There’s No Sasquatch Conspiracy Afoot, Scientists Say

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

They are political to the bone so whatever they need to do to protect they interests is what they will do.........

 

So is everybody else; environmental organizations, journalists.........county supervisors and county sheriffs........who are the people who do keep records. When residents call in fear because something is in their yard scaring the Hell out of them, these folks have a history of responding. Consequently, we have a number of reports (and usually official, documented police reports) from local law enforcement officers like everything else they respond to. Not the NPS, USFS, BLM, USFWS, or state/provincial fish and game or resource management agencies. The local authorities are more vulnerable to local voters than the state and federal authorities.

 

Quote

.........Even if they do keep records on BF sightings, why would they spend their resources chasing or investigating it, other than to give it a file name?

 

1) To monitor a potential problem

2) To consider their best options for action/inaction/deniability

3) To help keep the lid on a pot that they've been trying to keep contained for at least a half century now, and likely longer

Edited August 22, 2019 by Huntster

[Arvedis]

I know it's not your position but politics doesn't mean conspiracy. A lot of people confuse the two. A conspiracy would involve a cover up is when there is a real incident and a deliberate decision is made to hide the details. I know it sounds harsh but there is no legal obligation to protect anyone in the woods, regardless of who owns those woods. The political angle here is to just ignore it all unless there is a legal reason to address anything. Then say you did all you could within your ability and obligation to do so.

 

Everyone wants to save children when they go missing and a legit effort is made to search for missing adults. Bottom line is if people are not found, oh well. We have a budget, we can't spend it all searching for mysteries and whatever else. No one is thinking, "Gee, I hope no one finds out Bigfoot and UFOs are involved"

 

Then you have a guy like David Paulides who shines a light on the record keeping practices of bureaucrats. Well, he has found chinks in the armor of government. Now what? Nothing to investigate anyway.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Arvedis

[Huntster]

13 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

I know it's not your position but politics doesn't mean conspiracy. A lot of people confuse the two. A conspiracy would involve a cover up is when there is a real incident and a deliberate decision is made to hide the details. I know it sounds harsh but there is no legal obligation to protect anyone in the woods, regardless of who owns those woods. The political angle here is to just ignore it all unless there is a legal reason to address anything. Then say you did all you could within your ability and obligation to do so.........

 

I agree. A coverup of the existence of sasquatch is not necessarily a criminal act. It's just immoral, especially if done because they don't want to deal with a whole new level of aboriginal human rights.

 

And I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that is exactly what is happening and why. All other considerations are falling to the side.

 

This coverup in North America most definitely has been ongoing since at least 1958, and may have begun as early as the late 19th Century during or just after the Indian Wars. That would put the coverup at 60-150 years now. It has only been since the PG film that it has gotten more difficult for them, and their time is likely running out. I suspect these creatures will either go extinct or be discovered within the next 50 years or so, and I'm thinking it is most likely to be discovery, even if in Asia first.

[Huntster]

12 minutes ago, Huntster said:

..........A coverup of the existence of sasquatch is not necessarily a criminal act. It's just immoral, especially if done because they don't want to deal with a whole new level of aboriginal human rights.

 

And I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that is exactly what is happening and why. All other considerations are falling to the side.......

 

Come with me, please, as I openly explore this theory...........

 

Would a "caveman" of the genus Homo, but a species other than sapiens, necessarily have the same human rights as a Homo sapien? After all, they might not have any spiritual recognition, so why the need for religious freedom? They have no history of tool use, so why the right to keep and bear arms? On and on...........

 

 

Oh, BTW, Geico is an acronym for Government Employees Insurance Company. I bought their coverage as a GI in Alaska in the 1970's because of their great rates for active duty personnel. It was only later that they referred to themselves as "Guy-co" and went after the public. So maybe their caveman series was in inside joke?..........and the joke really is on the cavemen?

[Huntster]

So what is a "human"?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Hominina

 

.........Human taxonomy on one hand involves the placement of humans within the Taxonomy of the hominids (great apes), and on the other the division of archaic and modern humans into species and, if applicable, subspecies. Modern zoological taxonomy was developed by Carl Linnaeus during the 1730s to 1750s. He named the human species as Homo sapiens in 1758, as the only member species of the genus Homo, divided into several subspeciescorresponding to the great races. The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) means "human being". The systematic name Hominidae for the family of the great apes was introduced by John Edward Gray (1825).[4] Gray also supplied Hominini as the name of the tribe including both chimpanzees (genus Pan) and humans (genus Homo).

