Government Coverup?

[Wooly Booger]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

A solid and logical conclusion. No cover up should have meant public knowledge of the creature's existence decades ago. Not the current official position of "unrecognized species." Because that would only lead to serious trouble for fed and state, both legally and socially.

Very true. If the government knows Sasquatch exists and there is no coverup, the species would have been scientifically documented and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

A better question might be, if the government knows these animals exist and there is no coverup, then why hasn't this species been recognized by science? Surely the government, if they know the species exists, would have made the knowledge public by now if there is no coverup. 

[hiflier]

Yep, good point.

 

After thinking about the concept of cover up one wonders if there are degrees or gray areas. Such as active or passive suppression. Active perhaps meaning physically removing animals, face to face coercion, secret memorandums forbidding research or acknowledgement, destroy evidence, and so forth. Or passive, meaning don't officially bring it up, don't officially react with dialogue, don't officially recognize the species, admit accepting reports but take no apparent follow up action, etc.. Because even a passive approach will set the example and send the message through the ranks.

 

If either policy is in place, or combination of the two, how might it play out for anyone getting close to the truth of the creature's existence. The program that applies to the active hunter bent on discovery may be quite different from a scientist who is applying technology on discovery. At what stage would a cover up effort kick in concerning an outright hunter as opposed to an outright effort in a lab? Where would an intervention in the hunting best be deployed? At what stage in the collection of a voucher specimen? Or at what stage in the process of verifying the species through DNA?

 

Because denying confirmation of existence would be the entire reason for a cover up, in whatever form, in the first place. So regarding each method for securing proof of existence, where would be the most likely place to break into the process in order to stop any chance of public disclosure?

Edited March 5, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

........I consider it likely that the U.S. and Canadian governments know that these creatures exist and a purposefully preventing discovery for both financial reasons and perhaps because of the potential dangers surrounding this species (Missing 411?)........

 

I believe that governments are primarily suppressing discovery, and actually covering up discovery on occasion, for many reasons that go well beyond just the financial reasons. Another primary reason is species relations, which would be Race Relations on steroids. All the governments involved (which likely include Russia, India, China, Canada, and the U.S.) have had centuries of racial and tribal problems that continue to this day, and to bring yet another faction into the legal fray is counterproductive to both the government as well as the more primitive species. 

 

The mere thought of the land claims discussion makes my head hurt. In fact, the more I think about it, the less I want them discovered, too.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

I go back and forth on a few theories… there just isn’t enough data to really come to a solid conclusion.  
 

My gut instinct is that they know that these things exist, and they don’t want their existence widely known for some reason.  The ‘government kill teams’ stories are intriguing, but seem too much like sensational creepypasta designed to get clicks.  As far as I know, anecdotal accounts  are the only evidence so far.  However, I admit that it could certainly be a possibility.  
 

Part of me believes that if a Sasquatch body was produced, some agency would swoop in and take control of the remains and the situation.  The real body would be taken away and a chimp/gorilla body would be produced…along with a story about the animal escaping from a research facility or an illegal private owner.  
 

I guess it isn’t that far of a stretch from that scenario to a 24/7 365 continent wide coverup.

Edited March 5, 2022 by BlackRockBigfoot

[wiiawiwb]

4 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Part of me believes that if a Sasquatch body was produced, some agency would swoop in and take control of the remains and the situation.  The real body would be taken away and a chimp/gorilla body would be produced…along with a story about the animal escaping from a research facility or an illegal private owner. 

 

I think that is it in a nutshell. Too much at stake to ever allow a dead-body discovery to occur. 

[hiflier]

8 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Part of me believes that if a Sasquatch body was produced, some agency would swoop in and take control of the remains and the situation.  The real body would be taken away and a chimp/gorilla body would be produced…along with a story about the animal escaping from a research facility or an illegal private owner

 

I could see that. With all of the monitoring/surveillance tech though, would an authority know if there were specific people talking or a planning such an operation ahead of time? Similar to how some operations get infiltrated by those sent undercover to keep an eye on a faction or cell? Oh yes, that kind of thinking is over the top for sure, unless one is talking only about monitoring communications or internet activity. If so then a plan by an individual or group could be over before anyone goes into the woods or a shot gets fired. If for some reason people succeed and a creature does get shot then Plan B, like quoted above kicks in. And if that fails then Plan C which would be to alter any scientific results should a body get that far in the plan and end up at a facility.

 

But if the BF specimen never sees the light of day, and is officially said to be a bear, then the shooter or shooters may go free. Unless the "bear" was taken out of season, or no bear hunting license/tag had been purchased, then prosecution proceedings would come into play. So, if you were the one in authority, at what point, with all of the resources at your disposal, would you attempt to upset a plan for hunt and discovery. At the beginning of the operation before it can get off the ground? In the middle of the operation while it is underway in the woods? Or at the end after a body is delivered to a facility?

Edited March 5, 2022 by hiflier

[Kiwakwe]

IMO, if they exist, and I'm pretty convinced they do, there is without doubt a cover-up. I'd gather active and passive methods are used depending on the evidence quality.

And my guess would be that yes, the BFF is perused for likely suspects, "meddling kids" out for proof or reports of activity.  If I was heading the agency that oversees all things BF, I'd have someone monitoring this place for sure.  

[hiflier]

So might this reach into something like keeping a close eye on NAWAC? Norseman? Or anyone else whose goal is to dispatch one of the creatures for scientific study? For that matter is scientific study no longer necessary and efforts in that direction would only be for PUBLIC disclosure? Because if TPTB have been in control of the situation one would think any studies have been already been done a long tome ago and perhaps are still ongoing. As far as grassing one? Unless it can be somehow done completely covertly by one who succeeds in becoming a digital ghost, completely under the radar, what would that leave as far as the goal of public disclosure?

 

A physical body can't be left in the woods with a body part or two missing because its discovery, or the possible knowledge of its death, could alert authorities. And then there would probably be maximum legal fines or incarceration for the person or persons involved. Unless a facility set up ahead of time has agreed to keep a specimen's delivery a secret, which seems a long shot, then what is the alternative for getting around a net set up to protect the lives of these creatures from harm?

 

Edited March 5, 2022 by hiflier

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I voted no simply because I don't think there is anything to cover up.

Of course if the creatures did exist then I have no doubt there could be an attempt to suppress the real evidence. 

However, I don't think that it could have not been leaked by now.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

.......But if the BF specimen never sees the light of day, and is officially said to be a bear, then the shooter or shooters may go free. Unless the "bear" was taken out of season, or no bear hunting license/tag had been purchased, then prosecution proceedings would come into play. So, if you were the one in authority, at what point, with all of the resources at your disposal, would you attempt to upset a plan for hunt and discovery. At the beginning of the operation before it can get off the ground? In the middle of the operation while it is underway in the woods? Or at the end after a body is delivered to a facility?

 

Your example of "bear" brings Smeja to mind. Those fish and feather cops acted like CIA spooks, AFAIC, but admittedly, all cops act that way now. But to this day we have not heard a single peep from the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife regarding the PGF film. No denial, no passing comment, no nothing. To me, that simply screams suspicion, especially since they have regular BS comments on everything else under the sun like the climate and social justice.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

17 hours ago, hiflier said:

Taking a peek at even a flimsy law of averages. None of the Fish and Wildlife agencies, or Fish and Game in ANY of the 50 states has ever run across this creature? None of the thousands of Game Wardens across the US and Canada has ever found any sign of them or seen one? These are all people who have the job of being in the woods checking hunters and traps and investigating dead animal reports and unusual animal predation. Doing bear den surveys in winter to collar and track them. And none have ever publicly reported finding prints or trackways of large bare Human-like feet? EVER? In, say, just the last 30-50years? Although everyday campers and hunters, not even professionals, report seeing such creatures? Because all of those points sure seems to be the reality we are supposed to believe. Well...do you?

You make a great case for non-existence.  😃 

17 hours ago, hiflier said:

Taking a peek at even a flimsy law of averages. None of the Fish and Wildlife agencies, or Fish and Game in ANY of the 50 states has ever run across this creature? None of the thousands of Game Wardens across the US and Canada has ever found any sign of them or seen one? These are all people who have the job of being in the woods checking hunters and traps and investigating dead animal reports and unusual animal predation. Doing bear den surveys in winter to collar and track them. And none have ever publicly reported finding prints or trackways of large bare Human-like feet? EVER? In, say, just the last 30-50years? Although everyday campers and hunters, not even professionals, report seeing such creatures? Because all of those points sure seems to be the reality we are supposed to believe. Well...do you?

You make a great case for non-existence.  😃 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

You make a great case for non-existence.  😃 

You make a great case for non-existence.  😃 

 

LOL, I guess you could look at it that way. So, we close down the Forum, see anyone and everyone in over 12,000 reports as liars, or they just cannot for some reason look at a bear and see that it's a bear, and just go our merry way. Patty isn't a bear, making the suit in 1967 was virtually impossible, and the width of her shoulders is 40% of her height. Members here have seen the creature. BobbyO, bipedalist, MIB, Dr. HV Hart, BC Witness, Salubrius, NorthWind and Madison, and quite a few others. What do you say to them? To have non-existence would requires some kind of an excuse to explain what they all say they saw.

 

But I think this tread will have to eventually come to terms on the lack of proof issue, because even WITH a cover up, one would think that SOMETHING in the way of proof found it way into the public eye. And that is where things could get really interesting.

 

Edited March 5, 2022 by hiflier

[Wooly Booger]

51 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

LOL, I guess you could look at it that way. So, we close down the Forum, see anyone and everyone in over 12,000 reports as liars, or they just cannot for some reason look at a bear and see that it's a bear, and just go our merry way. Patty isn't a bear, making the suit in 1967 was virtually impossible, and the width of her shoulders is 40% of her height. Members here have seen the creature. BobbyO, bipedalist, MIB, Dr. HV Hart, BC Witness, Salubrius, NorthWind and Madison, and quite a few others. What do you say to them? To have non-existence would requires some kind of an excuse to explain what they all say they saw.

 

But I think this tread will have to eventually come to terms on the lack of proof issue, because even WITH a cover up, one would think that SOMETHING in the way of proof found it way into the public eye. And that is where things could get really interesting.

 

Very good points. But I would argue that proof has caught the attention of the public. But most people just don’t realize it yet. The Patterson-Gimlin Film is proof. Thousands of eyewitness reports is proof, at least to the thousands that have seen the animal. DNA that has returned as unknown primate is proof. 
 

The problem isn’t the lack of proof, the problem is knowing how to recognize the proof that exists. There is more than enough evidence to prove Bigfoot’s existence in a court of law. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Wooly Booger
Gimlin! NOT Gilman! STUPID AUTOCORRECT!!!!! Arrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

[CelticKevin]

Never believe anything until it's been officially denied by the government.

[Huntster]

21 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

.......The Patterson-Gimlin Film is proof.........

 

I would counter that statement by calling the PG film conclusive evidence. Compelling evidence. Convincing evidence. Unambiguous evidence. Demonstrative evidence. Irrefutable evidence. Decisive evidence. All the "adjective" evidence that skoftics like to trot out as another word for the "proof" they demand, which is really a carcass, and which us illegal or legally risky to provide. 

 

Most importantly, the PG film is the precise evidence that should require a documented response from wildlife management agencies. Their universal silence on the film over the past half century is deafening. They should be required to respond, because they are legally responsible for the management of all non-human life on the continent, from insects to bison to polar bears. While numerous private individuals have enhanced and analyzed the PG film, they have remained perfectly silent. If private individuals are to provide proof in the form of a carcass, these agencies need to provide documented permission to do so.