Would Sasquatch Discovery Impact Revenues?

[hiflier]

12 hours ago, CelticKevin said:

Besides, budgeting is tight as it is....do you really think the congress would allow a USFS Division of Sasquatch Studies and Protection?

 

Allow me to clarify. The whole Studies and Protection idea only goes as far as Studies as it relates to revenue flow. And because of the likelihood of impacting revenue flow, i.e. Spotted Owl, A studies program would have to include monitoring and the possibility of the removal of nuisance Sasquatch that occur due to Human activities that uproot them. And that is my conclusion for covering the reports of unmarked vehicles, teams, and helo's removing Bigfoots from certain locations. And today's surveillance capabilities makes the job of tracking these creatures for that purpose much easier with quicker response times. And, depending on location and machine access, a dead one that is found, or one that was dispatched, could even possibly be buried on the spot. I put nothing past protecting against discovery in favor of high revenue benefits. High revenue meaning trillions of dollars. Funding a program of ameliorating any threats to that revenue would cost peanuts by comparison.

[Huntster]

10 hours ago, norseman said:

.......They should LOVE a giant primate roaming the west…......

 

We're not talking about a snail darter here. This is a hominin. A primitive human........with "basic human rights". The ultimate Native American, but more rare and endangered. "They were here first" kind of problem. 

 

Frankly, knowing government like I do, if they aren't actively and aggressively covering this up, I'd be shocked.

[hiflier]

Of course, I'm not the only one who has ever broached this subject, many have come before me,. Even way back when I ran the thread "Is Sasquatch A Secret?" there had been a bunch of folks who brought up the idea that there was a cover up of some sort. Like the Battle Mountain and Mount St. Helens stories. But as more folks step forward now with their stories the picture has come into sharper focus. Add in super high tech surveillance and the shift to timbering on private land and the idea becomes harder to make certain. But folks still claim to experience these creatures to this day so what else but hiding the truth makes any sense? And even if only TEN reports out of the four thousand reports in John Green's database were true, which hasn't been added to since the year 2000, it would still be enough to cause a stir.

 

There is no question that Patty was real. What does that even mean?? It should mean a great deal and shore up the point that there ARE efforts being made, and programs instituted, that are designed to hide the truth, mind blowing as it is in its implications and magnitude. One has to wonder, considering all that's riding on it, if exposing the truth might not be such a wise thing to do? Would exposing this creature to be real really be worth risking the economies of North America, and possibly elsewhere if those economies could be seen as lynch pins for national security? I just didn't want anyone to think that I've only considered on side of this issue.

 

Wouldn't it be great if governments said, "Look, this creature is real, we haven't said so because so much of our economies have depended on hiding that fact. We also needed to understand what to do about it and how best to handle things for the safety of our economy, our citizens, and these magnificent creatures. We have now figured out how to accomplish all of those things and feel that now is the right time to present the truth." 

 

I think everyone would get it even through their anger. So many would be vindicated as being right and not crazy that the public's relief may far outweigh it's anger. Personally. I think it would be a good time for governments to do just that. Then everyone can move on to more positive endeavors and......

 

......NAAAAAAAHHHH!

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by hiflier

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

We're not talking about a snail darter here. This is a hominin. A primitive human........with "basic human rights". The ultimate Native American, but more rare and endangered. "They were here first" kind of problem. 

 

Frankly, knowing government like I do, if they aren't actively and aggressively covering this up, I'd be shocked.

Thats got to be it. 

[hiflier]

What Dr. Meldrum, Bill Munns, and their graphic artist presented as "Patty is Real" means more on the public scale then folks may realize. It HAS to get more people thinking seriously about the state of things and what is really going on. At least one glaring question might be are there any creatures still around out there even if the viewers don't think beyond California or the PacNW. It could carry even more weight if the public could connect the nesting sites with that Patty video. If there ever was a time for researchers (as well as witnesses) to push for credibility it would be now.

Edited December 10, 2021 by hiflier

[Twist]

I think videos such as that do raise eyebrows and get peoples interest but it is short lived and not game changing.   It’s not going to make an impact like we would like to see.  To them it’s is just cleaning up a 50+ year old film.   To the general public it is still the same film.   
 

It’s going to take a clear as day modern video of excellent clarity to garner interest by the general public.  Even then the majority will not believe it and claim it a hoax.  

[hiflier]

You are probably right in saying that. I guess if it moves the needle a bit for skeptics that have spent time with the film then I see it as a positive step in the right direction. It may even get academics to look over their shoulders just a bit more? Those on the fence could really be shaking their heads. So not really a grand awakening as much as more open minds? Or perhaps questions about what may be really going on concerning the current state of the subject.

[MagniAesir]

The problem that many Americans forget, when they are talking about government coverup, is that we would not be talking about 1 Federal government.

At a minimum there would be 3 Federal governments involved, more if sasquatch reach into Central and South America or Asia.

You are also talking about a coverup that has lasted decades, without major leaks.

The Mexican cartels control the border like nobody else, imagine the money they would make off of a body or captured specimen, but where are they.

If there was a decades long coverup going on across all of North America. you don't think that China or Russia wouldn't have at least got a whiff of it by now, and they would like nothing better than exposing a secret like this, even if for no other reason than to embarrass us.

 

A coverup of this size would involve hundreds if not thousands of people over the last 50 years, and they have somehow guarded this secret, better than nuclear weapons. 

[hiflier]

I hear and understand what you are saying, MagniAesir, but it all depends on whether or not the creature is real or not. If not, then all of my points of argument fall flat with no substance beyond my own mental constructions. But if the creature IS real, and it sure looks like it is, then how else can such an incredible thing exist, procreate, get seen and reported, get investigated by officials, build intricate nests, get potentially caught on audio, have casts made from its tracks, and still not be known to the general public beyond snickerings from the media and a government that remains silent?

 

If this creature exists then, as I've said, everything about the subject must make some consistent sense. It doesn't, there are gaps in the picture, so there has to be interference in the truth. What that interference exactly is, or becomes, can be deduced. To exist as a myth and not yet be discovered is one thing. To be real and not yet be discovered- IN NORTH AMERICA- is entirely another matter. And he only thing that carries any weight is that the truth is actively being hidden. No animal is perfect, they all make mistakes and the Sasquatch is no different in that respect. But that also means that on occasion, like other large creatures, it ends up where it's not supposed to be. I am, therefore, convinced that on those occasions where the Sasquatch gets wayward of where it's supposed to be, it simply get taken away. If that didn't occur then the cat would really be out of the bag on a much larger scale.

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

.........One has to wonder, considering all that's riding on it, if exposing the truth might not be such a wise thing to do? Would exposing this creature to be real really be worth risking the economies of North America.......

 

I think it's far best for the sasquatches if most of humanity remained ignorant of their existence.

 

1 hour ago, MagniAesir said:

The problem that many Americans forget, when they are talking about government coverup, is that we would not be talking about 1 Federal government.

At a minimum there would be 3 Federal governments involved, more if sasquatch reach into Central and South America or Asia.

You are also talking about a coverup that has lasted decades, without major leaks........

.......If there was a decades long coverup going on across all of North America. you don't think that China or Russia wouldn't have at least got a whiff of it by now, and they would like nothing better than exposing a secret like this, even if for no other reason than to embarrass us.......

 

This official ignorance has to include the Chinese, Russians, Americans, Canadians, the Indians, and Nepal. It has only to be an active hush-hush for the 20th Century, and really only about half that. We know that 1967 was a pivotal year, since that's the year of the Patterson film and governments deafening silence about it. All the above governments have and/or have had BIG time problems with aboriginal peoples or ethnic minorities, and none want something like this to affect THEM, but not those nations of the southern hemisphere, or European nations who will not have this problem.

 

Quote

.........A coverup of this size would involve hundreds if not thousands of people over the last 50 years, and they have somehow guarded this secret, better than nuclear weapons. 

 

It doesn't have to involve many at all, and that's exactly the reason why it remains quiet. No money involved (like the defense industry), and no internal competition. 

[hiflier]

And too, no one knows the severity of the repercussions should someone on the "inside" publicly provide hard evidence of the creature's reality. And I have no doubt that there IS hard evidence to be had unless any evidence gets destroyed after its usefulness. There is a bottom line here after all that's been said. And that is whether or not there is any chance at all for producing the truth about Sasquatch existence- one way or another, real or not- in order to brake the stalemate that the government has more or less engineered and kept in place to this day.

[CelticKevin]

20 hours ago, norseman said:

I call bull.

 

They are stealing water rights right now over Bull trout. They are eating up rancher profits with the reintroduction of wolves. Look what’s going on down in the Klamath. 
 

The federal government uses the endangered species act like a big club against anything that stands in their way. Despite the fact that their Dams have destroyed 80-90% of the native spawning runs. Or the fact that they paid bounties on Wolves and Bull Trout in the middle of the last century. Or that the Hanford nuclear reservation leeches radiation into the Columbia river.

 

But they have no qualms about shutting down your water rights to irrigate your alfalfa field, to feed your livestock through the winter.

 

They should LOVE a giant primate roaming the west…. So because they pull the old “swamp gas” routine?
 

Tells me there is something else going on.