The discovery of the first extinct archaic human species from the fossil record dates to the mid 19th century, Homo neanderthalensis, classified in 1864. Since then, a number of other archaic species have been named, but there is no universal consensus as to their exact number. After the discovery of H. neanderthalensis, which even if "archaic" is recognizable as clearly human, late 19th to early 20th century anthropology for a time was occupied with finding the supposedly "missing link" between Homo and Pan. The "Piltdown Man" hoax of 1912 was the fraudulent presentation of such a transitional species. Since the mid-20th century, knowledge of the development of Hominini has become much more detailed, and taxonomical terminology has been altered a number of times to reflect this.

The introduction of Australopithecus as a third genus, alongside Homo and Pan, in the Hominini tribe is due to Raymond Dart (1925). Australopithecina as a subtribe containing Australopithecus as well as Paranthropus (Broom 1938) is a proposal by Gregory & Hellman (1939). More recently proposed additions to the Australopithecina subtribe include Ardipithecus (1995) and Kenyanthropus (2001). 

The position of Sahelanthropus (2002) relative to Australopithecina within Hominini is unclear. Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) propose the recognition of  Australopithecus, Ardipithecus, Praeanthropus, and Sahelanthropus (the latter incertae sedis) as separate genera.[5]

Other proposed genera, now mostly considered part of Homo, include: Pithecanthropus (Dubois, 1894), Protanthropus(Haeckel, 1895), Sinanthropus (Black, 1927), Cyphanthropus (Pycraft, 1928) Africanthropus (Dreyer, 1935),[6]Telanthropus(Broom & Anderson 1949), Atlanthropus (Arambourg, 1954), Tchadanthropus (Coppens, 1965).

The genus Homo has been taken to originate some two million years ago since the discovery of stone tools in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in the 1960s. Homo habilis (Leakey et al., 1964) would be the first "human" species (member of genus Homo) by definition, its type specimen being the OH 7 fossils. However, the discovery of more fossils of this type has opened up the debate on the delineation of H. habilis from Australopithecus. Especially, the LD 350-1 jawbone fossil discovered in 2013, dated to 2.8 Mya, has been argued as being transitional between the two.[7] It is also disputed whether H. habilis was the first hominin to use stone tools, as  Australopithecus garhi, dated to c. 2.5 Mya, has been found along with stone tool implements.[8] Fossil KNM-ER 1470 (discovered in 1972, designated Pithecanthropus rudolfensis by Alekseyev 1978) is now seen as either a third early species of Homo (alongside H. habilis and H. erectus) at about 2 million years ago, or alternatively as transitional between Australopithecus and Homo.[9]

Wood and Richmond (2000) proposed that Gray's tribe Hominini ("hominins") be designated as comprising all species after the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor by definition, to the inclusion of Australopithecines and other possible pre-human or para-human species (such as  Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus) not known in Gray's time.[10] In this suggestion, the new subtribe of Hominina was to be designated as including the genus Homo exclusively, so that Hominini would have two subtribes, Australopithecina and Hominina, with the only known genus in Hominina being Homo. Orrorin (2001) has been proposed as a possible ancestor of Hominina but not Australopithecina.[11].........

 

Well, the paleoanthropologists haven't really nailed that down yet, have they? 

 

Looks like we need some lawyers, no?.............

[Huntster]

So if they are not ruled "human" (and remember, DNA is here now and will likely play the defining role in the ruling, not such 19th Century Darwinian considerations as tool use), then we have a very rare great ape that immediately gets endangered species listing, and the years and years of study under federal authority begin, because tge creatures obviously migrate back and forth internationally in Canada and the U.S. 

 

States lose, especially western states..........again. 

 

But if they are ruled of the genus Homo, states lose even BIGGER. All aboriginal relations are with the federal government, not the states. The states don't even get much of a partnership. They just get to help pay with services.

 

So how does Uncle Sam begin a political relationship with such a primitive race of "people"? Well, you have to find the sasquatches some appropriate representatives. Like who, we might ask? 

 

Lawyers, of course. Probably the variety who specialize in Indian affairs...........

