How Far Up The Ladder Does Knowledge Of Sasquatch Go?

[hiflier]

Some recent discussions in a round about way have been hinting at there being knowledge of Sasquatch at levels above just our normal field researchers. This thread is for discussing the possibility not as a conspiracy theory but more to logically understand that with a bit of mature reasoning one could conclude that there could indeed be knowledge of this creature beyond just who we know here on this Forum. And as per usual, I always have a point behind creating a thread. But just for now, Does anyone think that this creature couldn't possibly be known about in any branch of forest or land management to include animal monitoring with todays specialized equipment methods?

[BobbyO]

No chance it couldn’t possibly be known about.

[Huntster]

 

We know for a fact that Lyle Laverty was directly involved in the Patterson-Gimlin film event as a witness to trace evidence at the site, was among the first people in the scene after the filming event, took photos of the footprints himself, was a government  official at the time, and eventually rose through the ranks of government to a near cabinet level position:

 

http://jkagroup.com/about/lyle-laverty-bio.htm#

 

Quote

Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish Wildlife and Parks, Lyle was nominated as assistant Secretary of the Interior by President Bush and was confirmed by the United States Senate and sworn into office on October 30, 2007. In this capacity, he had policy responsibility for policies and programs associated with the development, conservation and utilization of fish, wildlife, and recreation, historical resources of the Nation. Lyle had direct administrative responsibility for the National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service, agencies with combined annual appropriations exceeding $4 billion.

 

Before joining the Bush Administration, Lyle served as the Director of Colorado State Parks from 2001 to 2007. Prior to becoming Director of Colorado State Parks, he served as Associate Deputy Chief of the US Forest Service. In that capacity, he was responsible for the leadership and implementation of the National Fire Plan on more than 191,000,000 acres of National Forest System lands across the United States, managing a Congressional appropriation of $2 billion dollars. 

In previous leadership assignments, Lyle served as Regional Forester of the Rocky Mountain Region of the US Forest Service, responsible for natural resource stewardship of more than 22 million acres of America's Forests and Grasslands in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming, a region with more than 2500 employees.

From 1992 to 1997 he served as a senior executive in the Forest Service's Washington, D.C. Headquarters Office as Director of Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resources. Lyle also served in a similar capacity from 1987 to 1992 as the Regional Director of Recreation Heritage, and Wilderness Resources in the Pacific Northwest Region in Portland, Oregon.

Lyle's first assignment with the Forest Service was in timber management on the Six Rivers National Forest in Orleans California. In 1972, he became timber management assistant on the Bear Springs Ranger District of the Mt. Hood National Forest in Oregon, followed with a subsequent assignment as District Ranger on the Skykomish Ranger District of the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest in western Washington.

During a previous headquarters assignment, Lyle served in various assignments in the Policy Analysis, Recreation, and Strategic Planning staff units. He was Forest Supervisor of the Mendocino National Forest in Northern California from 1983 to 1987, managing a natural resource portfolio that included a 100, million board foot timber sale program.........

 

 

There are also indications that Laverty had his own sighting near Hyampom, and found a nest near the PG film site at Scorpion Creek/Lonesome Ridge.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Huntster

[hiflier]

There is no doubt that Mr. Laverty has worked through the ranks to where he is today. One has to wonder if his alleged personal encounter way back when still haunts him. Or whether or not he has historically kept up with, and even currently keeps up with, anything Bigfoot related today. In truth though, I personally do not wish to draw any more attention to Lyle. If he's our ace in the hole then he may be the only one so it is probably best to leave him be.

 

This thread is more about entities like the Washington State DNR being at the Olympic Project nesting site and other incidents where officials have been either present or informed. Like what was mention in another thread about Cliff Barackman saying there was a sort of "unofficial" form for forest personnel to use should they see a Bigfoot. Are these kinds of things indicative of knowledge up the ladder? Why would a higher up want to know if someone in their ranks saw a Bigfoot in the first place?

Edited January 24, 2019 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

.....Like what was mention in another thread about Cliff Barackman saying there was a sort of "unofficial" form for forest personnel to use should they see a Bigfoot. Are these kinds of things indicative of knowledge up the ladder? Why would a higher up want to know if someone in their ranks saw a Bigfoot in the first place?

 

Data collection. Government is absolutely anal about it. As a DoD analyst, I collected data myself from employees for analytical use. Nobody has yet produced one of these Forest Service bigfoot report forms, but I'm quite confident that such reporting has gone on in probably several ways since well before the PG film, and somebody in government has a database that is probably much more accurate (although likely smaller) than the databases built by BFRO, John Green, and others.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

......and somebody in government has a database that is probably much more accurate (although likely smaller) than the databases built by BFRO, John Green, and others.

 

Which I would be very eager to have a gander at. OK, but for better than fifty years at least the forestry outfits in whatever capacity or form they take have gotten reports not only from their tourist visitors but their own personnel as well. I also am under the impression that it is not confined to just the Six Rivers National Forest either. And yet there are those that say there is no cover up? Does not saying anything to the public as a policy come from up the ladder or has each state or national park head Ranger just come up with the policy on their own? And that the policy of one park or national forest just happened by coincidence to be in line with all the others?

 

How is it then that seemingly all of the parks and national forest Rangers and managers somehow came up with the same policy unless they communicated with each other regardless of any government influence? Just because government may not be involved doesn't mean there's a new definition of cover up does it? And if that were the case and the policy of not telling the public the truth became widespread without a government mandate of some kind the government, i.e., Department of Agriculture/Department of the Interior would eventually get word that the 'local" policy was being instituted.

 

Like I said, this discussion needs an equation or equations based on reasoning and logic. For me, that reasoning points right at "don't tell" whether it was  decided by one park facility and taken up by the rest at a low-level rung of the ladder or whether the policy came from higher up the ladder. In either case, if the reports over the years are even only 10% true it still constitutes a "no-tell" policy. And that is what I would deem to be a cover up. But this thread is for sussing out, by logic, which is the only way to approach the issue, just how far up the ladder this "no-tell" thing goes.

 

This, along with many other threads I have started, can also go under the general heading of "Solve For Bigfoot".  

Edited January 24, 2019 by hiflier

[NatFoot]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

Which I would be very eager to have a gander at. OK, but for better than fifty years at least the forestry outfits in whatever capacity or form they take have gotten reports not only from their tourist visitors but their own personnel as well. I also am under the impression that it is not confined to just the Six Rivers National Forest either. And yet there are those that say there is no cover up? Does not saying anything to the public as a policy come from up the ladder or has each state or national park head Ranger just come up with the policy on their own? And that the policy of one park or national forest just happened by coincidence to be in line with all the others?

 

How is it then that seemingly all of the parks and national forest Rangers and managers somehow came up with the same policy unless they communicated with each other regardless of any government influence? Just because government may not be involved doesn't mean there's a new definition of cover up does it? And if that were the case and the policy of not telling the public the truth became widespread without a government mandate of some kind the government, i.e., Department of Agriculture/Department of the Interior would eventually get word that the 'local" policy was being instituted.

 

Like I said, this discussion needs an equation or equations based on reasoning and logic. For me, that reasoning points right at "don't tell" whether it was  decided by one park facility and taken up by the rest at a low-level rung of the ladder or whether the policy came from higher up the ladder. In either case, if the reports over the years are even only 10% true it still constitutes a "no-tell" policy. And that is what I would deem to be a cover up. But this thread is for sussing out, by logic, which is the only way to approach the issue, just how far up the ladder this "no-tell" thing goes.

 

This, along with many other threads I have started, can also go under the general heading of "Solve For Bigfoot".  

 

I know you like your threads to play out in ways you deem fit, but I would argue that you just made the only point that really matters.

 

"They" know and there's been a system in place to not officially recognize existence.

[Huntster]

Again, this has to go even higher than national government. This must be international. At the very least, the United States, Canada, and Russia are knowledgable and supressing information, and likely China as well. And unlike the potential discovery of a species of antelope, we are talking her of another species of human. The reason for the "don't tell" posture should be obvious. The basic human rights of this species poses significant hurdles for government to secure, and there is no shortage of Homo sapien kooks (within government or not) willing to use this species and their rights (or anything else under the sun) to secure their own nefarious goals.

[hiflier]

 

7 hours ago, NatFoot said:

 

I know you like your threads to play out in ways you deem fit, but I would argue that you just made the only point that really matters.

 

"They" know and there's been a system in place to not officially recognize existence.

 

Yes, but I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist fairly often and so am working to put that to rest. My contention has been all along that, like BobbyO stated.....

 

13 hours ago, BobbyO said:

No chance it couldn’t possibly be known about.

 

.....logic, for me anyway, has pointed to this very thing. I just do not see how it can be any other way. The ONLY other explanation is that this creature really does not exist. And that makes no sense with the track record we have regarding reports, trace evidence and the knowers that are not just here in this Forum but also the many alleged knowers that are not. So. Do those "knowers" extend farther up the official ladder? If this creature is real then how could it not? It isn't difficult for me to arrive at this conclusion. So I will get to the point of this thread sooner rather than later and ask the tough question:

 

Is there anything that can be done about this situation? And if anyone thinks that there is then let's hear it.

 

9 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Again, this has to go even higher than national government. This must be international. At the very least, the United States, Canada, and Russia are knowledgable and supressing information, and likely China as well.

 

Good point.

Edited January 24, 2019 by hiflier

[Twist]

37 minutes ago, Huntster said:

This must be international. At the very least, the United States, Canada, and Russia are knowledgable and supressing information, and likely China as well. And unlike the potential discovery of a species of antelope, we are talking her of another species of human.

United States and Canada I get, but when has Russia or China really ever cared about humanity, look how they treat us humans! Lol

[Huntster]

34 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........Is there anything that can be done about this situation? And if anyone thinks that there is then let's hear it.........

 

I don't believe there is anything that an individual or small group can do about it. Interest in sasquatchery must go underground upon contact.

 

However, the recent revelation that Cliff Barackman has garnered a "psrtnership" with the USFS with permits to operate bigfoot expeditions on forest service lands is huge. However, I wonder if this is due to an easing of openness or a fear of lawsuit/discriminatiin.

5 minutes ago, Twist said:

United States and Canada I get, but when has Russia or China really ever cared about humanity, look how they treat us humans! Lol

 

China is under constant pressure over its human rights record, and is the perfect example of why a nation might want to suppress the existence of a hominid species within its borders. Russia is not the former Soviet Union anymore, and while I agree that it isn't the Land of Oz, the gulags in Siberia are all closed, and human rights issues are valid for them, too.

[hiflier]

It makes me wonder if there will be a push back from the upper crust. OR, those in the know will limit him to places Sasquatches are not in. It would give the impression of being more open and still be assured that nothing will be found. At the very least by issuing a permit TPTB will know where Barackman is and so can keep an eye on him.

 

On the good side of things, maybe using him for discovery will not cost agencies on tight budgets as the cost will be absorbed by the private sector. Let's face it, as far as Sasquatch goes it just may be that any tagging program regarding the creature has utterly failed because Bigfoot has out-foxed authorities at every turn just like the creature has done with us? 

Edited January 24, 2019 by hiflier

[Huntster]

Imagine the most likely scenario:

 

First, international governments do not cooperate with each other in any issues relating to sasquatchery, especially between Asian and North American governments. If there have been any communications, they have been stolen information via intelligence services and kept secret. If there have been any discussions among governments (not scientists from the different countries), they have been between the US and Canada, they have been "unofficial", and they have been few and far between.

 

Secondly, discussions between federal and state/provinicial governments have certainly been along the same lines; unofficial, unwritten, few, and far between. This is all part of the modus operandi of elite, aristocratic government leadership that Trump simply doesn't belong to/in. People get to the top by "punching their ticket" in graduated roles of leadership, apostleship, and achievement. This goes back to the dawn of civilization. It is even Biblical. Thus, state leaders in all departments and disciplines know that certain things are not to be diseminated to the rabble. Related issues are to be brought upwards, not spread widely downwards.

 

So likely long ago, perhaps as long ago as a century and a half, a sasquatch carcass made its way into government hands here in the New World. It was put in a safe place.  Subsequent carcasses have wound up lost by its finders or also safely in official hands. They know what these creatures are. They have deduced much of their habits, densities, range, diet, behaviors, etc from the same sources we have. In fact, we (the private sector) have conducted the research for them. All they have to do is read what is in the public sphere. 

 

The ideology of government has changed radically since 1967. Many now within government and outside of it would live to introduce the radical changes a newly discovered hominid would require in such a densely populated Homo sapien world. Others within government continue to maintain the status quo for numerous reasons, to include individual complicity in the cover up.

 

The case of Mt. Hood National Forest permission to conduct sasquatch expeditions is huge. The near future is key. It has already been noticed that such expeditions were not scheduled in the last quarter of 2018. If they begin again, good. If not, the reason why not, and the aftermath, will be interesting..........

Edited January 24, 2019 by Huntster

[MIB]

10 hours ago, hiflier said:

But this thread is for sussing out, by logic, which is the only way to approach the issue, just how far up the ladder this "no-tell" thing goes.

 

Logic can .. has and will again .. be wrong, be mislead by lack of a representative cross-section of information.    You might say if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck ... but what if it had other features like big floppy ears, a trunk, tusks, and lacked wings?    Maybe that funny waddle and sound are completely taken out of context.   

 

The fact of the matter is, at least to the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence of a coverup.   We have claims, second-hand stories, innuendo, assertion of what "must be", but not one single bit of tangible evidence for anyone to review.   Less, even, than evidence of bigfoot where at least we have track casts and footprints anyone can see on the 'net or, if they make the effort, in person.    We don't even have that to support the notion of conspiracy.   We have nothing but BELIEFS.   That's no better than the woo-bigfooters have to support their claims.   

 

I suggest that rather than trying to make a mountain out of a possibly imaginary mole-hill, we should focus on substantiating the mole-hill first.   In other words, wait until the existence of this purported form is established, not just claimed, before reading stuff into it.

 

MIB

Edited January 24, 2019 by MIB

[NatFoot]

4 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Logic can .. has and will again .. be wrong, be mislead by lack of a representative cross-section of information.    You might say if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck ... but what if it had other features like big floppy ears, a trunk, tusks, and lacked wings?    Maybe that funny waddle and sound are completely taken out of context.   

 

The fact of the matter is, at least to the best of my knowledge, we have no evidence of a coverup.   We have claims, second-hand stories, innuendo, assertion of what "must be", but not one single bit of tangible evidence for anyone to review.   Less, even, than evidence of bigfoot where at least we have track casts and footprints anyone can see on the 'net or, if they make the effort, in person.    We don't even have that to support the notion of conspiracy.   We have nothing but BELIEFS.   That's no better than the woo-bigfooters have to support their claims.   

 

MIB

 

Fair point!