Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Re: the JREF million dollar challenge. Bigfoot is not a paranormal claim and therefore does not fall under the purview of the challenge: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." Not that im a ghost hunter/believer, But " In all cases, the JREF will determine whether the submission is acceptable." that is pretty easy to get off the hook, paying on any claim. That's like someone offering a million dollars if they can prove to them that they are the best cat juggler in the world. "that's great you can juggle 12 of them, but i don't believe that you are the best." Edited June 23, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 But why would "the government" be any more likely to recover a body than you or me? It's vastly more likely that if a bigfoot body is ever recovered, it'll be by a civilian than by a federal employee. What's more, even that hypothetical federal employee would need to be fully trained in the "bigfoot coverup protocol" before posting the photo to his Facebook page and letting hundreds of people gain access to it before someone high enough up in the hierarchy would even hear about it to attempt to squelch the story. It's just untenable that "the government" would have any ability to police the discovery of something like a bigfoot. The government has the power to do whatever it wants to do. Relevent case in point, the T-Rex fossil named "Sue". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I believe that the average person, confronted with a dead body that is recognizably a bigfoot, wants nothing to do with it. If it's a problem, they call the police, dog catcher, etc. re: environmental lobby influence, you should consider joining the premium portion of the site. There's plenty there to read. Edited June 23, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Saskeptic is making the right point. It's not about how secure or porous the security of the US Govt/military is, it's about how they can prevent Joe the Trucker from piling into a sasquatch on a lonely stretch of Oregon highway and posting pics etc. to the world in seconds. I believe that secrets CAN be kept by government agencies, but they have to be ones totally under the control of those agencies. Not to be crude, but when the President (Bill Clinton) has to admit sexual indiscretions which occurred between him and ONE other person it's an indication that the only secrets which stay clandestine are those in which everyone buys into the vow of silence. Too long: didn't read? What's to stop me going to Norcal/Oregon/WA and filming/capturing/killing a sasquatch and blitzing it across the media? You cannot keep animals secret. And the Forest Service shows up and takes the body, the pics either get deleted from the net or get poo-poohed by "scientists" as "hoaxes", leaving you with no body, maybe a couple of pics, if any that are roundly denounced as "hoaxes". Not so hard to understand. It's called Damage or Information control. Not that im a ghost hunter/believer, But that is pretty easy to get off the hook, paying on any claim. That's like someone offering a million dollars if they can prove to them that they are the best cat juggler in the world. "that's great you can juggle 12 of them, but i don't believe that you are the best." Yep. The "Million Dollar Challenge" is deliberately structured so as to be un-winnable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Oh and yes, the hypothetical body I drive my car into might get carted off by the feds, but I could cut off a hand, film the corpse, carve off a steak etc. in seconds and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me, mainly because of the speed at which I can get these things out there. Unlike new weapons and submarine launch codes, this is about wildlife many people on this site say they've seen. As we know, to see a bigfoot you need to go into a forest and not find it, because it'll find you. It's the opposite of secret. Although that doesn't mean it's proved. I've heard on tale about bigfoot witnesses who've had 'evidence' and research take from their home, (in Thom Powell's book 'The Locals', if memory serves) but it's not a recurrring theme on this site. If there was a government requirement to silence witnesses of a natural mammal living in North America, surely this site would be awash with reports of Men In Black warning us not to stumble around the Gifford Pinchot National Forest every weekend. I dunno if there's a bigfoot. But I'll bet you my daughter and my enlarged liver there isn't a government cover-up about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 You know, when my mind starts imagining how great our technology is, and some of it really is pretty nifty, my mind usually does it's own reality check by reminding me of prostate exams and colonoscopies. When a doctor has to stick his finger you know where, it tends to make me think that they really can't find a house in the middle of a dessert even if they flew over it with a helicopter! LOL, they keep the studebaker technology for us common folk...and as far as our wonderful medical science goes they always take the scenic route so they can get as much of your money as possible before you become a statistic. "We're THIS close to a cure" is a 50 y/o BS slogan and it seems like the search for BF has stagnated similarly....new tracks, new blurry shaky clips, new eye witnesses...but at the end of the day same old same old. Was really hoping Ketchum would finally break the ice but even this seems to have hit a wall.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 A follow up to the potential for government suppression (not necessarily a "cover up" or "conspiracy" per se)... Yesterday I came across this series of articles in the Yakima newspaper (so far 2 out of a 6 part series): http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/31867-believe-it-or-not-yes-or-no-opinions-about-sasquatch’s-existence-are-rarely-gray-1st-of-6-part-series/ Last night I read a comment on the 2nd article, but when I went back to post it as an example that comment was gone. The gist of the comment was that a tribal policeman was getting flak from his superiors about following up on people reporting sasquatch activity. He was told to stop reporting it in the formal paperwork because it would then lead to the tribal government having to make large tracts of land off limits to timber harvest. Interesting that that comment would disappear... I think the key aspect if there is any issues with government suppression of knowledge about BF it would have to do with setting aside land that includes logging, mining, and other natural resources. I can certainly imagine the debate to come when formal recognition of the species is announced... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Getting back to what was said not far back, about Melba saying that sasquatch were contemporary humans. Not halfway between apes and humans, but humans. Lost tribe. That's a very interesting thing to consider. What happens to all of the ape proponents if her report comes out saying they are not apes, but humans? What happens to all of the ape sided arguments and theories? What about all of the opinionated research that has worked so hard to make Patty, for example, utterly non-human? Arms way too long, legs messed up, feet all out of whack, an ape head and face, biology that we are totally unfamiliar with. What happens with all of that if Melba declares sasquatches human, not ape, not halfway between, not ape-like at all in their DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 They can be a member of the human race, and still be radically physically different Tontar, thats the whole point, they are Human, with some genetic differences. Just like Neanderthal was Human, so could Bigfoot be. Yet again, I have to say, a toy terrier is a dog,so is a mastiff, or a Saint Bernard, they all share dog DNA,but they sure do not look alike. Patty may be Human, but the genes that carry the differences could alter how they look, and if you think that sounds far fetched, take the time to talk to a professional,because it is not as far fetched as some on here would attempt to say it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Thats's just a dumb statement, about Joe the Trucker ..... Just think back on this ..... How many Hunter's exiting the woods "on foot" have ever been documented to be hit by " Joe the Trucker "????? That's with several million hunters in the woods every year... Next subject .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) They can be a member of the human race, and still be radically physically different Tontar, thats the whole point, they are Human, with some genetic differences. Just like Neanderthal was Human, so could Bigfoot be. Yet again, I have to say, a toy terrier is a dog,so is a mastiff, or a Saint Bernard, they all share dog DNA,but they sure do not look alike. Patty may be Human, but the genes that carry the differences could alter how they look, and if you think that sounds far fetched, take the time to talk to a professional,because it is not as far fetched as some on here would attempt to say it is. If you took a person that had Gigantism and werewolf syndrome(highly unlikely to have both but perhaps a mutation that caused traits of both),he could easily pass as a bigfoot. He would look so different to everyone else in the world, human nature would make him reclusive. Edited June 23, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Getting back to what was said not far back, about Melba saying that sasquatch were contemporary humans. Sorry, I must be missing something.......Where and when did she say that? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Ummm...if the government was trying to cover up sasquatches wouldn't they have taken the hunter's story about killing two more seriously? I thought he reported the kills to Fish and Game but was just laughed at. Can somebody explain how the Government Cover-up and the Double Sasquatch Shootings and DNA samples from the "steak" can exist at the same time? One of them has to false, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Indeed. Every photo and film that folks have claimed to be Bigfoot should have been confiscated if the gov't was interested in suppressing such information and had the power to do so. Come on folks, that's an alarm clock you're hearing and a pot of coffee you're smelling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Sorry, I must be missing something.......Where and when did she say that? Mike She said it in the document that someone found. She clearly said they are Homo Sapiens that simply mutated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts