What Would Be The Ramifications Of Bigfoot Discovery

[SWWASAS]

As we see in this area of SW WA,   the State owns a lot of the forest to the West of the Gifford Pinchot national forest.  .   State forest was what was logged and displaced my bigfoot group in my research area.    Logging swept through the area and very little was not clearcut.   Several very popular hiking, biking, and horse riding trails were completely cleared of timber.   No attempts were made to create forested corridors along the trails.    Because of the location away from the Seattle area environmental interests,   it largely went unnoticed without protest.   It was basically a demonstration of state greed.     The only place that was not clear cut was a 10 acre patch of forest that was designated Special Forest Management Area.   That just happened to be the epicenter of all bigfoot activity in my research area.    I asked the state about the area and never received an answer.    I can well imagine that if the state knew of the presence of BF in that section of forest, they did not want it known and prevent the logging.    If the 10 acre plot was an attempt to protect the BF residents, it was not enough.    When the clear cutting ended,  the plot was completely surrounded by clear cut and movement in and out of the 10 acre plot had no cover.     Within days of the last logging,   all signs of BF activity ended.     Before that I was finding footprints about every other month and having contact with the family group.      I have no idea where they went.    I suspect East into the Gifford Pinchot but have no evidence of that.  Certainly there is far less logging in the National Forest.  

[hiflier]

IF Bigfoot discovery/disclosure occurred through scientific investigation, assuming it hasn't already taken place, what would be the defining studies look like for making decisions about setting aside any habitat (anywhere). Initially, it would make sense to immediately create a research zone around the area where the creature was discovered. But where do all the reports in the databases then come into play? There have been reports for decades from many, if not all, North American states and provinces. Thousands of reports. Would those reports all of a sudden become relevant? Would any scientific community even bring them up? One can only imagine that any discussion on those reports being true or not would enter a phase where acknowledging the risk of extending the scope of possible habitat based solely on reports would be dangerous territory.

 

Reason being, the broadening of any economic impacts could see markets take a financial hit in resource extraction futures, or in businesses revolving around big-ticket consumer items like mechanized "toys" and camping gear/supplies. Just the camping gear/supplies alone along with clothing, could put a fair dent in revenues. The more one thinks about how the economic fallout could ripple through so many areas of only the revenue hit outdoor recreation in any form would take is enough to reason why the reality of a Bigfoot existence could never be allowed to happen.

 

Bigfoot researchers and investigators, even being the relatively small group that they are compared to the size of outdoor activities and general tourism, still collectively spend a chunk of change on upgrading camping gear, vehicles, electronics, firearms and who knows what else. And even though small, their contributions to the economy need to be taken into account in the revenue stream.  

 

@SWWASAS Your story is one that is well known. And it says a lot about two things: 1) State, scientific, and maybe even corporate knowledge of the creatures and their habitat. Or 2) no knowledge because of the stigmas generated by policies an programs designed to wreck lives and careers should any eyes be turned in the creature's direction. NOW< this is absolute speculation. This whole thread is really, until proof of BF existence is somehow acquire- in spit of any social or professional/official pressure to keep away from the subject. Or at least look like they are keeping away. My own thinking is that the perception that science doesn't deal with Sasquatch is more of an illusion than a reality.

 

I do have a question though, I forgot which agency installed the sign claiming your research area was now a wildlife management zone?   

  

Edited May 25, 2020 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

.......So, Sasquatch. Sustainable population? One would think so since there are knowers even here on the Forum. And yet, officially anyway, a complete, or nearly complete, non addressing of the subject- one way or another. The "one way or another" brings up a matter which seems strangly expected on the surface but probably not in reality. It seems expected that government would interfere, or actively try to stop, research aimed at disclosure. Claimed ruining of scientific reputations, or other kinds of pressures brought to bear on anyone, or any institution, for investigating the Bigfoot subject scientifically or otherwise. Which I assume is meant to eliminate the very ramifications we are discussing........

