The one memo does not indicate any larger interest in the government in Yetis. It only shows that they were aware of an effort to find one by American nationals who would be operating in a very sensitive diplomatic zone. Surely some cryptid primate had very little importance for them when compared to the idea of international conflict with the invading Chinese.

Parsimony is always better than Conspiracy Theory, save if they really are out to get you. Even then, it is best not to draw lines between dots when there is no other supporting evidence for that line. Doing so can easily lead to the wrong picture in one’s understanding.

Maybe I don’t know your position. But I was having problems with your treatment of two incidents that just say this to me and, really, no more:

1. The US government was interested in the yeti in the 1950s.
2. The USACOE considers the sasquatch debate open.

That’s all.

Believe me, if you’re skeptical of human belief systems, there’s nothing like the search for hairy hominoids to give that skepticism all the work it can handle. I promise not to start in on it here; not only am I all over Cryptomundo on it, but sounds like you’ve been there, maybe much more than me.

And I may just drop in there soon.

I am a skeptical proponent.
I am mainly skeptical of humans, not so much of Bigfoot.
I am skeptical of human thought and belief systems.

It isn’t just “fringe” people buying into the conspiracy theory model in Bigfooting. It is ALL OVER THE PLACE. It includes people like Paulides (NABS), whom I’m sure most would consider mainstream and notable enough.

I am fully aware of the scientists in the field. In fact, I talk to them regularly. Have you ever even seen the work I do? I suppose not, as you don’t even seem to know my position.

I stand against unreasonable thought and false assumptions, as well as ridiculous claims. This memo is interesting, but it does not prove any government knowledge of said creatures. The WA State Atlas was made for popular consumption, and it makes that rather clear in the last line of the article. Sasquatch is included for its CULTURAL relevance in Washington State, not because the government knows anything more about it or is looking into the subject in any way.

If you wish to contact me and actually find out what I think you are welcome to do so here.

Best, Steve

I forgot to mention one more skeptic-fringe tactic:

To sort-of-allege something (Bigfooters see a coverup behind every bush), then deny you were alleging it. Politicians might call it “dog-whistle skepticism.”

Remember: I never said that you personally alleged a coverup. I responded to your assertion that Bigfooters do it. Fringe ones? Yes. Serious ones? No. This issue can be resolved by simply not listening to the fringe – why ever? – and focus the skepticism on the science of the proponents. Something, BTW, that I have never seen successfully attempted, much less done.

Murphy never said there was a government coverup. He simply unearthed a document that indicated serious government interest in the topic. That says nothing about a coverup either way.

But it does show something that should give the skeptical community significant pause. Because in any decade, the government has a lot more resources than the skeptical community does.

But isn’t that what we’re asking you to do?

You talk about conspiracy theory among Bigfooters. That’s attacking a straw man. Does Jeff Meldrum say anything about that? John Bindernagel? Is that part of the official position of the TBRC or the BFRO? No. But fringe Bigfooters spout that crap…and fringe ‘skeptics’ attack it, because they can’t address the scientists on their ground. Did it occur that there’s a scientific core to the proponent position that the skeptic position lacks, and that that scientific core tends not to give the fringe the time of day?

If you’re going to take the proponents to task, it’s the scientists you should be addressing, not the woowoos. They say you’re wrong, and they have decades of training backing them up. Your move.

Another fringe skeptical tactic is to bring up …well, as I said, to grasp at any straw that might offer some hope that they’re right. Examples:

1. The WA Atlas has a cartoon at the bottom of the page saying, “Mythical creatures shouldn’t be mentioned in the atlas!”

IT’S A CARTOON. And given the lampooning function cartoons frequently play, it could just as easily be interpreted as: “Our ignorant brass thinks this critter isn’t real!” It wouldn’t be the first time clever underlings used their superiors’ ignorance to slide in a dig right uinder their noses. I choose to simply see it as the tongue-in-cheek anyone would employ if constrained to mention something that isn’t proven yet. The great point to be made by the inclusion of the sasquatch is that it embodies, you can bet on this, an official position: We don’t know. But no objective read of it could come down on either side of that line.

2. “The entry starts by saying the very existence of Sasquatch is disputed”

….which is, um, a fact, right? What point is being made there? I’d say: the very point the words make: We don’t know. Which fringe skeptics read as: we shouldn’t even be looking. Which truly curious people, i.e., those with a scientific bent, would read as: we should find out. Right?

3. “,,,and ends by saying if the creature is purely legendary the legend is sure to be a long time dying. You tell me that sounds like an official recognition?”

