The St. Helens Pilot

[Guest TooRisky]

He wasn't worried about his pension and his direct order of silence when he allegedly told Bobbie Short (and whoever else was with her) and his nephew.

Where can a person find Bobbie Short's account of the helicopter lift? All I can find is a short "she said" story recounted on a few websites. Is there a direct account from Bobbie?

Well Blackdog I do not have an answer, but an observation... Between the two flight's Bobbie took there was a serious and definite change in what information was passed and how it was told... The first flight the pilot did all the talking freely relating what he saw... The second flight the info was a canned recording over the intercom with no interaction between the pilot and passengers... So I am "Assuming" that some one higher up heard what the pilot(s) were revealing to the public and quickly made changes on what the public would hear...

Edited October 10, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest parnassus]

One big driver: The Endangered Species Act. Consider what happened with the so-called "Southern Spotted Owl". The timber interests would never stand for locking up the whole of the PNW (or any other region) as reserved habitat for BF.

Mulder,

so that would be what is ordinarily referred to as a conspiracy theory.

I can't help but notice the similarity to the allegations against the scientific community, and with even less evidence.

I don't see the government, the timber companies or science as being responsible for the lack of a bigfoot. I see the lack of a bigfoot as the cause.

Edited October 10, 2010 by parnassus

[Will]

Mulder,

so that would be what is ordinarily referred to as a conspiracy theory.

I can't help but notice the similarity to the allegations against the scientific community, and with even less evidence.

I don't see the government, the timber companies or science as being responsible for the lack of a bigfoot. I see the lack of a bigfoot as the cause.

I thought it was lack of investigation?

Maybe we just have no passion left in our scientific community, maybe there just lazy and want others to do the hard work for them.

Kind of seems like the times were in, does it not?

[Guest]

Mulder,

so that would be what is ordinarily referred to as a conspiracy theory.

No, what that would be is the way politics works. Corporation A gives campaign contributions to politician B who in turn tells government agency C to say or do something to benefit his/her corporate patron.

Happens every day.

I can't help but notice the similarity to the allegations against the scientific community, and with even less evidence.

Scientists are people with prejudices just like anyone else. Environmental scientists are probably the worst of the bunch because their alarmism brings in research dollars. That and it's **** near impossible to graduate from most universities these days without being thoroughly indoctrinated by the kookey left.

I don't see the government, the timber companies or science as being responsible for the lack of a bigfoot.

Maybe not the sole cause, but certainly not helping.

I see the lack of a bigfoot as the cause.

Once again...proof?

[Guest parnassus]

No, what that would be is the way politics works. Corporation A gives campaign contributions to politician B who in turn tells government agency C to say or do something to benefit his/her corporate patron.

Happens every day.

Scientists are people with prejudices just like anyone else. Environmental scientists are probably the worst of the bunch because their alarmism brings in research dollars. That and it's **** near impossible to graduate from most universities these days without being thoroughly indoctrinated by the kookey left.

Maybe not the sole cause, but certainly not helping.

Once again...proof?

proof is in the mind of the beholder of the evidence.

The 400 years of no physical evidence of bigfoot (even Meldrum doesn't consider "footprints" to be physical evidence) in NA are strong evidence. I believe they outweigh your conspiracy theories, lefty kooks, universities, scientists, governments, pilots, loggers, environmentalists. That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary. Do not operate in the bathtub.

[Guest TooRisky]

I disagree. It may be difficult to deliniate in a mathematically or grammatically precise manner, but there IS such a thing as "natural" vs "unnatural".

First, to dispense with the shibboleth that because man is an animal, and animals are a part of nature therefore everything man does is "natural" is circular logic and borderline rhetorical sophistry.

I'll ask forbearance in advance, I have to come at my concept sideways to make the point:

Two factors go into whether or not something is "natural" or "unnatural". The first is whether or not the thing or act is a product of self executing processes that operate without outside intervention based on the application of intellect.

Example: one plant pollenating another plant with windblown pollen or being pollenated by bees acting on instinct is "natural".

A plant being pollenated by hand by a person who deliberately chooses pollens to incorporate specific desired characteristics in the resulting plant is "unnatural". Even MORE "unnatural" is man gene-gineering the plant with completely foreign dna or artificial dna to induce desired characteristics (GM crops).

The second (and I hold more important) factor is "impact", for want of a better term.

Example: a predator wants to eat, so it hunts prey. In the hunting, it expends x amount of energy for y amount of food. There is a relatively stable relationship between X and Y, favoring Y slightly (or else the predator dies, as it expends more energy in the hunt than the resulting food gives back).

Now apply the effects of intelligence to artificially re-figure the x/y balance. At a primitive level, x amount of effort may yeild 1.5 times y food, instead of 1 y worth of food (chimps with sticks digging for ants). The environment can absorb this slight unnaturalness because it always maintains a surplus of y (which is why there is more plant biomass than animal biomass, and more plant eaters than meat eaters or omnivores). Furthermore, Y is a regenerative factor.

At the level of man, the y multiplier skyrockets dramatically from 1.5y to 15y, or 150y, or 1500y, and so forth. This is why societies with agriculture and animal husbandry can be larger than hunter/gatherer societies (the ability of fewer and fewer people to produce enough food for all). The problem lies in that that y multiplier has so far outstripped the surplus of y in the environment at any one moment in some cases, but also the ability of y to regenerate itself.

No amount of chimps with sticks are going to wipe out ants from the planet. But a relatively small number of men CAN wipe out a species because of their technological edge (as in the near elimination of the Buffalo, for example, or the idea that it was hunting pressure from early man that put an end to the mammoth or at a minimum greatly sped up the process).

Please note that in the above, I use numbers for illustrative purposes only. They are not the product of some mathematical formula (though I'm sure ecologists have such formulas).

Just Kudos Mulder on using the english language to have a maximum effect... I had to reach for the dicionary a couple times, but that is cool because learning the language is a wierd hobby of mine.

my 2 favorite are "Shibboleth" and "Sophistry", excellent words and the melding into the conversation is just beautiful...

shib·bo·leth (s̸hib′ə let̸h′, -lət̸h)

noun

1. the test word used by the men of Gilead to distinguish the escaping Ephraimites, who pronounced the initial (s̸h) as (s): Judg. 12:4-6
2. any test word or password
3. any phrase, custom, etc. distinctive of a particular party, class, etc.

soph·is·try (sÅfˈĭ-strÄ“)

noun pl. sophistries soph·is·tries

1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

[Guest]

^There's one usage of "shibboleth" that isn't in your dictionary that I've heard used fairly often, and was the sense that I was using it in:

an idea or arguement that is popular, widely used, and/or recurring despite obvious flaws and failings and/or refutation.

[Guest TooRisky]

^There's one usage of "shibboleth" that isn't in your dictionary that I've heard used fairly often, and was the sense that I was using it in:

an idea or arguement that is popular, widely used, and/or recurring despite obvious flaws and failings and/or refutation.

I think the 3rd definition covers what you are saying, though vaguely...

3) any phrase, custom, etc. distinctive of a particular party, class, etc.

Edited October 21, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest TooRisky]

Well as the author of this post to calls for me to bring forth what I have and to support my statements that I was related to and believe in the entire story of Sasquatch at Mt. St Helens... So do to the lack of skeptical response and the answers put forth by diligent computer researchers lets put this to bed as we are now commenting on proper English at this point... Lets us as a forum close but keep what has been said here open to view and read, heck someone may just pick up the torch and go forth. Me I am already convinced, and I have more things to get done and places to visit...

So Mods can we some how archive this for future researchers to take up the call and maybe move it further...

Thanks and good luck to the future researchers...

2R

Edited October 21, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest]

Not sure if anyone has seen this, so I thought I'd put up a link:

http://sasquatch-pg.net/mtsthelens-bodies.html

[Guest tracker]

It's wrong but that how it goes bobto. The government believes they are protecting us. Or protecting the tourist industry and the tax dollars it generates. Someone high up would of had to authorize a special procedure like that and the gag order. Our park wardens and highway police in Canada are told to keep any sightings off the records and their mouths shut. We hear about sightings and encouters only after they retire. Some of these retired guys join our ranks to help us prove their existence. These guys have driven the roads and hiked in the backcountry more than any. Now why would they join and help us if Bigfoot was only a myth?

[Guest rockinkt]

It's wrong but that how it goes bobto. The government believes they are protecting us. Or protecting the tourist industry and the tax dollars it generates. Someone high up would of had to authorize a special procedure like that and the gag order. Our park wardens and highway police in Canada are told to keep any sightings off the records and their mouths shut. We hear about sightings and encouters only after they retire. Some of these retired guys join our ranks to help us prove their existence. These guys have driven the roads and hiked in the backcountry more than any. Now why would they join and help us if Bigfoot was only a myth?

Why do people who know absolutely nothing about something post such nonsense??

FACT: THERE IS NO NATIONAL ORDER TELLING ANYBODY IN THE RCMP TO KEEP THEIR SIGHTINGS OR REPORTS OF SQUATCH OFF THE RECORD AND THEIR MOUTHS SHUT.

ANYBODY SAYING SUCH NONSENSE IS LYING. PERIOD.

[Guest Kerchak]

^

^

I don't think tracker actually said there was a 'national order'.

[Guest stansie]

There are such things as 'the unspoken rule'. If i lived in the US and worked as a LEO and i had an encounter. To save myself the ridicule and an uncomftable working enviroment. I would shut up period. These guys are very dependent on watching each others backs. If one stood out against the rest he may feel very nervous when at work. Just a thought

Edited October 24, 2010 by stansie

[Guest]

I'm going to have to ask everyone to try to be calm when posting. Also blanket statements usually don't make good arguments. In that same vein I'm going to say that calling any group, especially members of this forum, liars will not be tolerated.