 

In The Nature of the Beast Sykes starts off with a chapter on "the last Neanderthal". It's a fictional imagination of the death of the last Neandeerthal man. He explains that this reality has captures his imagination, he always wanted to write a book on the subject, and this new found interest in extant hominins us his expression of that last Neanderthal. 

 

I believe we are living during the era of the final decline and extinction of sasquatches. This decline has been ongoing, but the point of no return is imminent. I'm guessing that the species has perhaps a century or three left worldwide. 

 

I also believe government knows this and is simply letting it happen. It's similar to the new attitude toward forest fires; let it burn and focus on saving structures if possible. Let nature run its course.

 

Of course, since these creatures might be able to successfully mate with us, their full extinction can be averted, but the Zana story shows that her hybrid children are so close to being like everybody else that they're just considered strange people, which we have aplenty anyway.

 

Government might have already stored their dna, anyway. I've heard conspiracy theories of UFO crafts and extraterrestrial carcasses and live prisoners at facilities at Area 51 and Wright-Patterson AFB since the early 1970's, so who knows? When you're talking about government, nothing can be discounted.

 

........Shall we move on from Natural Science? Not that I'm ready to but there is a lot of ground to cover still. Such as any impacts on religious or philosophical grounds? Some say having another hominin on the block could tip the scales on current religious party lines regarding Man's place on this planet. But then a single visit by a UFO full of ET's or their robots would do the same thing? But in the case of the Bigfoots reality, we could have all it would take to shake things up within the various denominations of the world. Personally I think religions will work out a way to maintain Man's position as the Alpha lord over the animal kingdom by simply promoting Sasquatch as a dumb ape. Marvelous yes, but dumb and more than likely a creature without a soul........

 

The discovery of the gorilla in 1856, combined with the Darwin publications of 1859 and 1871 of On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, pretty much deflated the balloon you're thinking of. The Scopes Monkey Trials culminated the revolution started by Darwin with the transfer of power government acquired from religion in 1925; primary education. From that point forward, some 95 years now, there has been no looking back. In essence, religion is going extinct faster than sasquatches are. An extant primitive human species will be a flash in the religious pan amounting to nothing.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

I believe we are living during the era of the final decline and extinction of sasquatches. This decline has been ongoing, but the point of no return is imminent. I'm guessing that the species has perhaps a century or three left worldwide. 

 

I also believe government knows this and is simply letting it happen. It's similar to the new attitude toward forest fires; let it burn and focus on saving structures if possible. Let nature run its course.

 

The reason I've been running around the Forum pushing so hard on this e-DNA stuff is because I strongly think that BF has a lot less time than you surmise. I don't think they'll make it to the year 2100. That time frame would see a generation and a half of them naturally die off. Would enough offspring follow to keep the species viable without somehow enforcing laws regarding habitats? There's just to much going against them and under today's environmental oversights and rollbacks I don't see them having much of a chance. A few good fires or a volcanic eruption could ring the death knell. As it is, even if e-DNA got put into motion for some unexpected reason, it would take 10-20 years of study, not only of them but of the environmental needs that they require. By that time.... 

 

In light of that, I agree with the second half of the quote. To comment on your forest fire statement: letting fires burn is the cheapest way to get rid of the fuel that's been collecting under the canopies for many decades. New growth does mean new food sources for grazing and foraging though.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

The reason I've been running around the Forum pushing so hard on this e-DNA stuff is because I strongly think that BF has a lot less time than you surmise. I don't think they'll make it to the year 2100. That time frame would see a generation and a half of them naturally die off. Would enough offspring follow to keep the species viable without somehow enforcing laws regarding habitats? There's just to much going against them and under today's environmental oversights and rollbacks I don't see them having much of a chance.........

 

Perhaps, but I don't think they're dead yet. Most early sasquatch researchers have put their numbers from a low of 800-1200 and highs of 5000-50,000, and these estimates started during the 1970's, after the PG film event. That doesn't include Asia. My own guesstimate is 5000 in North America. I'd also guesstimate that 150 years ago, the population wasn't a whole bunch greater, indicating the likelihood that they are simply a low density creature.  

