Jump to content
hiflier

How Far Up The Ladder Does Knowledge Of Sasquatch Go?

Recommended Posts

Huntster
BFF Donor
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 10:41 PM, jsydor said:

........If .gov and .mil (not always friendly) have the ability to track a human in say Tora Bora then they have the ability to track a biped on the Olympic Peninsula.........

 

Nobody was tracking humans in Tora Bora  prior to 1990. They had as much motivation to do so as they do to track bipeds on the Olympic Peninsula. 

 

Quote

.......I am not clear how silence on this topic is a benefit to anyone other than .mil.........

 

Why in Sam Hell would DoD care about ape men?  DoD wants and needs wizards to operate their new and improved high tech weapons. Hell, you almost need a post-secondary degree anymore just to navigate all the required computer training they throw at you every time somebody gets pissed off, sexually assaulted, or racially insulted.

 

I'm really having a difficult time believing that so many people are missing the obvious here. Can we all admit that this entire planet is simply ripping itself apart with tribalism, racism, and jockeying into position to get control of "the other guys", and y'all can't understand why government might want to suppress the introduction of a whole new class of yet more guys?

 

We have a whole subset of people on this very forum claiming to read their minds, the freaking lawyers haven't even entered the arena yet,  and you think that the only folks who have a stake in the deal are the guys who salute any dippity-doo that we elect as he stumbles onto Marine One?

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
10 hours ago, hiflier said:

Even way back I had always said SOMEONE knows so who is that person.

 

Right.  So .. I think that question has a bit finer granularity as well.   It's not just "who knows" ... I suspect many here have identified people they suspect of knowing more than they share.   The whole question, i think, is who, among those who knows, will a) share, b) admit having something to share, c) admit there exists anything to share.    So far, nothing verifiable.  

 

I don't think we're going to force cooperation out of anyone.   If that would work it would have worked long ago.    If there is a conspiracy to conceal evidence, then something of what is known about what is being concealed entices willing participation rather than coerced participation.    .. or at least that's my best computed guess based on the available evidence.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

^^^ A bucket full of plusses for that one, MIB. So, whaddaya think then? Would anyone at WADNR who was at the nesting site be a good candidate for contact? What might Derek Randles know? He supposedly is one of us right? I mean it would be kind of cool to see what honest conclusions DNR would have about the situation. They would just probably say that Humans built the structures? It would seem like an OCCAM's Razor kind of answer. Easier anyway and wouldn't open up anything out of the box.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

Let me try another line here:

 

First, it's becoming pretty clear that these creatures are human enough to justify these thoughts and conversations. If they are classified as not within the genus Homo, then pretty much all of paleo-anthropology will be in upheaval. The vast majority of the dug up ape man bones will be in danger of being reclassified. 

 

Secondly, being of the Homo genus and being aboriginal to the North American continent and United States in particular, our current government structure places their status not within the purview of our fish and wildlife departments (co-managed by state and federal governments), but purely within the authority of the federal government. This isn't wild speculation here. It's common sense based upon a broad view of government structure. It also pretty much explains the stand-offish attitude of our forestry, land management, and wildlife management agencies, and legally justifies their negligence toward this phenomenon to a certain extent. As a nation, we have not recognized the rights and status of this native peoples. These natural resource agencies have no boundaries, guidance, or authority to deal with these questions.

 

Thirdly, that narrows us down to the appropriate authorities who must deal with this issue: the State Department and/or Bureau if Indian Affairs. Though I'm not completely certain about this, I believe that the State Department is required to negotiate a treaty with an aboriginal tribe, and that treaty ratified by Congress, before authority to administer that treaty is granted to the BIA.

 

To our new forum participant (jsydor), DoD's legal authority is also limited by law, just like eveybody else's. They cannot run out willy-nilly and deal with the "wild Indians" until authorized by Congress in a declaration of war. Now, if an aboriginal hominid is shot dead on Ft. Lewis for trespassing and failing to respond to orders to halt, and the Army examined the carcass, realized that they needed legal guidance, and turned it over to "somebody else" (all of which I have every reason to believe has happened somewhere within the past century and a half), they've done their jobs and are absolved legally from further responsibility.

 

This issue is a State Department issue, and to secondary extent, a responsibility of the FBI (our internal federal investigative agency, and who have likely recieved notification of sasquatchery from local and state law enforcement agencies). 