 

 

Well, we can agree to disagree. However, if you look at the number of times environmental groups have sued the federal government/USFS/USDFW for failing to protect endangered species that are tangible such as bull trout, lynx, spotted owl, certain frogs, etc....and for letting ranchers have their way with cattle trampling such wilderness and allowing hunters/recreational vehicles in such areas as well, I think you would find a bit of room for reasonable belief that they would not want to be subjected to another (or several) lawsuit(s) involving a Disneyfied hairy primate that has habitat all over the country. You think the feds should love a BF roaming the west? The environmental groups would be going batcrap crazy filing lawsuits to hold up EVERYTHING in wilderness areas and anywhere else a BF 'might" be. They'd sue to keep the thinning and fire prevention crews from doing their job as it would disrupt the habitat. Fire towers might be invasive....they gotta go along with ranger stations. I get what you're saying norseman...i grew up in cattle and timber country in SE Oregon (spotted owl and sage grouse anyone?). But i think BF is a double edged sword dangling over the heads of the USFS that would harm them as much as anyone else if they let the truth out.

[norseman]

6 hours ago, CelticKevin said:

Well, we can agree to disagree. However, if you look at the number of times environmental groups have sued the federal government/USFS/USDFW for failing to protect endangered species that are tangible such as bull trout, lynx, spotted owl, certain frogs, etc....and for letting ranchers have their way with cattle trampling such wilderness and allowing hunters/recreational vehicles in such areas as well, I think you would find a bit of room for reasonable belief that they would not want to be subjected to another (or several) lawsuit(s) involving a Disneyfied hairy primate that has habitat all over the country. You think the feds should love a BF roaming the west? The environmental groups would be going batcrap crazy filing lawsuits to hold up EVERYTHING in wilderness areas and anywhere else a BF 'might" be. They'd sue to keep the thinning and fire prevention crews from doing their job as it would disrupt the habitat. Fire towers might be invasive....they gotta go along with ranger stations. I get what you're saying norseman...i grew up in cattle and timber country in SE Oregon (spotted owl and sage grouse anyone?). But i think BF is a double edged sword dangling over the heads of the USFS that would harm them as much as anyone else if they let the truth out.

Cows and recreational vehicles are NOT allowed in wilderness areas…… guess again.

 

The frank church and the selway bitter root has airstrips grandfathered in. The Bob doesn’t even have that. It’s foot traffic or by pack animal. Same goes for the Wenaha Tucannon in Oregon. And every other wilderness area in the PAC NW. if you have evidence to the contrary I’d like to see it.
 

Maybe SE Oregon has some non greenie USFS employees working down there? Good for them. But the agency as a whole leans heavily to the hippie side of the equation. They would LOVE to cancel hundred year old grazing allotments and ban all motorized traffic off the forest. No problem.

 

I got told on the Colville NF I couldn’t ride my E Bike behind a locked USFS gate on a road made by a bulldozer….. I thought EV’s are green? Evidently not.

 

They are as a whole off their rocker. And the park service is even worse.

 

 

[CelticKevin]

6 hours ago, norseman said:

Cows and recreational vehicles are NOT allowed in wilderness areas…… guess again.

 

The frank church and the selway bitter root has airstrips grandfathered in. The Bob doesn’t even have that. It’s foot traffic or by pack animal. Same goes for the Wenaha Tucannon in Oregon. And every other wilderness area in the PAC NW. if you have evidence to the contrary I’d like to see it.
 

Maybe SE Oregon has some non greenie USFS employees working down there? Good for them. But the agency as a whole leans heavily to the hippie side of the equation. They would LOVE to cancel hundred year old grazing allotments and ban all motorized traffic off the forest. No problem.

 

I got told on the Colville NF I couldn’t ride my E Bike behind a locked USFS gate on a road made by a bulldozer….. I thought EV’s are green? Evidently not.

 

They are as a whole off their rocker. And the park service is even worse.

 

 

Yes...I know they are NOT allowed in wilderness areas. That doesn't mean they don't get in there or that they are turned a blind eye to.
EVs are green. But it basically comes down to the tires causing ruts and gouges in the landscape...even on a road made by a dozer. I do volunteer stewardship work in a wilderness area and believe me, I can't make heads or tails of what decision making went into what is okay and what isnt. Even something simple as going out and picking up trash can get you in trouble if you pick up the wrong stuff. 

[norseman]

9 minutes ago, CelticKevin said:

Yes...I know they are NOT allowed in wilderness areas. That doesn't mean they don't get in there or that they are turned a blind eye to.
EVs are green. But it basically comes down to the tires causing ruts and gouges in the landscape...even on a road made by a dozer. I do volunteer stewardship work in a wilderness area and believe me, I can't make heads or tails of what decision making went into what is okay and what isnt. Even something simple as going out and picking up trash can get you in trouble if you pick up the wrong stuff. 

In my experience? They are strict as all git out and don’t turn a blind eye.

 

https://apnews.com/article/7ed1e6953f245d2e1a64720c987a7aa3

 

I did volunteer work as well with the Back Country Horsemen. If they could kick us out despite us packing out their garbage, and fixing their log cabin, and cutting out their trail? They would….. The gal we worked for was a sweetheart don’t get me wrong.  But a mule can do way more damage to the flora than an E bike.

 

Truthfully I don’t think they want anyone in there. And by the looks of the trails in our wilderness areas they are abandoning them.