Where Are The Sasquatches In The OP??

[Catmandoo]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

As a side note the stimulation of the optic nerves caused by a vitreous humor separation could very well be caused by an infra sound event also.

 

Have you talked to your eye doctor about infrasonic induced vision problems?

Short term,  momentary vitreous separation over age 50 is common. Floaters are common. One can 'see' white flashes while lying in bed.

 

We are bombarded by infrasonic sound every day; seismic events, wind storms, wind, thunder and lightning and Hunster is slammed by the Northern Lights. Animals have been studied for many years. I found the work on the silent voices of Giraffes interesting:

http://www.animalvoice.com/Giraffe.htm

 

They emit below and above the resonance frequency of the human eye.  If one wanted to be bombarded by infrasonic noise at close range, I would think that a trip to a zoo may be productive.  The question of directionality comes up. Is it omnidirectional or aimed? What anatomical features would be involved in targeted Infrasonic transmission?  Mouth? Throat? Lungs? Colon?

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

Just sent my third email off to the WADNR. This time I requested that someone please respond to it.

 

I have a little story for you all. About 3 years ago I was at Rangeley State Park here in Maine camping for a week. I went to the Ranger Center to purchase some firewood and while at the window I saw a man inside the office who was not dressed in the usual Ranger uniform. He was wearing a white polo shirt with an emblem on the front. The emblem said "Maine Bureau of Land Management". I took a deep breath and ask him point blank if he was ALLOWED to talk about Sasquatch. He didn't hesitate a split second in answering me. He said, "There ain't none!"

 

What do you all make of that? What does this Forum make of that?

Edited February 15, 2019 by hiflier

[Huntster]

24 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.........I took a deep breath and ask him point blank if he was ALLOWED to talk about Sasquatch. He didn't hesitate a split second in answering me. He said, "There ain't none!"

 

What do you all make of that? What does this Forum make of that?

 

That's a very common response to that question. 

[hiflier]

18 minutes ago, Huntster said:

That's a very common response to that question.

 

How do you know? Have you or anyone else gotten that response?

 

I look at it this way, if that is the response because Sasquatch doesn't exist then there should be no worries or hesitations regarding my emails. Simply put, the WADNR should very simply say that there are no Sasquatches. Period. I mean what's the big deal?

Edited February 16, 2019 by hiflier

[NathanFooter]

9 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

How do you know? Have you or anyone else gotten that response?

 

I look at it this way, if that is the response because Sasquatch doesn't exist then there should be no worries or hesitations regarding my emails. Simply put, the WADNR should very simply say that there are no Sasquatches. Period. I mean what's the big deal?

 

I have gotten a variety of responses over the years, it depends on how you approach the question and the type of person they seem to be.

[hiflier]

21 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

it depends on how you approach the question and the type of person they seem to be.

 

Hard to accept that, NF. In other words one should always and only "approach" the question this way: "Are there any Sasquatches" no matter who one speaks to. What could be simpler than that? And yes, I did ask that very question, and in those very words, in my emails to the Commissioner of the WADNR.

 

This goes to the very heart of the issue of neither confirming nor denying does it not? So it bores deeper into public disclosure policies when it comes to Sasquatch. This isn't about getting some paper via an FOIA. This is about what an agency knows about its own jurisdiction and whether or not it purposely holds the public as a psychological hostage when it comes to certain subjects.

 

Sasquatches exist? Then say so. Sasquatches don't exist? Then say so. Is the subject of Bigfoot such that remaining neutral and silent is so important? 

Edited February 16, 2019 by hiflier

[NathanFooter]

13 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Hard to accept that, NF. In other words one should always and only "approach" the question this way: "Are there any Sasquatches" no matter who one speaks to. What could be simpler than that? And yes, I did ask that very question, and in those very words, in my emails to the Commissioner of the WADNR.

 

This goes to the very heart of the issue of neither confirming nor denying does it not? So it bores deeper into public disclosure policies when it comes to Sasquatch. This isn't about getting some paper via an FOIA. This is about what an agency knows about its own jurisdiction and whether or not it purposely holds the public as a psychological hostage when it comes to certain subjects.

 

Sasquatches exist? Then say so. Sasquatches don't exist? Then say so. Is the subject of Bigfoot such that remaining neutral and silent is so important? 

 

  I don't know what else to tell you other than that this is indeed the case in my experience. I have gotten the same harsh response you received and I have gotten some folks to talk about what they know.  Building commonality and trust really can go a long way with people who have information, history has plenty of examples.

[hiflier]

I agree but a simple yes or no would do nicely without having to posture or jump through some kind of acceptable social hoop. I can't help but think of NAWAC in this regard. 10 or 12 YEARS they have given up their summers and invested so much time and money, not to mention physical and social hardships when the money, time and effort might have been better spent getting the truth out of the Oklahoma resources/wildlife departments?

 

This is why this thread exists. Its reason for being. But I don't think or know if anyone is taking what I'm doing as a good strong method to get at the truth. What is really astounding is how arriving at the truth through official channels seems to be such a stone wall. Can ANYONE tell me why that is? Because IMHO it should be easy to just get the truth regarding existence from someone in authority. I mean what is the point of playing around if an agency knows the real story? That's what I don't understand. What is the benefit of that?

