Is the US government actively trying to make the Sasquatch race extinct?

[hiflier]

It's probably looking straight at that Blobrilla hiding in the bushes

[CallyCat]

On 9/13/2019 at 12:38 PM, RedHawk454 said:

I was thinking about this during the MK Davis thing about the US government killing them.  Theres a lot of theories out there about why the government would want to keep Sasquatch unacknowledged but the government cant decide what is real and what is not.  They can, however, "steer" public attention away from the ape and suppress any tangible evidence so the government can make the unacknowledgment of Sasquatch easier for them.

 

I was thinking that If there is  enough credible evidence that  comes from extremely reputable sources they can be forced to act but if something is out there it is there whether recognized or not.

Maybe Sasquatch is really on top of the food chain or can contend with humans in this regard.  WE like to be at the top of the food chain so it would make sense if the government was trying to make the species and divergent sub species extinct.  Maybe the government wants them to maintain a feeble breeding population

I don't know but maybe they are hoping for extinction and a lack of fossil evidence before that happens.

 

I kindof believe they would prefer the species goes extinct

The government is so loosely organized and inefficient that I'ld be surprised if they could even find a bigfoot much less encourage it's extinction. 

[Huntster]

28 minutes ago, CallyCat said:

The government is so loosely organized and inefficient that I'ld be surprised if they could even find a bigfoot much less encourage it's extinction. 

 

That is certainly true from the macro view, but let them focus on you specifically and individually, and suddenly become quite organized and powerful, even if their efficiency only improves slightly.

 

There's just something special about being the $300 trillion gorilla in the room.........

[hiflier]

49 minutes ago, CallyCat said:

The government is so loosely organized and inefficient that I'ld be surprised if they could even find a bigfoot much less encourage it's extinction. 

 

Oh, IDK. a country of 325 million people (5-6% of the world's population) that is led by a group of individuals in such a way that has made it the most economically and militarily the most powerful country on the planet tells me they aren't too, too, disorganized  So IMHO that group of people would have resources that would know about a very large hairy biped in the woods. With all the current surveillance capabilities? How could they not? It's a fair question considering money has never been an object to knowing everything they can about.....everything.

Edited October 11, 2019 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

4 hours ago, CallyCat said:

The government is so loosely organized and inefficient that I'ld be surprised if they could even find a bigfoot much less encourage it's extinction. 

Why do you believe that the Gov. is loosely organized and inefficient ?  They are not trying to encourage it's extinction they are trying encourage their that they do not exist. There is a difference in what I am saying . Extinction means that they are all dead  and that there is no longer a living being  yet that they once did live  on our planet.  What I am saying  is that they were never living on this planet and that there was never a artifact found that proved they lived here on our planet.

 

I cannot go with either since I do know they exist. I also have some knowledge our Gov. does have a creature but have no way of proving this. I am sure that others here have knowledge of this as well and it only makes perfect sense that they do. How could science not know and go with out knowing. It only makes sense to go through all these years not knowing. It is just best to be kept in the dark not knowing.  

[georgerm]

9 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

With all due respect, Georgerm, and I mean that sincerely, Many agencies investigate animals and habitats that have nothing to do with dangers to the public or national security. Spotted Newt? Giant Salamander? Ivory-billed Woodpecker? Snail Darter? Spotted Owl? And so many others and will even move endangered fish away from a wildfire area and relocate them. But a highly significant 700 lbs. bipedal creature in the woods that may be so rare even in the face of habitat development and resource extraction and harvesting practices? Nope. Not a peep out of anyone. No one says Sasquatch exists and no one says that it doesn't. And although I have had a state biologist say that his agency isn't sure that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I think we are all intelligent enough to know that as an answer to the question of existence isn't at all definitive but it's as close as I've been able to get.

 

So it's simple really, no matter what anyone's response is as to why Sasquatch doesn't get investigated? My goal isn't to get a REASON. My goal is to get a definitive "yes" or "no" on the issue of existence. Don't need any more reasons for why there isn't one when a simple yes or no will suffice. And nailing someone down who's in an official capacity who will state that yes or no is the real issue. It's been long enough that I, and we, have had to deal with this issue without official support one way or another. I know only one who thinks this way but I'm pretty sure I may be the only one taking a currently proactive role.    

   

 Hello hiflier and keep up the quest for that lucky break. Have you noticed bigfoot is not a popular topic with most agency personnel? People are concerned about job security, and being mocked. it's not worth it to confide with a stranger. My guess is 1 out of 15 fish and wildlife employees might care about bigfoot but avoid the topic especially if an outsider digs for opinions. This 1 person in 15 may have seen or knows about bigfoot, but will they gamble their career and reputation on some outsider that may blab all that's said about sassy?  Will the bureaucrat trust you enough to discuss or confirm bigfoot and to remain quiet?  

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Probably not. Some members here however have had some success when they are in a situation where an official has spoken candidly to them with no one else around.  And thank you for the encouragements, Georgerm. Much appreciated  I have to say my endeavors have been interesting if nothing else. And NO repercussions or pushback of any kind has ever occurred. I'm just saying that so others may be encouraged to get involved with their own possible outreaches should they wish to embark on one. I think generally state F&W will respond to their own residents within the state if the correspondence is cordial, respectful, and well written. I do think they look at honest inquiries differently than people may think.

[georgerm]

Hello hiflier and glad to hear more about your endeavors. I have a method, the soft shoe approach, of eliciting responses about bigfoot when meeting a person that has years of experience in the forest of Oregon. This is done in person and not in writing. I suppose a phone call will suffice at times. They are usually hunters, loggers, night watchmen, forest service timber cruisers and so on. I pretend to be ignorant about sassy, and will say something like this, "You have spent many hours in the woods, and do you think there is any truth to all the so called reports about bigfoot?"  It's surprising since I have heard from several eye witnesses. By pretending to be a skeptic, the experiencer becomes more comfortable in telling their story. About 1 person in 10 will report some sassy interaction. Others will laugh if off, I laugh too, and I don't get labeled as a nut case.

 

I will try to find a report about a forest service worker that fired a gun in the air to scare off bigfoot. David Paulides grilled the forest ranger of the Brookings,  Oregon, Ranger District about the incident, the police were involved, and it blew up into a big fiasco. Everyone clammed up, and it went no where. 

 

Is the US government actively trying to make the Sasquatch race extinct? My guess in no, but they are doing a good job of the extinction process, by  staying as closed minded skeptics. This picture below is the Kalmiopsis Wilderness east of Brookings, Oregon. 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by georgerm
add more

[hiflier]

40 minutes ago, georgerm said:

Hello hiflier and glad to hear more about your endeavors. I have a method, the soft shoe approach, of eliciting responses about bigfoot when meeting a person that has years of experience in the forest of Oregon. This is done in person and not in writing. I suppose a phone call will suffice at times. They are usually hunters, loggers, night watchmen, forest service timber cruisers and so on. I pretend to be ignorant about sassy, and will say something like this, "You have spent many hours in the woods, and do you think there is any truth to all the so called reports about bigfoot?"  It's surprising since I have heard from several eye witnesses. By pretending to be a skeptic, the experiencer becomes more comfortable in telling their story. About 1 person in 10 will report some sassy interaction. Others will laugh if off, I laugh too, and I don't get labeled as a nut case

 

My approach exactly and I think others take the softer approach as well. And I never do a follow up or bring up a government-hiding-Bigfoot dialogue. It's all about respecting the person one is speaking with and their situation. Thank you for your thoughts and describing your more candid methods of communication.

 

I have a friend who is a 30 yr. fly fishing guide. He has seen many bears and knew I was interested in Sasquatch so he related this story to me. He was towing a small trailer that he stays in when guiding, followed by another friend in a pick up truck. This was only about a month ago. He came over a rise in the road and saw up ahead about 100yds an animal in the road. He described it as dark, on all fours, and no ears. He said it definitely wasn't an ungulate but that it also wasn't a bear as he has seen many. He said it was taller and leaner than a bear and had legs that were longer and lankier than a bear's legs. He said as he approached it walked off into the brush to his left and he pulled over to see if he could see it. He couldn't but asked his friend if he saw it to which his friend said "yes" and agreed that it wasn't a bear of a deer/moose (no elk here).

 

I asked him if he got out to see if there were any footprints between the road shoulder and the woods and he said he didn't think to do so. Being an experienced woodsman and guide he said he thought I should know. It's nice to have such a fairly recent a first person account from someone who I know personally. He still doesn't know what kind of animal it was and guides in that same general area almost exclusively. He still insists that it wasn't a bear and that whatever it was had no visible ears. I hope to be getting up that way sometime this month or the next to have a look around. I told him if something like that ever happens again- even when he's guiding, to call me right away. He said he would as long as his phone has service.

Edited October 12, 2019 by hiflier

[CallyCat]

On 10/11/2019 at 10:51 PM, ShadowBorn said:

Why do you believe that the Gov. is loosely organized and inefficient ?  They are not trying to encourage it's extinction they are trying encourage their that they do not exist. There is a difference in what I am saying . Extinction means that they are all dead  and that there is no longer a living being  yet that they once did live  on our planet.  What I am saying  is that they were never living on this planet and that there was never a artifact found that proved they lived here on our planet.

 

I cannot go with either since I do know they exist. I also have some knowledge our Gov. does have a creature but have no way of proving this. I am sure that others here have knowledge of this as well and it only makes perfect sense that they do. How could science not know and go with out knowing. It only makes sense to go through all these years not knowing. It is just best to be kept in the dark not knowing.  

We are the United States of America, we are a loosely organized republic of states that chooses to have the federal government manage the states on a federal level, but rarely interferes with state laws unless it directly conflicts with the constitution. There is a tremendous amount of waste in every division of the government related to our convoluted system. That's what I see more often than I see a system that is working flawlessly. With everything else going on in the country and around the world I just can't see the federal government making a concerted effort to drive something into extinction, if it isn't already. Look at David Paulides reports of missing people in the national parks, no one was keeping up with those statistics. Lets assume that 10 % of those reports are related to sasquatch, no one is going out there to find those people and get rid of the problem ( whatever it might be) that I'm aware of.

[CallyCat]

On 10/11/2019 at 6:11 PM, hiflier said:

 

Oh, IDK. a country of 325 million people (5-6% of the world's population) that is led by a group of individuals in such a way that has made it the most economically and militarily the most powerful country on the planet tells me they aren't too, too, disorganized  So IMHO that group of people would have resources that would know about a very large hairy biped in the woods. With all the current surveillance capabilities? How could they not? It's a fair question considering money has never been an object to knowing everything they can about.....everything.

The national debt takes away from the GDP for our country ( 77% of the GDP last time I looked), we are no longer THE most influential country in the world.  I certainly can't see the government spending federal dollars on bigfoot, for good or bad, when they can't fix their own internal problems that affect the humans occupying this country. 

[hiflier]

But it hasn't been that way for all of the last 60 years. I mean think about it. Some discovers a Denisovan pinky bone and the archaeological landscape erupts and funding comes out of the woodwork. This is for something that has been laying in a cave in Siberia dead for 40,000 years or so. Sasquatch however is supposedly alive and still kicking in our own back yards and........and nothing. We need to stop making excuses for why the situation with Sasquatch persists to this day.

 

Let's take the media for example. Broadcasting time and paying anchor people and audio/visual engineers to run a story about some sighting isn't cheap even when it's covered by advertising dollars. Either way one looks at it, it's a chunk o' change just so that the anchor people can snicker and do a bit of eye rolling. Advertisers will pay for that but won't cough up a dime for research? Sorry but, again, the excuses we make for everyone from agencies to the private sector for why discovery of an 800 lbs. two-legged, hairy biped hasn't happened just isn't cutting it. After a while none of that makes ay sense whatsoever including academic funding. Especially when one sees what DOES get funded. Some of the things academic monies go to can't hold a candle to what finding a large novel primate would mean. There's just no comparing a Sasquatch to salamanders in a pond, or a study that results in putting up a Marmot crossing sign on a national park road.

 

The discovery of a large North American primate beats everything else hands down by a mile. And not one official dollar goes toward that discovery? There is something really wrong with that.   

[Patterson-Gimlin]

You make valid points. Valid for further research. You also make a valid point for non-existence. 

What I mean by that is ,perhaps the lack of funding is a result of the lack of evidence. Denisovan pinky bone and not one Sasquatch fossil. 

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

What I mean by that is ,perhaps the lack of funding is a result of the lack of evidence

 

There is enough evidence to at least open up some kind of scientific inquiry beyond Dr. Meldrum. In fact the good doctor's research and opinions alone should be enough to at least take notice. Saying there isn't enough evidence is just another excuse. We have to get off that rickety bandwagon and realize that this avenue only stems from a position of weakness in pushing academia to do the work. Not enough evidence doesn't mean NO evidence and science has embarked on studies with much less evidence than what is available for this subject. Truth is, science WILL go out and get evidence to support some projects so why should this be any different? A good hypothesis based on history and reported observations coupled with trace evidence should be enough for any reputable institution to take up the challenge.

 

There are NO good excuses left not to. And the not-so-good excuses that remain shouldn't be coming from us as rationalizations on their behalf for why science or agencies do nothing. I grow weary of the no funding argument as I have come to the realization that lack of funding is the weakest excuse there is for not looking into this matter. In fact, the powerful stigma and risk of ridicule is so strong that it speaks of something rather serious underneath the reasons we make FOR science as if we are doing them some kind of favor. Science does nearly everything without input  of any kind from us so why we feel the need to excuse them is beyond me.

[Twist]

It’s starting to seem to me that the supposed evidence we have is not enough to get the ball rolling any more than it already has.  We can scream all day about a finger bone that lead to a discovery but we cannot even produce that in regards to a creature that supposedly inhabits most of North America currently.    

 

The biggest claim of evidence we have, sightings, are detrimental to our argument.  We expect them to believe that BF is damn near everywhere yet leaves virtually no tangible, verifiable, repeatable evidence.  That’s egg on our face as a community.

 

I don’t want to hear about the secret evidence in private collections, the vids or pics that may exist etc.  We do not produce the goods.