Yet another fringe-skeptical tactic: interpreting uncertainty as recognition, and questioning as answering. You should know that many on the skeptic fringe who have posted here view me as a proponent, when in fact I embody what skeptics SHOULD be: people who question every unsubstantiated assumption, including the one that we should all just go back to sleep because this just ain’t real. Someday I’ll figure out what’s behind that. It just seems silly.

Did I say it was officially recognized? No. I didn’t even imply it. But it’s pretty obvious, by the simple inclusion of the animal and the most cursory read of the entry, that there is an official position in that document on the sasquatch:

We don’t know.

Which anyone with a true scientific bent would take as:

We should find out.

Right?

The point I made is that the memo simply seeks to avoid an international incident, either over potential wildlife issues or diplomatic ones. Clearly, the government where such a creature were captured would want to keep it, not have someone steal it away. That is the potential problem.

The WA Atlas has a cartoon at the bottom of the page saying, “Mythical creatures shouldn’t be mentioned in the atlas!” The entry starts by saying the very existence of Sasquatch is disputed, and ends by saying if the creature is purely legendary the legend is sure to be a long time dying. You tell me that sounds like an official recognition?

“Legendary or actual, Sasquatch excites a great popular interest in Washington.”
That is the concluding sentence. Think again.

Stop attacking straw men.

“The second demanded that the beast be photographed or taken alive. “It must not be killed or shot at except in an emergency arising out of self defense,” wrote Embassy Counselor Ernest Fisk on November 30, 1959.”

I’d say that points to a weetad more than just pro forma protocol. Which could be stated in very generic terms regarding biological specimens. The which were being killed, left and right, for decades after Fisk’s missive, with mumness the response from the State Department. That quite indicates a very specific response, tailored to a very specific case.

Read Loren’s book the cover of which is up there, and one sees that there was enough connecting-dots done before the Slick expeditions for any thinking person in touch with the evidence to consider it possible that Slick would come back with something, and to make it imperative that it be specified in what condition that very specific something be brought back.

There’s no coverup at all being alleged here. Just a memo. Filed, note; ON file, in OFFICIAL read PUBLIC FILES, and not burned, eaten, or stashed in a Yeti carcass that was then tossed in a cave and obliterated with high explosive. The memo is PUBLIC information; it’s how this guy got it. One could consider it reasonable that the Government might not want to come off as a bunch of woowoo Yeti Believers, so they were being discreet, and coming slightly short of issuing a presidential proclamation of World Yeti Day. (It’s called the “diplomatic corps” for a reason.) But they were just as clearly not overly concerned that the memo might be leaked; and the memo is appropriately provisional, i.e., IF you find something… .

And I would argue with you to boot that the Washington Environmental Atlas entry does not veer one iota toward the “legend” finding, any more than it veers toward the real-animal finding, as a not-too-careful reading would make clear, and a careful one even more clear. It’s open-minded, leaving the resolution up to time and evidence. It would have been very simple for them to leave the sasquatch out of the Atlas, wouldn’t it?

Yes. It WOULD have.

There is no need to grasp at every single bingle gingle straw to maintain a skeptical attitude toward evidence.

Many in the Bigfooting world make the mistake of taking any governmental mention of Bigfoot as proof that they “KNOW” about it and are covering it up somehow. Look at the Washington State Environmental Atlas, done for the Army Corps of Engineers. Just the depiction of a Sasquatch along with other fauna like orca is enough for some like Paulides to state that this is an official endorsement of the existence of the creature. In fact, the Atlas was made mainly for popular consumption, and its feature on Sasquatch was a big “what if” veering toward the description of popular legend. The Skamania ordinance against Bigfoot hunting is another clear example, enacted on April Fools Day, of a law meant to quell turkey shoots seeking Bigfoot glory that could endanger actual known hominids: humans. Again, this is not an official announcement that Bigfoot is real by “The Government.” Also, there are endless stories of black helicopters and vans collecting Bigfoot corpses and such, but not an ounce of real documentations. Real conspiracies eventually leak, as humans talk. False conspiracies are the ones that never leak. The case of a perfect, air-tight conspiracy or cover-up is, I’m sure, exceedingly rare.

BTW, it may not be so clear cut about what was behind the documents.

In documents not specifically shown to the reporters but donated to the ICM collection/exhibition on this matter, Mark Murphy sends along these additional notes: “I thought you might also like copies of two Department of State documents (Outgoing Telegram 1084 and Incoming Telegraph 1108) that were in the same folder with the other documents and which both reference Tom Slick. I found the last paragraph in Telegram 1108 interesting when it states from Peter Byrne that Tom Slick was not planning to sponsor another expedition in 1959 until he was told by the Russians that they were considering a large expedition to search for the Yeti in the summer of that year. It is amusing they would tell him this since they had accused him of using his expeditions to spy on the Chinese as indicated in The New York Times article on April 27, 1957.”