The Government Just Shutdown a Bigfoot Researcher.

a reply to: FlySolo

As for scientists embracing squatch? Never. Even if you had a whole body, do you really think mainstream scientists would hold a press conference? I wouldn't hold my breath.

[sarcasm] sure thing bro ......

no scientist wants to be that guy who presents evidence of a hitherto unknown species to the world

[/sarcasm]

a reply to: jaffo

If you believe like I do that wookie is under wraps from a higher power, then no, scientists would not be willing to announce it. I think the secrecy is systemic. Admitting to wookie would be akin to admiting the existence of aliens. Except there would be bf hunters everywhere and would lead to a much bigger problem with national park tourism and open up liability headaches like you wouldn't believe.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

That's right. Mark my words. No scientist who is willing to stake their reputation is willing. Bottom line

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: jaffo

If you believe like I do that wookie is under wraps from a higher power, then no, scientists would not be willing to announce it. I think the secrecy is systemic. Admitting to wookie would be akin to admiting the existence of aliens. Except there would be bf hunters everywhere and would lead to a much bigger problem with national park tourism and open up liability headaches like you wouldn't believe.

Please tell me exactly how admitting the reality of BF would cause a problem for anyone. Exactly how. Not "well, more people would be in National Parks." That wouldn't be a problem...it would be a great source of revenue. As to liability, the National Parks Service and Federal government have ZERO liability at all for persons on National Park land when it comes to the actions of wild animals. Please also explain exactly who and exactly how anyone would be able to keep BF under wraps if it were real. Because for me, all I see is a convenient excuse for lack of proof.

a reply to: jaffo

I never said more people would be in the parks. I said it would be a problem with tourism. You're being biased in the selection of understand my words. Critical thinking is needed. IF tourism is a problem, then what do you think I mean by that?? Clearly, more revenue is not a problem so what else could I be possibly referring too? Lost revenue.

Admitting the reality of BF would be a HUGE problem for evolution theory for starters. It would be a problem for those who have lost family members in the forest. It would be a problem for tourism as I already suggested. It would be a problem for the church or Christianity in some way. I'm not religious but I'm sure they would find something to be mad at. It would be a problem for WWF. It could turn out to a disaster in regards to every red neck with a gun. I don't know, I could probably sit here for a few hours coming up with stuff. Finding Bigfoot is not the same thing as discovering a new type of salamander on the Galapagos islands.

Please also explain exactly who and exactly how anyone would be able to keep BF under wraps if it were real.

That's the dumbest thing to say. People have been talking about BF for a thousand years incl. native American. It's your choice to believe or not. As a rule, no one cares about some legendary myth, so in reality, there's nothing to hide

a reply to: charles911

Bigbrother - Bigfoot... Coincidence, I think not!...
On a more serious note, It is going to be interesting to follow what comes out of this... I mean why deny him to spread non classified information...

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: jaffo

I never said more people would be in the parks. I said it would be a problem with tourism. You're being biased in the selection of understand my words. Critical thinking is needed. IF tourism is a problem, then what do you think I mean by that?? Clearly, more revenue is not a problem so what else could I be possibly referring too? Lost revenue.

Admitting the reality of BF would be a HUGE problem for evolution theory for starters. It would be a problem for those who have lost family members in the forest. It would be a problem for tourism as I already suggested. It would be a problem for the church or Christianity in some way. I'm not religious but I'm sure they would find something to be mad at. It would be a problem for WWF. It could turn out to a disaster in regards to every red neck with a gun. I don't know, I could probably sit here for a few hours coming up with stuff. Finding Bigfoot is not the same thing as discovering a new type of salamander on the Galapagos islands.

Please also explain exactly who and exactly how anyone would be able to keep BF under wraps if it were real.

That's the dumbest thing to say. People have been talking about BF for a thousand years incl. native American. It's your choice to believe or not. As a rule, no one cares about some legendary myth, so in reality, there's nothing to hide

You didn't do anything to show why the existence of BF "would be a problem" in any of the situations you talk about. Are you trying to say that the government would somehow be responsible for missing people in National Parks because BF ate them and the government knew about BF so they are liable? Really? Do you have any idea what the burden of proof is in such a proceeding? Because that case...that case is going to be dismissed on a summary judgment motion pretty much immediately and probably get hit with counsel fees for even filing it. Exactly how and why would BF be a problem for the hunters you so readily insult? Why exactly would BF be a problem for evolution? The human tree has MANY offshoots and our understanding of that tree evolves all the time. Sorry, but you haven't moved the needle as to backing up your assertions.

Just because a BF might be found & officially announced won't make them any easier to find. People won't suddenly flood national parks just to maybe see one.

a reply to: jaffo

Are you trying to say that the government would somehow be responsible for missing people in National Parks because BF ate them and the government knew about BF so they are liable? Really? Do you have any idea what the burden of proof is in such a proceeding? Because that case...that case is going to be dismissed on a summary judgment motion pretty much immediately and probably get hit with counsel fees for even filing it.

That very well maybe the result of a lawsuit, but it doesn't preclude the public animosity. I think if there "were" any liability issues such as parks already knowing of the existence of a bipedal creature and a correlation of missing people, regardless of the civil lawsuit results, it would be prudent to not let the cat out of the bag. Don't you think? That would be political suicide for anyone obfuscating the truth.

Exactly how and why would BF be a problem for the hunters you so readily insult?

I never insulted hunters. I insulted red necks. And I didn't say it would be a problem for them. I said it would be a hunting disaster.

Why exactly would BF be a problem for evolution? The human tree has MANY offshoots and our understanding of that tree evolves all the time.

Hmm. Interesting argument coming from someone trying to refute the possibility of the exact thing you argue in support of. You've just contradicted yourself mate.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Wanna bet?

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: jaffo

Are you trying to say that the government would somehow be responsible for missing people in National Parks because BF ate them and the government knew about BF so they are liable? Really? Do you have any idea what the burden of proof is in such a proceeding? Because that case...that case is going to be dismissed on a summary judgment motion pretty much immediately and probably get hit with counsel fees for even filing it.

That very well maybe the result of a lawsuit, but it doesn't preclude the public animosity. I think if there "were" any liability issues such as parks already knowing of the existence of a bipedal creature and a correlation of missing people, regardless of the civil lawsuit results, it would be prudent to not let the cat out of the bag. Don't you think? That would be political suicide for anyone obfuscating the truth.

Exactly how and why would BF be a problem for the hunters you so readily insult?

I never insulted hunters. I insulted red necks. And I didn't say it would be a problem for them. I said it would be a hunting disaster.

Why exactly would BF be a problem for evolution? The human tree has MANY offshoots and our understanding of that tree evolves all the time.

Hmm. Interesting argument coming from someone trying to refute the possibility of the exact thing you argue in support of. You've just contradicted yourself mate.

How would BF cause a hunting disaster? And how exactly did I contradict myself? Just because I do not believe in a large bipedal hominid occupying the forests of North America does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I do not believe in evolution. Your attempt to blur that issue has failed. Again, you have done nothing at all to provide any reason whatsoever for a cover-up. You've failed entirely in that regard. Surely you can do better...

a reply to: Eunuchorn

yes - if bigfoot is officially confirmed - it will promote bigfoot hunts and safaris -


a few years ago - a company was offering tickets on a cruise to : " the north pole entrance to the hollow earth " at £10k / ticket . and no one signed up

2 of my friends are currently on a £7000 ea cruise to antactica - to visit a polar research satation and see whales , orca , penguins etc - guess what - its booked to capacity

guess why ???? - because everyone has confidence that the tour guides will show them everything thats promised

undestand the difference

a better example is a buddy who went on a photo safari to see snow loapords last year - 5 thousand quid and 2 weeks later - he had to go home - without seeing any but he will go again - as the area is a known reserve - and the guide he hired has a dammed good track record out of 15 safaris he ran in 2014 - 12 got good sightings ]

very few peple will sign up for chasing myths - but if there is real evidence they will spend big money - and accept the chance of failure

a reply to: jaffo

How would BF cause a hunting disaster?

Are you being purposely obtuse or you really can't comprehend the implications? Or are you just baiting me?

And how exactly did I contradict myself?

wow lol ok. Because you said the evolutionary tree or "human" as you put it, has offsets, so from an evolutionary standpoint, it's a probability. But bigfoot is impossible. lol

forget it man, you're playing with me.

originally posted by: YUIL553
I mean why deny him to spread non classified information...

No one is denying him anything!

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: jaffo

How would BF cause a hunting disaster?

Are you being purposely obtuse or you really can't comprehend the implications? Or are you just baiting me?

And how exactly did I contradict myself?

wow lol ok. Because you said the evolutionary tree or "human" as you put it, has offsets, so from an evolutionary standpoint, it's a probability. But bigfoot is impossible. lol

forget it man, you're playing with me.

You still didn't answer my question. How exactly would BF cause a "hunting disaster"? I seriously have no idea how proof that BF is real would in any way, shape, or form alter hunting anywhere. And no, I did not contradict myself. Saying that there have been many branches to the human family tree over the history of our evolution and also saying that there is no proof of a large bi-pedal hominid in North America in the year 2015 and that the possibility of such a creature existing in a breeding population is essentially zero are not mutually incompatible positions at all. One talks of the ancient past and one talks of the present and recent past. In other words, the fact that Neanderthal existed is not by any stretch of the imagination proof that BF exists. Recognizing the first is not opposed to denying the second. Because they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

a reply to: jaffo

You still didn't answer my question. How exactly would BF cause a "hunting disaster"? I seriously have no idea how proof that BF is real would in any way, shape, or form alter hunting anywhere.

It's my contention that if BF was ever announced, illegal hunting would take place almost immediately. Careless poaching, misidentified animals and possibly even people would be put at risk. It's my opinion that it would be a circus.

the fact that Neanderthal existed is not by any stretch of the imagination proof that BF exists.

I beg to differ. Squatch could very well be a derivative of Neanderthal or gigantopithecus. Obviously not proof, but it opens the possibility.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: jaffo

You still didn't answer my question. How exactly would BF cause a "hunting disaster"? I seriously have no idea how proof that BF is real would in any way, shape, or form alter hunting anywhere.

It's my contention that if BF was ever announced, illegal hunting would take place almost immediately. Careless poaching, misidentified animals and possibly even people would be put at risk. It's my opinion that it would be a circus.

the fact that Neanderthal existed is not by any stretch of the imagination proof that BF exists.

I beg to differ. Squatch could very well be a derivative of Neanderthal or gigantopithecus. Obviously not proof, but it opens the possibility.

First of all, if hunters could find BF they would already be doing so. Official proof would not change the fact that for fifty years some of the best trackers on Earth have stepped up and failed in trying to find BF. So as to illegal hunting or any of that, I don't buy it. Because, again, if people could find and shoot a BF you and I would not even be having this conversation. As to the BF/Neanderthal thing, Saying a creature you can't even prove exists "could be" a descendant of Neanderthal and trying to say that because I admit that Neanderthal (completely 100% proven to have existed) was real, that somehow proves BF even "could be" real is not a logical connection or statement. Do you have any proof at all that Neanderthal existed on the North American continent? No? Well then you really have no ground to even try and draw a connection between the two. Believe if you want, but the "arguments" you have used to try and support that belief in this forum aren't solid is all I am saying. I'd love to see BF proven to exist. I just do not believe that in the year 2015 there is any logical reason to have that hope for proof. Essentially because there is no physical evidence (which stands up to true scientific scrutiny) supporting the belief. So many of the "famous" BF sightings are now admitted hoaxes. The PG film is a horrible fake under both the circumstances of its creation AND modern image stabilization and analysis. The supposed track casts are so ridiculously varied as to be worthless. And the complete and utter lack of genetic evidence and scat or even one single body pretty much puts the nail i the coffin for me at this point. That said, I will joyously eat crow if and when they find a body, lol.

a reply to: jaffo

Do you have any proof at all that Neanderthal existed on the North American continent? No? Well then you really have no ground to even try and draw a connection between the two.

Flanked by the stunning "Venus of Monterey" dagger and petrified archery bow from the Monterey Canyon cave excavation. Pacific Shelf Research CEO, Curt Novolin, proudly displays his greatest trophy of the day. A well preserved skull of an adult male NEANDERTHAL. Who evidently flourished on the coast of central California circa 50,000 years BP. How a Neanderthal got to North America so long ago. And how his remains and artifacts ended up beneath 456 ft. (139 m) of seawater. Just two of the many questions baffling scientists, academicians, and scholars from diverse disciplines around the world. (This article contains 19 figures, including Fig. 13-A, and 41 paragraphs.)

americanneanderthals.blogspot.ca...
xenophilius.wordpress.com...

May I have some ground now please? Or do I really need to ask your permission to have a free thinking inquisitive mind and formulate my own theories and opinions? Give me a break.

And yes, the red neck hunters would be out in full force. It would be a freaking gong show. But think what you like, I can't change anything.

Essentially because there is no physical evidence (which stands up to true scientific scrutiny) supporting the belief.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think there's certainly enough circumstantial evidence in pictures, videos and anecdotes from respectable people to warrant an objective opinion that BF is worth "considering". Doesn't mean you have to believe it as gospel but it also means not to dismiss it as junk. There's enough to make the phenomenon plausible.

That said, I will joyously eat crow if and when they find a body, lol.

feathers and all

a reply to: FlySolo

Nope. There is no genetic proof that Neanderthal was ever in North America and that source is, shall we say, questionable at best. And old. And largely ignored because the proof wasn't there...

Sigh, I just hope that people realize that Squatches are hominids and that it would be morally wrong to hunt them. It would seem to reason that people would just justify it by saying they were attacked. Some people are happy to live and let live, some are not, and some have mental disorders. The same would apply to the Bigfoot population.

Some people seem to forget that gorillas were not "discovered" until the 1800s and bonobos not until 1929. There is very vast, vast unexplored area of this Earth that has many more secrets for us.

I'm as big of a skeptic as they come, but after actually reviewing the evidence at hand, I believe 100% that Bigfoot is a real animal. There is much real evidence (amid an endless supply of garbage and hoaxers) to discount everything. But you have to know what you're looking for to wade through the crap.