 

There is A LOT of excellent habitat in Canada, and it is still sparsely populated by people. From the Cassiar Hwy in British Columbia west to the coast and east to the Alaska Highway is just a portion of that wilderness, and that is larger than many nations on Earth. There could be an army of sasquatches in there, and probably is. I'm fully confident that the last remnant population of sasquatches could live there for a few centuries.

[hiflier]

I hope you're right on the species longevity question. Pretty good post overall. I also don't think they are dead yet, otherwise I wouldn't bother with the types of endeavors I've chosen to undertake, or have the conviction of at least some success for those efforts. Which opens the door to the question of whether or not something will come along to stop me in my tracks. So far I'm still pretty much still knocking at the various door of science. I am also pretty sure that not all of them are locked. If one opens and I step through? That's when things will get interesting.

 

One of the things that keeps nagging me is this: Government has left things to chance. Maybe too much to chance. A possible program of intimidation on different levels, or shall I say "incentives" for people to not work on the existence issue so far seems to be all that is needed. But it leaves things pretty open in certain ways. The chance encounter, the occasional road crossing, the footprint finds, and other matters tells me that everything is not exactly under control. There are loose ends. It makes discovery pretty much a gamble and implied threats to careers and other types of reputational pressures do not guarantee against the finding of a dead Sasquatch, or some other kind of solid evidence.

 

Discussions abound regarding finding a deceased specimen somewhere and how to deal with it. Asking scientific oriented questions to scientists is another path which could result in some important answers regarding methodologies in the field. I think things like those leave chinks in the armor that could drive the subject forward. Even areas suspected of being restricted or closed off due to Sasquatch activity aren't permanent for a creature that moves around. In the respect there are opportunities that are difficult to control. And I think those opportunities generally weigh in our favor. I think we all sense this rather than verbalize it which is why folks still go out looking.  

Edited May 26, 2020 by hiflier

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

.......One of the things that keeps nagging me is this: Government has left things to chance. Maybe too much to chance. A possible program of intimidation on different levels, or shall I say "incentives" for people to not work on the existence issue so far seems to be all that is needed. But it leaves things pretty open in certain ways. The chance encounter, the occasional road crossing, the footprint finds, and other matters tells me that everything is not exactly under control. There are loose ends. It makes discovery pretty much a gamble and implied threats to careers and other types of reputational pressures do not guarantee against the finding of a dead Sasquatch, or some other kind of solid evidence........

 

I don't think there is an aggressive government coverup going on like there might/would be regarding extraterrestrial visitors. They simply discourage recognition internally, and that sets the tone among personnel. With regard to the public, their loving patsies (media) take care of that for them with a similar, condescending attitude, which discourages people from even openly reporting encounters. Remember John Greene's 2006 interview with Gerry Matthews:

 

http://www.bigfootproject.org/interviews/john_green.html

 

........BIP: How about hoaxers in general. Do they do any damage to the public's perception of bigfoot?

 

JG: Well, the media reaction certainly does. We've gone over the years through a phase where anything about this was news to where anyone who was doing something about it was news to where the only news nowadays is when people claim to have proven it's all a hoax.

 

BIP: Yes, I was going to ask you about that -

 

JG: Oh, I missed one phase. There was a phase there when any scientist who showed an interest was news. We've now reached the extreme where some of the world's very top people in the relevant fields are very interested and are saying publicly that there should be proper investigation and this is not news. The only thing that's news is that the whole thing has proved to be a fake. The demonstration of that is very clear when this absolute nonsense story about Ray Wallace faking all the foot prints went all around the world in exactly the same time period the Denver Post ran a major article and sidebars on these key scientists who were saying it should be investigated, the Associated Press wouldn't even carry the story. It never went anywhere beyond Denver. To me as a newspaper man, this is absolutely shocking. I tried to contact some of those at Columbia University's long-established graduate school of journalism who keep a tab on the press and the response was, "Nobody here is interested in taking this up." In other words, for 40 years we've been butting our heads against a barrier manned by the scientists saying there can't be any such thing. Now they're stepping away from the ramparts and the media is stepping up to take their place. Absolutely fascinating. The media is seeing to it that this heresy does not get to the public.........