 

So, folks, there you have it. There is your legal reason why government has so fully failed to deal with this issue. It's a matter of law.

 

Discuss.........

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

........I don't think we're going to force cooperation out of anyone........

 

That depends on your definition of the word "cooperation"........

 

I agree that we won't force anybody to talk without first producing a freshly dead sasquatch on a slab that they can't make disappear, or perhaps a significant skeletal fossil of recent life (within a thousand years or so).

 

The trick is producing the proof in a way that they can't whisk away........

Edited by Huntster
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
34 minutes ago, Huntster said:

It also pretty much explains the stand-offish attitude of our forestry, land management, and wildlife management agencies, and legally justifies their negligence toward this phenomenon to a certain extent. As a nation, we have not recognized the rights and status of this native peoples. These natural resource agencies have no boundaries, guidance, or authority to deal with these questions.

 

Then protocols must be in place defining those responsibilities or policies and whose purview the creatures are isolated too. New Rangers might be informed of this so that they can at least manage the BF's that may wander around campsites? Or frighten visitors? Or know what to say to them to diffuse any alarmists. Doesn't explain the retired whistleblowers though they never have proof that BF's exist when presenting reports to the public.

 

I wonder if anyone in the forestry service, Park Service, or any of the more than 2 million volunteers have ever found a dead one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
40 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Let me try another line here:

 

First, it's becoming pretty clear that these creatures are human enough to justify these thoughts and conversations. If they are classified as not within the genus Homo, then pretty much all of paleo-anthropology will be in upheaval. The vast majority of the dug up ape man bones will be in danger of being reclassified. 

 

Secondly, being of the Homo genus and being aboriginal to the North American continent and United States in particular, our current government structure places their status not within the purview of our fish and wildlife departments (co-managed by state and federal governments), but purely within the authority of the federal government. This isn't wild speculation here. It's common sense based upon a broad view of government structure. It also pretty much explains the stand-offish attitude of our forestry, land management, and wildlife management agencies, and legally justifies their negligence toward this phenomenon to a certain extent. As a nation, we have not recognized the rights and status of this native peoples. These natural resource agencies have no boundaries, guidance, or authority to deal with these questions.

 

Thirdly, that narrows us down to the appropriate authorities who must deal with this issue: the State Department and/or Bureau if Indian Affairs. Though I'm not completely certain about this, I believe that the State Department is required to negotiate a treaty with an aboriginal tribe, and that treaty ratified by Congress, before authority to administer that treaty is granted to the BIA.

 

To our new forum participant (jsydor), DoD's legal authority is also limited by law, just like eveybody else's. They cannot run out willy-nilly and deal with the "wild Indians" until authorized by Congress in a declaration of war. Now, if an aboriginal hominid is shot dead on Ft. Lewis for trespassing and failing to respond to orders to halt, and the Army examined the carcass, realized that they needed legal guidance, and turned it over to "somebody else" (all of which I have every reason to believe has happened somewhere within the past century and a half), they've done their jobs and are absolved legally from further responsibility.

 

This issue is a State Department issue, and to secondary extent, a responsibility of the FBI (our internal federal investigative agency, and who have likely recieved notification of sasquatchery from local and state law enforcement agencies). 

 

So, folks, there you have it. There is your legal reason why government has so fully failed to deal with this issue. It's a matter of law.

 

Discuss.........

 

 

That depends on your definition of the word "cooperation"........

 

I agree that we won't force anybody to talk without first producing a freshly dead sasquatch on a slab that they can't make disappear, or perhaps a significant skeletal fossil of recent life (within a thousand years or so).

 

The trick is producing the proof in a way that they can't whisk away........

 

Humor me and lets suppose its a new breed of Gorilla found. Squarely in the animal camp..... As Humans have nevered signed a treaty with Gorillas?

 

What happens then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

Let me try another line here:

 

First, it's becoming pretty clear that these creatures are human enough to justify these thoughts and conversations. If they are classified as not within the genus Homo, then pretty much all of paleo-anthropology will be in upheaval. The vast majority of the dug up ape man bones will be in danger of being reclassified. 

 

Secondly, being of the Homo genus and being aboriginal to the North American continent and United States in particular, our current government structure places their status not within the purview of our fish and wildlife departments (co-managed by state and federal governments), but purely within the authority of the federal government. This isn't wild speculation here. It's common sense based upon a broad view of government structure. It also pretty much explains the stand-offish attitude of our forestry, land management, and wildlife management agencies, and legally justifies their negligence toward this phenomenon to a certain extent. As a nation, we have not recognized the rights and status of this native peoples. These natural resource agencies have no boundaries, guidance, or authority to deal with these questions.

