hiflier Posted January 29, 2019 Author Posted January 29, 2019 28 minutes ago, NatFoot said: Would put them squarely in the human camp No, it wouldn't. One cannot put something squarely in the Human camp until it is certain that whatever is being put in that camp is proved to be real. I agree on the "story and hypothesis" part although at the end of the day that's all anyone has. Seems to be good enough for everyone though. It got an upvote anyway so I guess that's something.
MIB Posted January 29, 2019 Moderator Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, SWWASAS said: I would like to get an enterprising lawyer to file a class action suit against the government for promoting lung disease in the Western States. I hate to be negative, but "good luck with that." USFS cannot use chemical retardant within designated Wilderness areas .. it is by act of Congress, part of the wilderness act. They cannot .. generally .. use heavy equipment fighting fire in Wilderness areas for the same reason. I believe there is a waiver process but I'm not sure what is involved. Most of the wilderness areas in my region are too steep, too rugged to use heavy equipment in even if approved. It requires chemicals from the air and large numbers of feet on the ground with hand tools. Now that we place greater value on human life .. cannot burn up firefighters to put out a fire because the next of kin will sue in ways they did not in the farther past ... USFS and other firefighting agencies are extremely constrained in what they are allowed to do. The second part of the issue is not removing fire-killed but not burnt up timber. Because of ... you used the words ... class action lawsuits filed by environmentalist / anti-logging groups, burned timber is no longer harvested, it is left. This is because of judgments from federal courts, especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, not a matter of USFS preference. The only positive note I've seen is that because of fairly catastrophic fires in my area the past 2 years, and a turnover in the Forest Supervisor's office, USFS seems a little more assertive regarding fire. So far, they remain far behind Oregon State Forestry regarding firefighting but OSF cannot fight fire on federal land without USFS request ... and OSF does not have the budget to make up for USFS failures. There is apparently some political movement afoot at the county commission level in SW Oregon to bring pressure on USFS .. I don't have high hopes though. The momentum is currently against more active firefighting activity. To do much good we would have to modify the Wilderness Act ... that takes Congress ... and I don't see much effort going into it. MIB
Huntster Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 24 minutes ago, MIB said: ........USFS cannot use chemical retardant within designated Wilderness areas .. it is by act of Congress, part of the wilderness act. They cannot .. generally .. use heavy equipment fighting fire in Wilderness areas for the same reason. I believe there is a waiver process but I'm not sure what is involved. Most of the wilderness areas in my region are too steep, too rugged to use heavy equipment in even if approved. It requires chemicals from the air and large numbers of feet on the ground with hand tools. Now that we place greater value on human life .. cannot burn up firefighters to put out a fire because the next of kin will sue in ways they did not in the farther past ... USFS and other firefighting agencies are extremely constrained in what they are allowed to do........ Let them burn. Eventually we'll find sasquatches living in tents under freeway overpasses, and discovery will be a foregone conclusion. Hell, I may have seen one just yesterday on Century Blvd. under I-405 near LAX...........
norseman Posted January 29, 2019 Admin Posted January 29, 2019 10 hours ago, SWWASAS said: The same fate befell the Mt St Helens miners cabin. I find it interesting that an agency that refuses to maintain its own roads when they are degrading to the point where they are dangerous to drive, spends the time and money seeking out structures in very remote places to burn down because they might be hazardous to someone who blunders into them. On the one hand they are concerned about safety with anything associated with BF but on the other hand they are unconcerned about the safety of those using well traveled forest roads. They burn the cabins because they are reminders of humans residing there at one time. They dont keep up the roads because they dont want humans using them. Its all about letting everything go back to "nature" with them. I think the cabins are historically and should be preserved!
NatFoot Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 4 hours ago, hiflier said: Is this Forum still a dead end? So, yes. Try not to get upset when large amounts of people, who know you by nothing but an online moniker, decide not to follow your every order on how to prove existence. If you wanted people to do what you explained earlier in this thread, maybe take a different approach. You're apparently doing more than I am so cudos to you..but apparently your approach so far hasn't worked. Self reflection would seem appropriate here.
hiflier Posted January 29, 2019 Author Posted January 29, 2019 Digging in deeper is the only thing that is appropriate. I sent my email Friday afternoon. No response yet but it's only Tuesday morning and I had decided to give it a week. I still don't get why folks take such a back seat approach when it comes to finding out something as important as whether Sasquatch exists. Especially when the avenues one could pursue are so easy and handily available. 7 hours ago, NatFoot said: You're apparently doing more than I am so cudos to you..but apparently your approach so far hasn't worked Because I'm the only one doing it. Still don't understand why that is.
norseman Posted January 29, 2019 Admin Posted January 29, 2019 Ultimately? It doesnt matter if the government is covering it up or not. If something is still out there in our nations forests and mountains? Then the public has a right to know! Mothers and Fathers with children out for a wilderness picnic have a right to know!!! So the only thing we can do is trudge forward collecting evidence if we can, with the ultimate goal of collecting a type specimen. We need to be wise about how we precede with exposing the discovery to the public and media. And make sure MIB's cannot simply whisk the body away. Its OK to plan for every contingency, but I do not think its OK to stop because there possibly could be a cover up.
Huntster Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 So if I happen to shoot a sasquatch, and I lop off the head, a hand, and a foot, who do I give it to? And how do I do that with me being whisked away?
norseman Posted January 29, 2019 Admin Posted January 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, Huntster said: So if I happen to shoot a sasquatch, and I lop off the head, a hand, and a foot, who do I give it to? And how do I do that with me being whisked away? Do you mean with or without? I would start with trusted family and friends or your family here on this forum. Or call the local media and tell them to meet you at the U of A campus? I think the only way to stay upright through the whole thing is to get the limelight on yourself and keep it there. And to make everyone understand that a faceless, nameless organization with much more evidence backs you.
Huntster Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 22 minutes ago, norseman said: Do you mean with or without?....... With or without what? ....... I would start with trusted family and friends or your family here on this forum. Or call the local media and tell them to meet you at the U of A campus? I think the only way to stay upright through the whole thing is to get the limelight on yourself and keep it there. And to make everyone understand that a faceless, nameless organization with much more evidence backs you. Whoops! That counts me out of the equation. The very last thing I want or can tolerate is a spotlight.
SWWASAS Posted January 29, 2019 BFF Patron Posted January 29, 2019 2 hours ago, hiflier said: Digging in deeper is the only thing that is appropriate. I sent my email Friday afternoon. No response yet but it's only Tuesday morning and I had decided to give it a week. I still don't get why folks take such a back seat approach when it comes to finding out something as important as whether Sasquatch exists. Especially when the avenues one could pursue are so easy and handily available. Because I'm the only one doing it. Still don't understand why that is. Your approach is what I call a back door approach and I have done the same thing. About a year ago I contacted a PHD at the University of WA. He is some sort of nationally known bear expert. I said that I had fielded equipment capable of infra sound detection and recording and had recorded something that produced infra sound. I then listed the technical aspects of the recording. I asked him if bears or any of the larger animals in Washington State were known to produce infra sound. I then listed animals known to produce it, none of which are native to the state. We did exchange several emails and I tried to get him or some of his graduate students interested in looking at my recordings. I never mentioned BF. My intent was to provoke interest, establish a friendly contact, or hope for some sort of disclosure that would indicate they had some knowledge of infra sound associated with BF. Nothing came. That is not surprising because I basically got the same response in a face to face meeting with Meldrum who professed no interest or expertise in sound. He was not interested enough to look. My reasoning was I think it important to have some sort of friendly or interested academic contact in the state in which you live. Should someone get the hand, head, leg or whatever of a BF it is better to keep it in state and avoid academic turf battles or worse yet transport of something across state lines that might get the Federal Government involved. Anyway even though he is a bear guy, I know how to get in contact with him and he would probably remember our interaction.
norseman Posted January 29, 2019 Admin Posted January 29, 2019 11 minutes ago, Huntster said: With or without what? Whoops! That counts me out of the equation. The very last thing I want or can tolerate is a spotlight. I think you meant to say.... And how do I do that with(out) me being whisked away? And I do not like the spotlight either! But nobody says just because you did the shooting? You have to be the spokesperson.
Huntster Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, norseman said: I think you meant to say.... And how do I do that with(out) me being whisked away?......... Whoops! Yeah! If I were to dhoot a sasquatch. I would just like to hand it off in the most anonymous fashion possible. I want nithing to do with the storm to follow.
Recommended Posts