 

[hiflier]

Yes, I've read that interview several times over the last few years and have even commented along with others about the smirks, snickers and eye rolling in the media's ranks. Not only that but if a report does make it to the media, even if the anchors treat it somewhat level, there's NEVER a follow up on what, if any, investigations might turn up. The Olympic Peninsula nests are a fine case in point. The discovery hit some mainstream outlets which placed it in the public eye and then......nothing, no follow up, no announcements from the WADNR or any scientists or biologists who investigated the site. And certainly no report talking about the application of e-DNA to the site and the results from running the samples. So yeah, things are not that great out there.

[hiflier]

A while back I did some rough calculations. I researched things like revenues from the tourist industry regarding National Parks, which including camping, revenues from timber harvesting, mining and other resource activities, and other things like recreational vehicles and hunting. It was difficult to nail down exact figures because government has a way of list these thing in ways that look informative and yet they're not, so I was left with general estimates. But even if on the low side, there is no question that total revenues are astronomical. Minimum? A trillion dollars annually- could even be as much as 2-3 trillion. That's a fairly large take and a fairly large monetary range resulting from looking at the virtually labyrinthine breakdown of the various budgets of each industry. It's almost like the public gets an answer, without really getting an answer

 

Bottom line is it's a huge pile of money with millions of stakeholders and stock market permutations, overseas sales, BLM contracts and leases, and who knows how much private interest monies that we may never know about. Would public disclosure of the Bigfoot's existence impact any of that? All of that? Temporarily? Or in some cases permanently? And if so, would it be a driving factor to somehow make sure that disclosure becomes an impossibility outcome?

 

But more importantly, would there still be a way, or ways, to slice through a possible program that seeks to hide the truth of existence? Or could it be like other things, like alcohol and cannabis, where there are illegalities and prohibitions involved until the ability to funnel revenues from the discovery could be instituted to guarantee that any monies, once again, can be forced to the top? As in the government along with private investors benefit financially from the discovery? Would even science benefit by the sudden availability of funding to institutions to study the creature. Does anyone think any of these things have already been worked out behind the scenes just in case someone happens to be successful in getting a specimen in one form or another into the public eye? If things have already been economically prepared for profit would government itself all of a sudden announce Sasquatch existence as if it was some kind of new discovery when it knew all along that it was already real?

 

Credit where credit is due on the last paragraph: It was SWWASAS in another thread that brought up the point that some corporations may see Bigfoot as a profitable enterprise and so facilitate discovery and study all on their own.  

Edited May 26, 2020 by hiflier

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

........if a report does make it to the media, even if the anchors treat it somewhat level, there's NEVER a follow up on what, if any, investigations might turn up. The Olympic Peninsula nests are a fine case in point. The discovery hit some mainstream outlets which placed it in the public eye and then......nothing, no follow up, no announcements from the WADNR or any scientists or biologists who investigated the site. And certainly no report talking about the application of e-DNA to the site and the results from running the samples.........

 

News editors consider sasquatchery similar to small town mayors; it's entertainment. The stuff to build a festival on to make a few bucks. 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

........It was SWWASAS in another thread that brought up the point that some corporations may see Bigfoot as a profitable enterprise and so facilitate discovery and study all on their own.  

 

That could be occurring right now covertly, and probably is. I've commented several times on the "disappearance" of a few formally active participants on this forum, and I'm quite confident they are still active in sasquatchery. They just went dark.

[hiflier]

Speaking of "dark" I found it interesting that even though the OP nest site made it to a bit of mainstream, my state F&W hadn't heard of the find even nearly fours years later. The animal behaviorist I spoke to last February hadn't either. To me it was an important discovery which started me on the e-DNA road in an effort to educate myself on the technology. The rest of my story on that is well known history around here and I'm not finished with it yet by any means. That said, it  begs the question of how it is that my own F&W (and others?) and much of academia pertinent to the subject never received the news?

 

I spoke to a professor last summer who is, or was, a staunch believer in the existence of the creature and stated back in 2013 that he was convinced Patty was a real Sasquatch. But he wasn't aware of the nest find either. Across the board, I find the lack of knowledge about this discovery a bit disturbing. But it does bring me to the phenomenon's reflection on society's knowledge as a whole and how much information gets squashed simply by having no one publicly mention such things at a level that would make a difference. In the general sense, It pretty much succeeds in keeping public pressure off officials because if people don't know, just like anything else, they won't be I a position to do anything. Knowledge is power, but in truth, holding back knowledge is even more powerful. 

[Huntster]

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Speaking of "dark" I found it interesting that even though the OP nest site made it to a bit of mainstream, my state F&W hadn't heard of the find even nearly fours years later. The animal behaviorist I spoke to last February hadn't either. To me it was an important discovery which started me on the e-DNA road in an effort to educate myself on the technology. The rest of my story on that is well known history around here and I'm not finished with it yet by any means. That said, it  begs the question of how it is that my own F&W (and others?) and much of academia pertinent to the subject never received the news?

 

I spoke to a professor last summer who is, or was, a staunch believer in the existence of the creature and stated back in 2013 that he was convinced Patty was a real Sasquatch. But he wasn't aware of the nest find either. Across the board, I find the lack of knowledge about this discovery a bit disturbing..........

 

Think about this strategically:

 

Why bring government fish and wildlife officials in on any work you do on this subject if you don't have a legal requirement to do so?

 

This is especially so when all public information clearly demonstrates their refusal to acknowledge the existence of these creatures. Put another way, do you need a permit to study mermaids in coastal waters or unicorns on national forest lands? Perhaps it's best to use their chosen ideology against them?

 

Moreover, you now have science on your side in theorizing that these creatures are human. While Sykes study of Zana is not yet peer reviewed, it comes with scientific authority that can be used to defend ones activities on public lands without the legal or regulatory requirement of permitting from fish and game authorities. One only need to deal with the land manager for access, not the study of wildlife.

 

I find the absence of fish and game authorities in active research refreshing, appropriate, and sweet justice. They have chosen this absence. The researchers need to make it as complete as possible, and I believe several serious and qualified researchers from the past have figured that out.

[hiflier]

You make a good point on being able to study these creatures since they are considered to not exist. The word I got though was that it isn't a "recognized species". Which is gov-speak I know but it does leave the legal door open for agencies who will not admit non-existence. I did have one instance though where it was stated to my face, "there ain't none". Found that interesting to hear.

 

But even today, when a percentage of the population thing the creatures are real, one has to be careful of how one approaches institutions or the people within them. I find I'm more comfortable framing my scientific question as...well...scientific questions based in, and on, science's own knowledge and current technology. And that's fine for me and perhaps someone else but even if I get answers to questions I will still be a long way from the application of them in the "real" world.

 

So back to ramifications of discovery. You, as a highly seasoned hunter, must have maybe weighed the impact on the hunting industry should proof of Sasquatch existence occur, even if discovery was far away from your locale. If a Sasquatch was proved to exist, say, in Kentucky, how far do you think the impact would reach into the hunting world? I think what we need is a good solid general picture in all fields in order to build the case against the possibility that public disclosure would be eve allowed. Because I think that might be the best way for folks to see their way through some kind of plan or method to beat the odds. Digging up everything that disclosure could possibly affect could provide some clarity on any likely scenarios that might, for lack of a better term, circumvent the "system".

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

You make a good point on being able to study these creatures since they are considered to not exist. The word I got though was that it isn't a "recognized species". Which is gov-speak I know but it does leave the legal door open for agencies who will not admit non-existence. I did have one instance though where it was stated to my face, "there ain't none". Found that interesting to hear........