 

Thirdly, that narrows us down to the appropriate authorities who must deal with this issue: the State Department and/or Bureau if Indian Affairs. Though I'm not completely certain about this, I believe that the State Department is required to negotiate a treaty with an aboriginal tribe, and that treaty ratified by Congress, before authority to administer that treaty is granted to the BIA.

 

To our new forum participant (jsydor), DoD's legal authority is also limited by law, just like eveybody else's. They cannot run out willy-nilly and deal with the "wild Indians" until authorized by Congress in a declaration of war. Now, if an aboriginal hominid is shot dead on Ft. Lewis for trespassing and failing to respond to orders to halt, and the Army examined the carcass, realized that they needed legal guidance, and turned it over to "somebody else" (all of which I have every reason to believe has happened somewhere within the past century and a half), they've done their jobs and are absolved legally from further responsibility.

 

This issue is a State Department issue, and to secondary extent, a responsibility of the FBI (our internal federal investigative agency, and who have likely recieved notification of sasquatchery from local and state law enforcement agencies). 

 

So, folks, there you have it. There is your legal reason why government has so fully failed to deal with this issue. It's a matter of law.

 

Discuss.........

 

 

That depends on your definition of the word "cooperation"........

 

I agree that we won't force anybody to talk without first producing a freshly dead sasquatch on a slab that they can't make disappear, or perhaps a significant skeletal fossil of recent life (within a thousand years or so).

 

The trick is producing the proof in a way that they can't whisk away........

 

 

I hear these statements a lot about checks and balances

 

but

 

we never would have had a clue about the data mining that goes on in Utah if it werent for snowden.  Not that anyone wasnt suspecting they werent doing it.. but it became official 

 

yeah, .gov never violates first, second, or 4th amendments rights..

 

SCOTUS doesnt even have an enforcement branch

 

occasionally Thomas scolds them.  Even state governments scoff at the US constitution 

 

 

Edited by RedHawk454

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454

humans have never signed treaties with gorillas.  I mean, they do look kinda sorta humanish

 

Image result for gorilla on two legs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Ya know? On the difficulty scale of acquiring proof of this creature's existence it would certainly seem to be that emails are infinitely easier than locking and loading in some mountain ravine somewhere that took someone four hours to trudge to. Then shut off the phone, pull the battery, wait around to see if a BF shows up, grass it, steal a head, get out alive with no other BF's wanting to tear you limb from limb and secretly take the specimen to someone with a lab who will study it without telling anyone. Emails? Even a lot of emails? Oh yeah, much easier........um.......except for the fear factor one might experience for meddling in government or state affairs which we pay taxes to in order for them to even function. I mean ANYONE can send an email right?

 

If no one wants to Iand I don't understand why that would be) then get me the contact info for the Sate of Washington Department of Natural Resources and I will do it. Could someone at least do that? Or if someone knows Derek Randles or Cliff Barackman personally then ask them. I mean really, is there any harm in doing just that one little thing?

 

Hey, RedHawk454, nice Grilla

 

 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
57 minutes ago, Huntster said:

L

 

That depends on your definition of the word "cooperation"........

 

I agree that we won't force anybody to talk without first producing a freshly dead sasquatch on a slab that they can't make disappear, or perhaps a significant skeletal fossil of recent life (within a thousand years or so).

 

The trick is producing the proof in a way that they can't whisk away........

Well so far the evidence points to the fact that they have been successful 100 percent of the time whisking away evidence.   Why would they change methodology?    We have so many stories, and that is just what they are,    about BF injured or dead, being hauled away by State and Federal Authorities.     Mt St Helens eruption,   forest fires,  BF  hit and killed by truck hauled away,  etc.     Throw in a few about teams of military members hunting down problem BF.   I was involved in an encounter with a military helicopter operation.   While I have no idea  if what they were up to involved BF,   they were sure interested in me, when they saw me observing the operation.   A navy  Sea King helicopter operating in the Gifford Pinchot forest smacks of Navy Seal operations to me.   I have to think that some of these alleged events are based on fact rather than wishful thinking by BF advocates.  If just one of these are based on fact,  some components of the government is dirty and involved in a cover up.  

 

For those that think our government is clean only have to look at planned genocide  conducted against the First Peoples of the United States.    It is part of the government DNA to stomp on what it considers dissidents or troublemakers.      This has continued right up to present times with people getting killed in the process.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454
9 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Well so far the evidence points to the fact that they have been successful 100 percent of the time whisking away evidence.   Why would they change methodology?    We have so many stories, and that is just what they are,    about BF injured or dead, being hauled away by State and Federal Authorities.     Mt St Helens eruption,   forest fires,  BF  hit and killed by truck hauled away,  etc.     Throw in a few about teams of military members hunting down problem BF.   I was involved in an encounter with a military helicopter operation.   While I have no idea  if what they were up to involved BF,   they were sure interested in me, when they saw me observing the operation.   A navy  Sea King helicopter operating in the Gifford Pinchot forest smacks of Navy Seal operations to me.   I have to think that some of these alleged events are based on fact rather than wishful thinking by BF advocates.  If just one of these are based on fact,  some components of the government is dirty and involved in a cover up.  

 

For those that think our government is clean only have to look at planned genocide  conducted against the First Peoples of the United States.    It is part of the government DNA to stomp on what it considers dissidents or troublemakers.      This has continued right up to present times with people getting killed in the process.  

 

 

It is fascinating.  The whole acknowledgment of the species and the cover ups.  And the cover up isn't just for one reason (its fir the logging industry/etcs.)  It opens up pandoras box and from there it branches off into other things like the economy, public reception, why didnt they acknowledge this 50 years ago?  what else is out there?  does sasquatch nao become an endangered species etc etc etc etc etc.  

 

"An even more inclusive listing comes from USA.gov, which lists 137 independent executive agencies and 268 units in the Cabinet. In a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, one senator noted that “The Federal Register indicates there are over 430 departments, agencies, and sub-agencies in the federal government.”Aug 26, 2015"

 

https://cei.org/blog/nobody-knows-how-many-federal-agencies-exist

 

Edited by RedHawk454

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Derek Randles has had a adversarial relationship with the Olympic National Park people.     When he was deploying game cameras in quantity,  they intervened and told him he would be fined significant money for each one if they found any more.    That and the fact that he had little success, the last time I heard him talk, he had pretty much stopped deploying them.     His BF expeditions have been required to be conducted mostly on private land.    Again because of threats by the Park Service.   That adversarial relationship suggests that they do not want him to discover anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedHawk454
13 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Derek Randles has had a adversarial relationship with the Olympic National Park people.     When he was deploying game cameras in quantity,  they intervened and told him he would be fined significant money for each one if they found any more.    That and the fact that he had little success, the last time I heard him talk, he had pretty much stopped deploying them.     His BF expeditions have been required to be conducted mostly on private land.    Again because of threats by the Park Service.   That adversarial relationship suggests that they do not want him to discover anything.  

 

 

do you think BiGFo0Ters would have more success trying to get tangible evidence of Sasquatch by doing it solo?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Has worked for me.   

6 minutes ago, RedHawk454 said:

 

 

do you think BiGFo0Ters would have more success trying to get tangible evidence of Sasquatch by doing it solo?  

Has worked for me.  

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Humor me and lets suppose its a new breed of Gorilla found. Squarely in the animal camp..... As Humans have nevered signed a treaty with Gorillas?

 

What happens then?

 

Then it’s a fish snd game issue and subject to dual state/federal management wildlife management agencies.

 

BTW, all the bullspit we hear about “peer review” and publication in “reputable publications” is mute with government biological study. I’m quite familiar with biological studies published by the Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, including those specifically funded and conducted fir the purpose of wresting control back from radical federal management agency dictates. 

1 hour ago, RedHawk454 said:

........we never would have had a clue about the data mining that goes on in Utah if it werent for snowden.  Not that anyone wasnt suspecting they werent doing it.. but it became official ........

 

True, and the possibility of a government official busting all of this wide open with a specimen is very real. We already have them filing reports of sightings, footprints, 911 calls, pouring plaster casts themselves, etc with private bigfoot investigators.

1 hour ago, RedHawk454 said:

humans have never signed treaties with gorillas.  I mean, they do look kinda sorta humanish

 

Image result for gorilla on two legs

 

“Looking humanish” doesn’t cut it. Gorillas are of the genus gorilla. Humans are of the genus Homo. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×