 

 

[Huntster]

 

Is there any wonder why these folks were met with such ferocious opposition?:

 

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/sasquatch_genome_project_016.htm

 

The Sasquatch people are more like us than they are different. The Sasquatch people have their own language, traditions, and rituals. They live in family units, they order their lives according to the laws of their people, and they bury their dead.

Yet the Sasquatch people are captivating because of their physical, genetic, and cultural differences. Sadly, these special traits also make them uniquely vulnerable to those who would see in their unusual lifestyle or appearance a justification to harrass, trap, or even kill them.

Your compassion and understanding will be vital to protect the Sasquatch people.

[Huntster]

 

https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/opinion/pat-neal-the-backcountrys-sasquatch-people/

 

.........Today’s Sasquatch seekers say they have come to realize, through the DNA analysis of Sasquatch hair, droppings and nail clippings, that what they used to call “the creature, the monster and the missing link” is in fact human.

They are large, hairy humans, but can’t we celebrate diversity and accept others whose physical appearance may be different than our own?

You would never think of calling a logger a “brush ape” — to their face, anyway — so why is it OK to call the Sasquatch people “swamp monsters?”

This startling new DNA evidence proves what the Native Americans have said all along: The Sasquatch are people.

Still, Bigfoot hunters want to prove the existence of the Sasquatch people so they can be protected.

Given our record of protecting other indigenous people, I’d head for the hills if I were a Sasquatch.

Now that they’re considered human, the Sasquatch people can contribute to the fabric of our nation’s economy that makes our country so cool.

It’s only fair now that the Sasquatch people have been accepted as human by the Sasquatch researchers, the Sasquatch People should be able to purchase the same permits we all must have to to be on public land.

For example, if a family of four Sasquatch people wanted to go camping in Olympic National Park, they would need either an annual pass for $50 or a weekly pass for $10 per Sasquatch.

In addition, there are special backcountry-use permits that require you to say where you will be camping for how long.

These permits are available for five bucks a night per person.

In addition, the Sasquatch people would need to be aware of the Backcountry Reservation system and rent or purchase an $80 bearproof canister where required by law.

The budget-minded Sasquatch people might try to go camping on state land to beat the system, but that would require a $35 Discover Pass.

This is so unfair. The Discover Pass was designed to subsidize the state park campgrounds full of million-dollar motorhomes and plush RV campers.........

 

What? Sasquatches pay to "exercise their native rights"? They don't even have any money!

 

What do the sasquatch lawyers have to say about this?

 

Oh, and BTW..........who is paying these lawyers if sasquatches have no money or assets?

[Huntster]

https://www.ststworld.com/the-story-of-zana-the-ape-woman/

 

In the latter half of the 19th century, the Ochamchiri region of Georgia in Russia, a group of local hunters found something beyond their expectations, which presented the world with an enigma for several years. They found a creature which looked like a human but didn’t appear to be one simultaneously. It gave the impression of a female human, but with ape-like features.

She had a terrifying face – a broad face with high cheekbones, a flat nose with turned out nostrils, muzzle-like jaws, broad mouth with large teeth, low forehead, and eyes with a reddish tinge. Her skin tone was dark greyish-black, and her whole body was covered with reddish-black hair. She had a very athletic body, with a tall, large build. She had muscular arms and legs, and fingers thicker than typical human fingers. Her expression was described to be purely animal. After the hunters captured her, she changed several hands and was finally bestowed upon a nobleman known as Edgi Genaba. She was taken to the village of Tkhina where his estate was located and sheltered her in a strong enclosure.

She was ferocious at first, as noticed by the villagers who were terrified of approaching her in her enclosure. Nobody ventured to give her food, it was thrown at her. Gradually, over a period of three years, they managed to tame her. She was then made free to wander about, but she never wandered too distant from the place where they regularly fed her.

The villagers started calling her Zana. She learned a few simple tasks from the villagers such as carrying wood or grinding corn. She obeyed her master, even when she was in a foul, angry mood. The villagers saw her incredible athletic capacity whenever she effortlessly lifted an 80 kg sack and carried to the village. It was said, that she could outrun a horse. She developed an affinity for grapes. She sometimes climbed trees to retrieve them.

She used to stray into the forest at night-time and rested in chilled pools of water on warmer days. Her aversion to heat meant that she preferred to walk naked, after tearing off any form of clothing meant to keep her warm, even during the harshest of winters. Perhaps the fascinating aspect of her life is the fact that she gave birth to descendants, which, as suggested by many, is a consequence of her wine addiction.

She would drink to unconsciousness and it appeared that few men took advantage of her situation. She would often give birth unassisted, and only after the death of a few babies did the villagers began taking care of the children as their own. Four of her children survived – two sons and two daughters. They grew up as humans and were completely normal except for a few physical features and mental traits. The youngest son, named Khwit, died in 1954.

Her offsprings were powerfully built and had quick temper............

 

If they can successfully mate and bear young with men, they are human.

[Huntster]

 

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/44347/20150406/dna-test-suggests-russian-apewoman-zana-was-not-human-and-yeti-may-not-be-a-myth.htm

 

..........Zana's resemblance was described as that of a wild beast, "the most frightening feature of which was her expression, which was pure animal," wrote one Russian zoologist in 1996.

Now Professor Bryan Sykes at the University of Oxford says he believes Zana had a strain of West African DNA that belonged to a subspecies of modern humans.

Sykes explained that while the woman, said to stand 6 feet 6 inches tall, was genetically 100 percent African, she showed little physical or genetic resemblance to any group living in modern Africa.

Sykes has published a book, The Nature of the Beast, in which he writes that Zana's ancestors could have come out of Africa more than 100,000 years ago and lived for many generations in the remote Caucasus region.

Zana had at least four children, fathered by local men, and some of her descendants reportedly still live in the area.

Sykes says he conducted DNA tests on saliva from six of her living descendants and on a tooth from one of her sons. He has also done further research on Zana since writing the book. 

"They will be published in the regular scientific press so I can't be more specific," he said (subscription required)..........

 

We're almost there. This time is similar to the years between when Thomas Savage produced a gorilla skull (1847) and Charles DuChaollu produced a gorilla carcass (1856). Then the real fun starts............

[Twist]

These are all good talking points Huntster regarding Sasquatch and the government relations but the point of this topic was about how there is not a conspiracy against sasquatch when it comes to science.   There is plenty of privatized science that if brought the right evidence would pursue the subject.   As a BF proponent I have taken a lot of this dialogue as reasons why we cant come up with proof, blaming the powers that be for our failures.  Yes, no one is obligated to bring science the evidence, nor is anyone obligated to hand science the evidence to kickstart the actual research.  Yes the government SHOULD be doing something, I think we can all agree to that.  BUT, if we sit here on this forum and talk about BF all day as proponents, and we want to make science change their view on something they say does not exist then we should want to pony up.   We should not complain and make a plethora of reasons why the government wont do it or why they possibly conspire against it.    Your posts make it sound like you are already defeated.   

[Huntster]

51 minutes ago, Twist said:

These are all good talking points Huntster regarding Sasquatch and the government relations but the point of this topic was about how there is not a conspiracy against sasquatch when it comes to science........ 

 

Actually, the title of both the referenced blog and the thread is "There's No Sasquatch Conspiracy Afoot, Scientists Say", not "when it comes to science". 

 

And I believe there is a desire and a tendency to cover up the existence of sasquatches by many in several areas of human activity (government, science, ideology, and politics), this likely includes a conspiracy on the part of governments throughout the northern hemisphere (including but not limited to the U.S., Canada, China, and Russia), and I'm outlining why I think that is the case.

 

........

There is plenty of privatized science that if brought the right evidence would pursue the subject........

 

Yeah. I linked to some above, including Sykes.

 

..........As a BF proponent I have taken a lot of this dialogue as reasons why we cant come up with proof, blaming the powers that be for our failures.........

 

And I have many times pointed out that I have no responsibility, right, official interest, government permission, or legal standing to "come up with" the proof that is repeatedly demanded. However, the very scientists quoted by this blogger do have the responsibility, right, official interest, government permission, or legal standing to apply for official permission and even funding, to obtain this proof.

 

Have you ever applied for a special use permit on state or federal lands or navigable waters, Twist? For example, a hunting license is a general permit, but even it comes with very well documented limitations, including species, seasons, mode of access, harvest methods and means, gender and antler restrictions, hunt areas, sometimes even what you must wear, etc. If you're smart, that permit can even be used against government.  For example, that hunting license can be used by an individual as a legal means to carry a firearm (even if you have no intent to shoot an animal) when one couldn't do so legally without said license. In California, wild pig is open year round. A non-resident hunting license and pig tag will cost you @ $250. That enables you to carry an AR-15 with 10 round magazines in the trunk of your vehicle anywhere in the state, and carry it on your shoulder whike walking around in the great outdoors in any area not closed to hunting. 

 

But a hunting license would not allow you to shoot an undocumented species. For that, you'd need a specific special use permit, and I can tell you that I would not be issued one. I have quite a collection of special use permits. I test government regularly with such requests.......for example, crossing anadromous streams with my motorized vehicle........and I've gotten them. I file them for future use. If they granted them in the past, that strengthens future applications.

 

But an accredited paleoanthropologist might get a sasquatch harvest permit.........if he had the balls to apply for one. But he won't, because he knows that the news would get back to his peers. It's all on paper. 

 

Get a clue, Dude. This really ain't rocket science. It's classic government obstructionism, and there's a reason for it.

 

..........Yes, no one is obligated to bring science the evidence, nor is anyone obligated to hand science the evidence to kickstart the actual research.  Yes the government SHOULD be doing something, I think we can all agree to that.  BUT, if we sit here on this forum and talk about BF all day as proponents, and we want to make science change their view on something they say does not exist then we should want to pony up.   We should not complain and make a plethora of reasons why the government wont do it or why they possibly conspire against it.    Your posts make it sound like you are already defeated.

 

Dude, when it comes to proving the existence of sasquatches, I have been fully defeated. That's the point of the conspiracy. They don't want me or you proving it, they're successful at preventing it, and I'm offering a possible reason why they want it that way. And, frankly, I lean toward supporting government (and whoever else involved) in hiding their existence. I don't want the world to know these things exist. The longer they remain a mystery, the better off they are.

 

But I'm not fully defeated, because I don't need to prove anything to anybody. I'm already confident in my acceptance of these creatures existence. What I'm doing, even without a carcass, is piecing together the puzzle of what they are, where they came from, where they tend to inhabit (and where they don't), etc. And some of these very scientists I love to criticize (thank you, Dr. Sykes) are giving me clues to solve the puzzle.

 

[Huntster]

Folks, bear with me. There are a couple of key thoughts that go along with my theory:

 

IF there is actually a government conspiracy to cover up or suppress the fact that these creatures exist, (1) it must be an international conspiracy likely involving the U.S., Canada, Russia, China, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgysztan, Tajikistan, India, Nepal, and Bhutan, and (2) since a cover up requires knowledge of the creatures, would these nations do so without having secretly studied the creatures?

 

This is the aspect that is the most difficult to accept. Would several nations, some of whom don't get along at all, cooperate in such a cover up? I think it's very possible.

 

First of all, several of those nations were Soviet Bloc republics before 1990. They essentially got the issue handed to them in 1990 and they're just carrying it forward. Secondly, most of them likely never had the proof themselves and are simply conferring with the other nations.

 

But these they all have deep experience with; ethnic hatreds, ethnic violence, ethnic struggles, and international pressure. Keeping a primitive native sub-human within their borders officially unproven to nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Congo, etc is a good idea, and it doesn't take a genius to know that.

 

If they knew, would they simply leave the creatures alone without studying them? No way, at least not the larger nations like the U.S., Canada, Russia, China, and possibly India. 

 

I suspect that "discovery" occurred at different times for different nations. Certainly no study took place before 1950, and probably not before 1970.The modern environmental movement began around the turn of the 20th Century with Muir, Pinchot, etc, but really got politically strong starting in the 1960's. The environmental/political pressure started being exported from the West in the 1970's. The 1950's is also when the yeti/sasquatch media fanfare really started to build. I suspect discussions behind closed doors began in the 1970's and were renewed in the 1990's after the fall of the Soviet Union. By then, the U.S., Canada, or Russia had studied these creatures to a limited degree.

 

The studies must have been quite limited if conducted in North America. They probably just wanted to determine if they'd be taxonomically classed as human, and once the realized that they can interbreed with us, the fix was in. I think it's a passive coverup of feigned ignorance, and I think they all know that it will eventually be revealed. They're just buying time by looking the other way.

[Arvedis]

I re-read parts of Thom Powell's The Locals and I see now a clue why some people on this forum are of the belief that gov agencies have an interest in BF.  The Locals is not the only reason, just a clue, because of the home break-ins to the homes of investigators. I will also guess some researchers know of other instances of this occurring over the years.

 

I don't claim to have a definitive answer here, just a working theory on that. If you think back, even as recent as 15-20 years ago, tech was much different.  We are now living in an unprecedented age of tech evolution.  It is frightening how fast the changes occur. The Locals came out in 2003. Thom's research took place in an era when Netscape called its browser Mosaic. He was under the impression the BFRO crappy web site was state of the art and so were rudimentary trail cams his team was using. People used VHS video tapes, landlines. Computer security was not even though of. It's not that long ago.

 

So my theory is people who were active at that time in BF research, being what it is, draws out kooks. I don't think the NFS or any gov agency would have broken into people's homes and been so obvious as to take ONLY BF research when they could have simply asked the investigators to see their research.  I think the break-ins were rogue operators who are unhinged.  This field of study attracts that type of individual. Just like this forum and every BF forum will draw instant attack, some people take it to extreme.

 

Ever since there has been tech, the field of hacking has been popular, ESPECIALLY hacking of phone systems.  You would not believe how easy it is to tap a landline. The info is out there and before geeks had powerful computers to grow their skills, they looked to hack anything they could. So phone tapping is not a big clue for gov involvement because even then they needed a warrant and a person would have to have committed a serious enough crime.

Edited August 23, 2019 by Arvedis

[ioyza]

12 hours ago, Huntster said:

I think it's a passive coverup of feigned ignorance, and I think they all know that it will eventually be revealed. They're just buying time by looking the other way.

 

I dunno, I think you're basically spot on with everything you're saying in this thread and I wish I had more to add, but I feel compelled to try and participate anyway.

 

The only slight questioning I have with regards to your most recent line of thinking re: international cooperation of governments is the difference in approach to the topic by some of these nations, e.g. China's quasi-official recognition of the species in the establishment of Shenonngjia or Malaysia's official protection of the Orang Pendek (although I can't find reference to this fact now..). Still, these could be seen as mild concessions or "soft disclosures" in the same way the whole AATIP thing blew over with the general public hardly batting an eye, or even noticing.

 

As for academic science and scientists, most of them approach the topic with the same flawed assumptions and ignorance of the basic facts as the general public. This boils down to ideology, the view of man conquering nature, the supremacy of science as authority on truth. The scientists who have taken a bit closer look at it, like Sykes and Mohawk, I'd wager haven't really taken a closer look, haven't left the bias of their ideology at the door and stuck their nose into every nook and cranny of detail available then stepped back and looked at the whole enchilada from 10,000 feet. Having been on one side of that fence and then the other, before even going out and encountering these beings, I remember what the mindset is. Your mind races around analyzing every detail for possibilities that it could be anything but what it seems to be on its surface. Any possibility is more likely than the most obvious one.

 

Your points about the situation in Bluff Creek in PG days are great. Were scientists already primed to think this way? Must be. Not a conspiracy, just negligence.

 

15 hours ago, Huntster said:

Dude, when it comes to proving the existence of sasquatches, I have been fully defeated. That's the point of the conspiracy. They don't want me or you proving it, they're successful at preventing it, and I'm offering a possible reason why they want it that way. And, frankly, I lean toward supporting government (and whoever else involved) in hiding their existence. I don't want the world to know these things exist. The longer they remain a mystery, the better off they are.

 

But I'm not fully defeated, because I don't need to prove anything to anybody. I'm already confident in my acceptance of these creatures existence. What I'm doing, even without a carcass, is piecing together the puzzle of what they are, where they came from, where they tend to inhabit (and where they don't), etc. And some of these very scientists I love to criticize (thank you, Dr. Sykes) are giving me clues to solve the puzzle.

 

We're mostly on the same page here too, but I guess I would like the world to know about them, if only for the seismic shift in ideology it would cause. I have a hunch that the sasquatch want that too, why else do they show themselves or establish relationships at all? The key is in the way that awareness is transferred, that it can't be just another "thing" that we can understand by manipulating it and watching it squirm, or the message in all of this will be lost. That's why they so adamantly hide and deprive us of anything that would represent the sort of "gift" scientists would like for us to bring them. Study is a form of dominance; they refuse to be studied.

 

Anyway, if you feel you want to try to force the issue with the govt, check out what Chris Noel's been getting up to this summer: