Government involvement

[Catmandoo]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

And the Nepal government actually sold a permit to search for the Yeti

"China has had government funded Yeren hunts."  I hope that they don't eat it.

The Nepal Government needs tourist dollars

Russians have promoted a hoax for tourist activity and it worked.

I haven't followed the Indian Army trackway event. When I looked at the images, I thought 'a bounding rabbit'.

[norseman]

15 hours ago, Chim Chim said:

How ironic that communist states fund expeditions and allow written accounts of them on the subject while the ‘bastion of freedom’ believes ridicule and suppression are the way to go.

Well? Like the Soviets? We may be funding research into it as well…..but in secret. 

[norseman]

15 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

"China has had government funded Yeren hunts."  I hope that they don't eat it.

The Nepal Government needs tourist dollars

Russians have promoted a hoax for tourist activity and it worked.

I haven't followed the Indian Army trackway event. When I looked at the images, I thought 'a bounding rabbit'.

Hairy man stir fry?🤮

 

A bounding rabbit at 14000 feet? The Japanese guy on the Josh Gates search documentary had video of the creature itself at 14000 feet. 

[Chim Chim]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

We may be funding research into it as well…..but in secret

If that’s the case then once again I want my tax money back, I don’t see how they can claim knowledge of it’s very existence is a national security issue.  

[norseman]

11 minutes ago, Chim Chim said:

If that’s the case then once again I want my tax money back, I don’t see how they can claim knowledge of it’s very existence is a national security issue.  

You and me both.

 

And it doesn't need to be a national security issue. There are more secrets back there and black budgets and skeletons in the closet to fill a football stadium.

 

Did you see my video in which the Smithsonian is exempt from FOIA requests and the Graves act? Gee I wonder why they have an exemption?🤨

[Huntster]

17 minutes ago, Chim Chim said:

………I don’t see how they can claim knowledge of its very existence is a national security issue.  

There’s more to government confidentiality than just national security.

[Catmandoo]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

Hairy man stir fry?🤮

 

A bounding rabbit at 14000 feet? The Japanese guy on the Josh Gates search documentary had video of the creature itself at 14000 feet. 

 

Thanks for the recap. I posted that I have not followed the Indian Army event. The images of tracks that I have seen did not show 'post holing'. I may or may not burn some time on the event. I might hop to it.

Yeren stir fry. Sweet & sour, one from column A and one from column B.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 

Thanks for the recap. I posted that I have not followed the Indian Army event. The images of tracks that I have seen did not show 'post holing'. I may or may not burn some time on the event. I might hop to it.

Yeren stir fry. Sweet & sour, one from column A and one from column B.

Just for you!👍

[Backdoc]

On 12/12/2023 at 3:07 PM, Huntster said:

There’s more to government confidentiality than just national security.

At times there are.    When we rank the concern, national security would be number one.   
 

but the issue here is Bigfoot where I’ll still submit the government doesn’t know for sure and won’t care until they do,   Only then will some small specific part of the government care:

 

DNR:   Don’t want idiots out there shooting each other

endangered species:   It’s near extinct

biological sciences:   Let’s study it as to what it is

 

 

Most other departments of government would give a dang.    

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

At times there are.    When we rank the concern, national security would be number one.   
 

but the issue here is Bigfoot where I’ll still submit the government doesn’t know for sure and won’t care until they do,   Only then will some small specific part of the government care:

 

DNR:   Don’t want idiots out there shooting each other

endangered species:   It’s near extinct

biological sciences:   Let’s study it as to what it is

 

 

Most other departments of government would give a dang.    

Then answers this.
 

Why is the Smithsonian exempt from FOIA requests and the Graves act? Surely nothing housed or archived in the Smithsonian is a threat to national security? And yet it IS exempt…. If Bigfoot bones are housed there? They will never see the light of day. If ancient Indian bones are housed there? Again they will never see the light of day. If the Lovelock giant bones are housed there? The Chapala lake Homo Erectus skull? Any inconvenient fossil find that upsets the establishment’s narrative? It’s a great rug to sweep under.

 

This is a perfect example of secrecy in government right in front of our faces….. with no rhyme or reason as to WHY it is there. 
 

But who knows? Maybe there is some think tank somewhere in DC that thinks the US population will lose its minds if it finds out the truth?
 

 

 

 

[Backdoc]

16 hours ago, norseman said:

Then answers this.
 

Why is the Smithsonian exempt from FOIA requests and the Graves act?

 

 

Something can be true but not true for the reasons we might think, hope, wish, or fear it is true.   If this exemption is so, then why do they say it is so.  If a person looks at the legislative history of some act that becomes law, there are reasons listed around the history of debate as to why those at the time made the determination they did.   

 

 

16 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Surely nothing housed or archived in the Smithsonian is a threat to national security? And yet it IS exempt…. If Bigfoot bones are housed there?

 

The bones could be housed there in some vault or not.  The bones could exist or not exist.   It can also be those who made any exemption had a reason to do so having nothing at all to do with bigfoot and the like.   

 

Say someone sent some request for information from some entity about bigfoot.    Say the response is "we don't have any info on that and have no evidence in our procession or knowledge of bigfoot."

 

I would accept this esp. since this is what I expect anyway.  No matter what they said you would not accept this.   Not at all.    So what use is it anyway?  

 

 

16 hours ago, norseman said:

 

 

But who knows? Maybe there is some think tank somewhere in DC that thinks the US population will lose its minds if it finds out the truth?

 

 

If they drug a Bigfoot body out of the cage and into Times Square most would quickly move on.  Apart from curiosity and tweaking science there would not be any earthquake of ramifications.   In no time at all, everyone would move on.  

[norseman]

5 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

Something can be true but not true for the reasons we might think, hope, wish, or fear it is true.   If this exemption is so, then why do they say it is so.  If a person looks at the legislative history of some act that becomes law, there are reasons listed around the history of debate as to why those at the time made the determination they did.   

 

 

 

The bones could be housed there in some vault or not.  The bones could exist or not exist.   It can also be those who made any exemption had a reason to do so having nothing at all to do with bigfoot and the like.   

 

Say someone sent some request for information from some entity about bigfoot.    Say the response is "we don't have any info on that and have no evidence in our procession or knowledge of bigfoot."

 

I would accept this esp. since this is what I expect anyway.  No matter what they said you would not accept this.   Not at all.    So what use is it anyway?  

 

 

 

 

If they drug a Bigfoot body out of the cage and into Times Square most would quickly move on.  Apart from curiosity and tweaking science there would not be any earthquake of ramifications.   In no time at all, everyone would move on.  

It is so. It’s a fact. Why?

 

I bring up the exemption to refute your assertion that the government only keeps secrets in the name of national security. The Smithsonian isn’t in the business of national security….. 
 

That may be true or untrue. But your feelings on American reactions could be vastly different than the government, yes?

 

Boiled down to brass tacks? The government absolutely keeps secrets that could potentially affect any bones found in the US and turned into science. Which could potentially affect the subject of Bigfoot.

[norseman]

 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

.......Say someone sent some request for information from some entity about bigfoot.    Say the response is "we don't have any info on that and have no evidence in our procession or knowledge of bigfoot."

 

I would accept this esp. since this is what I expect anyway.  No matter what they said you would not accept this........

 

I would both expect that response and accept it as true, because if, for example, a post commander at Ft. Lewis some 60 years or so ago wanted to know what was going on on his post with these crazy reports from his soldiers and had one of these creatures shot, I do not believe he or the commanding general would send the carcass to the Smithsonian.

 

The issue would officially die just like that particular sasquatch (heck, the order to figure out what was happening wasn't even "official")...........but among certain circles, there would be conversations.

 

This is how things remain secret, as opposed to covered up, which tends to be an illegal act purposely cloaked over in conspiracy among the guilty parties.

[Backdoc]

Question:    When is NO an acceptable answer (and when can we believe it)?

 

If the government said they had no interest in Bigfoot that might be true. It might be their official position.   But it seems we would get the same exact answer if they DID have something to hide.  If they had something to hide, they are not going to admit. "Yea we are interested but we have a secret need to keep it secret."    

 

If they have NO interest legitimately the answer is NO

If they HAVE A HUGE INTEREST, they will still tell you the answer is NO.

 

How can we know if NO means NO?