 

If an agency KNOWS the creatures don't exist then it shouldn't be hard to get them to just say so. Or am I just way off here? Because they don't have to? Well, let me tell you something folks, anyone looking at the time and expense people go through looking for this animal tells me that YES, they have to. As an agency responsible to is citizens they have to.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

How do you know? Have you or anyone else gotten that response?........

 

If I had a nickel for every time some Bozo said that to me, I'd buy this continent and evict all of you. There'd be nobody left here but me and the sasquatches (that don't exist).

[bipedalist]

48 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I agree but a simple yes or no would do nicely without having to posture or jump through some kind of acceptable social hoop. I can't help but think of NAWAC in this regard. 10 or 12 YEARS they have given up their summers and invested so much time and money, not to mention physical and social hardships when the money, time and effort might have been better spent getting the truth out of the Oklahoma resources/wildlife departments?

 

This is why this thread exists. Its reason for being. But I don't think or know if anyone is taking what I'm doing as a good strong method to get at the truth. What is really astounding is how arriving at the truth through official channels seems to be such a stone wall. Can ANYONE tell me why that is? Because IMHO it should be easy to just get the truth regarding existence from someone in authority. I mean what is the point of playing around if an agency knows the real story? That's what I don't understand. What is the benefit of that?

 

Quote

If an agency KNOWS the creatures don't exist then it shouldn't be hard to get them to just say so. Or am I just way off here? 

Because they don't have to? Well, let me tell you something folks, anyone looking at the time and expense people go through looking for this animal tells me that YES, they have to. As an agency responsible to is citizens they have to.

 

Perhaps it goes back to the days when they were found in and around nuke missile silos?   Answer: maybe way off.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

51 minutes ago, bipedalist said:

 Answer: maybe way off.

 

I guess it's time for me to go then. There will be nothing more for me here. Everyone enjoy your bubble.

[MIB]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I guess it's time for me to go then. There will be nothing more for me here.

 

There is nothing here for any of us but a bit of brainstorming.   None of us can compel others to share answers, at best we can encourage them.   Frankly, your apparent attempts to bully / strong-arm cooperation do more harm than good, create more barriers than they knock down.    I know quite a few people in the research community, I know quite a few people who work for various natural resource management agencies.   None that I know appear to have the answers, they're as in the dark as I am.     They don't share because they have nothing to share.    Why is that such a hard concept ... other than it isn't what you want to hear?

 

I think you are wasting your time here.   You've set an unreachable goal.   If you want the results, you have to do the work.   Get off the internet and go to the woods.

 

MIB

[bipedalist]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

I guess it's time for me to go then. There will be nothing more for me here. Everyone enjoy your bubble.

 

Actually, I think you are a hard-charging searcher.  Many of us have taken that tack, and some of us have put ourselves out there when it was needed for self-confirmation of the phenomenon. 

 

We do not all agree on the dna and the phenomenon but time spent in the woods is the way to gain personal evidence.   The bully pulpit never worked for me and I didn't agree with the field and got thrown out of a BFRO invite by the chief as a result of truly relating to others what my research showed. Gained some good insight into good researchers with those contacts but didn't tuck tail and run because some pariah didn't like my experience.   I don't share a ton anymore.  I went your route, contacted the biologists John Bindernagel recommended to get feedback on soundtracks, etc.   Got the same crickets you got; I am empathetic, but I know a trend when I see one.  Nobody is going to risk their career on a phenomenon that I know of that is above the age of 35 anyway, especially if they are eyeing a pension or promotion.   Of course, there are exceptions and I applaud those souls. 

 

I don't pretend to have all the answers but my answers differ from some of the better known respondents to this thread.  So when somebody tells me that stick layouts that change purposefully in an overnight fashion are not trendy I say go jump in a lake, you are not close enough yet or look harder.   That sort of opinion sort of cuts down on discussion now though doesn't it? 

Edited February 16, 2019 by bipedalist

[Twist]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

I guess it's time for me to go then. There will be nothing more for me here. Everyone enjoy your bubble.

 

See ya in a few weeks....again 🙄

[SWWASAS]

Hiflier:   Strange that you expect an agency spokesperson to go on record like some of our resident skeptics have and make a claim that is not provable.   No one can prove non existence.     You can believe something does not exist but it is impossible to prove it.      People can have beliefs, but government agencies are not supposed to have beliefs.  They have accepted responses based on accepted data.   The agencies are aware of all the sighting reports just like we are.   Why would someone in DNR say something that could be proven wrong in the future?     They may not have any direct evidence themselves, nor have seen one themselves,   but as many of the skeptic scientists on that one television special stated,    they have not seen convincing evidence for existence.     Several including Disotell and Sykes do not say it does not exist, just that they have not seen convincing evidence it does.       Sure crazy Larry down the hall at DNR said he has seen one when liquored up at the Christmas party but that is hardly proof that should be disseminated to the public.    So the easy way out for a government agency is not to respond to something controversial,   especially if they have personal or second hand yet un-provable knowledge of existence.       

Edited February 16, 2019 by SWWASAS