Too much to expect any of this to be a reality? I don't think so in the least. I also think catching one alive secretly would be an extremely difficult and expensive task. It would require road closures and what would amount to secret ops under the guise of war game exercises. Norseman hasn't seen a trackway in all the time he's gone out. Not even a print and his area should have BF presence. The green corridor in the West through the Sierras and the Rockies and all the way to our friends in the North's back yard in Canada should have thousands or tens of thousands of BF's by now even if their procreation is as slow as bears. So something is way off here; there should be creatures seen all of the time unless they've been dying off faster than they are reproducing. I think something is seriously not good and wrong out there. Edited November 27, 2017 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 I honestly think they're fine, hiflier. But we humans could certainly be nicer to each other.... And because I can start to be not-so-nice, myself, when I talk about how we need to be nice, I think it's time for me to call it a day...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 The coverup for sasquatch might not be as big as some people imagine. There might be a small group that has access to the info on “unique” national security issues, but don’t have much control over the phenomenon, and are befuddled by it as much we are, but for very different reasons. Perhaps they want much of the information to be public, but at the same time, are concerned about public fear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 25 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: The coverup for sasquatch might not be as big as some people imagine. There might be a small group that has access to the info....... IMHO these two sentences negate each other. The reason being that no matter how small the group with access to the info is? The info that they have or see comes from somewhere which is......hmmm.....just where does that info come from, and from whom, or even a good guess? If I were a member of that small group then I would know that the info comes from assets the field, the internet, and maybe other agencies. What it means is there is not a way to have only a small group having access to the info because it is first collected my a larger group or groups. As an example, this very Forum would struggle if it were not for the internet which is public, and the members who report back from the field. So I am of the opinion that authorities also have other internets that they access. Various forms of the dark web which includes scientific data and studies. Other internet types could be just for the military, or just for Law Enforcement, or just branches of entities involved directly with national security. Places none of us would be allowed to access. These are very deep places and my thinking is THAT"S where the REAL Sasquatch info resides. So, when I was mentioning monitoring that's where my head was. I think it's why we do not have a clue about what goes on with these creatures anymore. Used to, but not anymore. It's one reason why researchers in the field that we know are more valuable than everyone gives them credit for. As I said- the private sector- it's all we have and we need to support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 28, 2017 Admin Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 I think it should be obvious to all that the CIA does not share intel with the Forest Service or the Fish and Wildlife. The agencies such as the CIA and DOD which have the kind of mass intel gathering arms necessary? Are not going to be calling the Smithsonian with any finds under their watch either. Unless you have the clearance or the need to know? Your not going to know. Bigfoot or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 If there is a conspiracy behind BF then it must be very rare and/or nomadic. It would seem hard to keep this under wraps if its as wide spread as reports would lead one to believe. That probably also means that those in the know are laughing at all the reports coming from areas they know it does not inhabit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) There are people claiming that there’s a massive coverup between the USFS, Fish and Game, and the logging industry. Based on what I’ve personally learned, that notion is incorrect for the most part. In reality, it isn’t anywhere near that massive, and there isn’t any agency in particular where everyone working for it access to all of the info. Edited November 28, 2017 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 I said pretty much what I came to say. Didn't sugar coat it, didn't downplay it. There is no question government is involved. Any cover up can go either of two ways: Either Sasquatch is seriously in decline and a any cover up is to protect the diminished or diminishing population. In other words, they may be more sensitive to change and encroachment that we think or, someone is benefitting from public non-disclosure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 What would be the upside to the government of governmental disclosure? What would be the downside? What is the benefit of maintaining the status quo? Do the calculus. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 23 minutes ago, JDL said: What would be the upside to the government of governmental disclosure? What would be the downside? What is the benefit of maintaining the status quo? Do the calculus. If you were a group that may benefit from the additional funding or need for protection etc that a BF revealing might bring it could be considered an upside. Aforementioned funding is the obvious down side. Eventually when one does get hit in the road and made public you are going to have egg on your face and angry citizens. If the conspiracy hasn't been officially exposed yet it would most likely be exposed after one is irrefutably on the evening news. I don't have my TI-85 so calculus is not on the table tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 The USFS & US Fish and Wildlife can’t collect and analyze info on a phenomenon that they don’t have access to. One might claim that they’re using public databases, but considering that they’re all unverified anecdotes, I think that’s very unlikely. Another issue is that even if they were studying the phenomenon, they wouldn’t be able to get far, which would make it a waste of time and money. It’s doubtful that they would do any better than researchers outside the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 28, 2017 BFF Patron Share Posted November 28, 2017 (edited) Yet the USFWS was street-wise enough to invite a wildlife educator/rehabilitator/ehthusiast known to the BF world to do a special presentation before their group in a highly advertised setting in WVA. Edited November 28, 2017 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts