High Country BF News

[ShadowBorn]

I find her article very refreshing from other articles that I have read. Especially that she comes from a relative who has a very good reputation in the Bigfoot community. Two years of research just does not do her justice in finding the truth or the answers. Grover Had spent a life time which I believe with out a sighting and had still believed on just the proof he had. Let me say he placed his reputation on that evidence which not to many have given him respect on that evidence. What ever he seen in that evidence it was enough for him to take with him to the grave. ( I do not mean this in a mean way but in a good way).

 

I feel like she does not give good credit on her relative for the things that he did for the Bigfoot community. Although I liked her article I feel like she did not give respect for her relative that did put his reputation on the line.

Hiflier

You know that there will always be conflict on how we all deal with this creature. Not one person will ever be happy with the outcome of any DNA that ever comes forth. It will always be suppressed or the out come will be contaminated. This is how these spooks work and it is to suppress the knowledge and avoid changing history. 

[hiflier]

23 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

You know that there will always be conflict on how we all deal with this creature. Not one person will ever be happy with the outcome of any DNA that ever comes forth. It will always be suppressed or the out come will be contaminated. This is how these spooks work and it is to suppress the knowledge and avoid changing history.

 

Which is why I am asking officials the point blank question on whether or not Sasquatch exists. It cuts to the chase by bypassing the DNA, the footprints and all of the anecdotal evidence and stories. None of that need to come into play or be part of the dialogue. Exist or not exist is the only dialogue and I am giving authorities the easy out by presenting this option: real or not real, truth or myth. If it's a myth then it should be an easy thing for officials to admit.

 

hiflier: "Is the creature known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot real, or not real?"

Official: "It is not real."

 

I ask you, what is so hard about that? But no one that I know of is so directly asking an official that question outside of myself. And I think it's a perfectly good and fair question to ask. And it shouldn't have taken the three months it has taken so far to get the question answered.

[NatFoot]

On 4/6/2019 at 12:01 AM, hiflier said:

 

Which is why I am asking officials the point blank question on whether or not Sasquatch exists. It cuts to the chase by bypassing the DNA, the footprints and all of the anecdotal evidence and stories. None of that need to come into play or be part of the dialogue. Exist or not exist is the only dialogue and I am giving authorities the easy out by presenting this option: real or not real, truth or myth. If it's a myth then it should be an easy thing for officials to admit.

 

hiflier: "Is the creature known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot real, or not real?"

Official: "It is not real."

 

I ask you, what is so hard about that? But no one that I know of is so directly asking an official that question outside of myself. And I think it's a perfectly good and fair question to ask. And it shouldn't have taken the three months it has taken so far to get the question answered.

 

This is getting silly.

 

So, if they say - no, they don't exist then you are done and convinced they don't?

 

This is why you experience so much resistance to your approach, I would think.

[Rockape]

6 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

This is getting silly.

 

 

 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, NatFoot said:

 

This is getting silly.

 

So, if they say - no, they don't exist then you are done and convinced they don't?

 

This is why you experience so much resistance to your approach, I would think.

 

Maybe so. But to directly answer your question: Getting "them" to say, "No, they don't exist" isn't good enough because anyone can say that no matter who "they" are. The point is to have that "No, they don't exist" in WRITING, signed, and on official letterhead. That's what I'm pushing for. Verbal answers are easy and are all to easy to just become hearsay. It would be like me coming here onto this Forum and saying, "Hey folks, they don't exist because so-and -so told me so. Now, how the heck am I going to prove THAT to anyone? That's why it needs to be signed, sealed, and delivered WITH A SIGNATURE of authority on official stationary.

 

Well, someone might say, what if I get that? What happens then? Public announcement is what happens. But no one need worry too, too much. After all it's only little ol' random person 'hiflier' flying solo so everyone is safe.  

[NatFoot]

That's exactly what I would ask. Ok, so they put it in writing. Then what?

[hiflier]

I already told you. Public announcement. But I'm still a long way off from that. Heck, I'm a long way off from getting anything in writing.  It would be nice if first someone would answer my emails. It has been almost three months now. The last ones went out about two weeks ago. You know what that means right?

[NatFoot]

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I already told you. Public announcement. But I'm still a long way off from that. Heck, I'm a long way off from getting anything in writing.  It would be nice if first someone would answer my emails. It has been almost three months now. The last ones went out about two weeks ago. You know what that means right?

 

I read that but it didn't register. You would come out with a public announcement about someone officially putting in writing that they do not exist?

 

Ok, I'm assuming to get a public response from knowers...but..."Well maybe they don't in WA, but I know what I seen here in the great state of Kentucky!"

 

Not sure that helps. Please enlighten me. I know you have theories of online tracking and all, so if a PM makes more sense - I truthfully want to understand your angle because I can't figure it out.

 

Thanks man - and the drive out here was brutal! 

[Catmandoo]

On 4/5/2019 at 9:01 PM, hiflier said:

Which is why I am asking officials the point blank question on whether or not Sasquatch exists.

 

Are you prepared for the point blank answer,  " I don't Know"?    " I don't know" is a good answer.  It is a very good answer in a deposition.

In Washington State, it looks like the 2018 State Senate Bill 5816 stalled late in the year. No further news on the Bill to make Sasquatch the State Cryptid. I would say that we have words on paper that has a letterhead.

You need to unwind.

Do you get your boots from L.L. Bean?

[hiflier]

11 hours ago, NatFoot said:

 

I read that but it didn't register. You would come out with a public announcement about someone officially putting in writing that they do not exist? 

 

The end goal is for an OFFICIAL to make the public announcement. If I get a letter then of course I will post it here but a public announcement coming from me wouldn't mean squat because anyone can make up some kind of statement about BF.

 

10 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 

Are you prepared for the point blank answer,  " I don't Know"?    " I don't know" is a good answer.  It is a very good answer in a deposition.

In Washington State, it looks like the 2018 State Senate Bill 5816 stalled late in the year. No further news on the Bill to make Sasquatch the State Cryptid. I would say that we have words on paper that has a letterhead.

You need to unwind.

Do you get your boots from L.L. Bean?

 

Yes, of course. I am prepared for the "I/we don't know". But for the record, maybe something like this from my own state.

 

[JKH]

The above recipient is in a position to profit from tourism and publicity, although there may be some genuine concern after the fact of starting up a conference. The biologist is mistaken, and it would be great if he found that out.

Edited April 10, 2019 by JKH

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, JKH said:

The biologist is mistaken, and it would be great if he found that out.

 

There's no definitive proof that he is mistaken. People here claim to know differently so would 50 letters from 50 states all saying the same thing be at all significant? All mistakes?

 

As an interesting interpretation does "This mythical animal does not exist in Nature or otherwise" mean that a "mythical animal" doesn't exist but the real one does? It is followed by, "However, the simple truth of the matter is that there is no such animal anywhere in the World".

 

Does that mean only the mythical one or the real one too? After all the only reference in the response is to a mythical one. OF COURSE mythical animals don't exist. Yeah sure, word play, but in truth language is really all we have in such matters.

Edited April 10, 2019 by hiflier

[NatFoot]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

There's no definitive proof that he is mistaken. People here claim to know differently so would 50 letters from 50 states all saying the same thing be at all significant? All mistakes?

 

As an interesting interpretation does "This mythical animal does not exist in Nature or otherwise" mean that a "mythical animal" doesn't exist but the real one does? It is followed by, "However, the simple truth of the matter is that there is no such animal anywhere in the World".

 

Does that mean only the mythical one or the real one too? After all the only reference in the response is to a mythical one. OF COURSE mythical animals don't exist. Yeah sure, word play, but in truth language is really all we have in such matters.

 

Hah - that is interesting!

 

Might be semantics or a nod of the cap and a wink.

[MIB]

If I were the biologist, I would not write the letter .. probably not at all, but certainly not that way.    Biologists are bottom of the totem pole, necessary experts and resources/advisors, but not the policy makers.    That biologist has no obligation to acknowledge receipt of your request nor any obligation to address your questions.    First thing I would NOT do is answer the question without consulting with someone with sufficient authority within the department to officially speak for the department.    (And such a person will probably kick it up from district to state level rather than go out on a limb themselves.)    The response, if there is one at all, would read something to the effect of "existence or non-existence of primates in North America falls outside of my professional training and is outside my authority to give comment on.   Have a nice day."

 

You are not going to get an honest, straight forward answer from anyone unless they have been authorized to do so by their superiors.   That is likely going to have to go clear to the top of whatever agency they work for.   Unless they have decided it is time to break the story, you're going to get "no comment" in one form or another.   If you've worked at all with state or federal agencies, you know it is foolish to think otherwise.    If you have not worked with state or federal agencies, you simply are ignorant of the basic survival rules of bureaucracy.  

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Foolish and ignorant....yep, you called it. That's me MIB. just a foolish, ignorant, random person. Thanks for letting me know.