 

"Not a recognized species".........yeah, that's some tell-all government-speak if I ever heard any. As a retired government official, let me translate:

 

"Yeah, they're out there, but we aren't saying what they are."

 

There's another check toward confirming that they're human.

 

.......So back to ramifications of discovery. You, as a highly seasoned hunter, must have maybe weighed the impact on the hunting industry should proof of Sasquatch existence occur, even if discovery was far away from your locale. If a Sasquatch was proved to exist, say, in Kentucky, how far do you think the impact would reach into the hunting world?........

 

This is a huge aspect, and I find it interesting that you used Kentucky in your question. Let me explain:

 

East of the Rocky Mountains, public lands set aside as wildlife habitat tends to be fewer and much smaller in size than similar lands within and west of the Rockies, and especially in Alaska, where over half of all national park lands in terms of acreage is, not to mention national forests, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, etc, ad nauseam. Thus, any lands to be set aside east of the Rockies for either a new found, wild human species or new found North American ape is going to be economically and legally painful, to say the least. It might very well impact private property ownership rights in a large degree.

 

Not as much in the West and Alaska, where huge areas are already set aside, and indeed, these are the very areas where sasquatch activity is already documented as the highest.

 

As far as hunting goes, it hasn't been a factor in sasquatch decline, anyway, at least as far as government can show. If it was, we'd have a dead sasquatch or two turned in to fish and game authorities every few years.

 

But I can see one huge change upon discovery;

 

The sudden shouldering in of the environmental industry who, up to today, has been even more quiet about this phenomenon than government, if that was even possible. Little Bo Peep will get loud, boisterous, and assertive mere moments after "discovery" as if they've been leading the charge all along in "saving the sasquatch". "Donate here!" Will be inserted in all environmental websites, and that money will be used to pay lawyers to save Patty's progeny from the evil Huntster and his big, bad 338 WinMag Alaskan Special. 

 

Completely silent today, moments after discovery the environmental industry will charge in to claim its rightful authority to dictate policy to you, me, government, and all future humanity.

[hiflier]

I mentioned Kentucky specifically because of reported on-going activity in the area of the Daniel Boone National Forest which spans southern west central Kentucky and north central Tennessee.  Also because of activity in the Great Smokies.. And you're right, hunting doesn't seem to have impacted the sightings report although I haven't see any correlations concerning hunting season areas that have resulted in encounters in places around those areas- like something that may indicate Sasquatches vacating seasonal hunting regions. Many hunters don't venture too far from their vehicles anyway so it's probably not a statistic that would show much.

 

So, okay, paying closer attention to gov-speak could be a clue, intentionally ambiguous, or not, as it may be. So in Maine, one rather blatant "there ain't none, and one tentative, "we're not sure they don't exist" (null hypothesis). The first from Land Management, and the second from a state biologist. Hey, at least I try, right. Others here do as well but, like me, it has been pretty much a one-on-one dialogue situation. I figure as long as I receive answers like those then there should be no harm in asking, although in the second case, I'm fairly sure I'm on official record. I really don't care about that because I think it's more important to have someone looking over their shoulder because....I may not have quite gone away yet  At least I have names now.

 

Shall we move onto science? Mainly because there have been people we know of now, as well as those in the past, who are well known. Dr. Grover Krantz, Dr. John Bindernagle, Dr. Wilhelm Henner Fahrenbach, Dr. Bernard Heulvelmans and others who have all passed away, and our current one in the public eye and who seem to always be the ones media turns too. I've read so many interviews by Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum and Dr. Todd Disotell and I would like to say something about it. In all those interviews it's hard to tell one from another even when separated by years with different interviewers. Their respective dialogues are almost never changing. Same thing said to the public day in and day out. Probably the same things said at conferences, too. And now, enter a new dialogue: That of Dr. Mireya Mayor- now doing conferences as well? Don't they know they would make a hundred times as much money if they discovered and proved that Sasquatch was real? In Dr. Mayor's case, is she still out there researching or was the "Expedition: Bigfoot" show her flash in the pan?

Edited May 26, 2020 by hiflier