Thanks for the info. I read the article you linked.
So, it seems they are protecting something at that Malheur Cave. And, since Burns is the seat of Harney County, which is the 9th largest county in the U.S., it seems that Malheur cave, the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, the stand-off there, and Burns itself all have more importance than meets the eye. Hmmmm. Like the Clark County, Nevada situation, maybe gold and other minerals on and around Steens Mountain are the real reason federal officials want to remove the ranchers.
It is also interesting that it was named after someone who appears to have had no direct connection to the area. Yet, the very name indicates that the founders were also Scottish Rite Freemasons. Also, cattle ranchers have been in the area since the 19th century.
It is all the more reason that the case against the Hammonds and other Defendants should be dismissed, with prejudice; and all the Defendants paid monetary damages. Thanks again for your comment.
Have you heard of "Uranium One?" That is all linked to the Hammonds and Malheur Refuge.
As for the cave... How thick is your tin foil...?
Local tribes have tales of giants living there. There is ONE old tale of someone finding remains, then the Masons took over the cave.
It all seems plausible. The secrets they're protecting have got to be BIGGER than the Uranium One deal, as they've been protecting that place for a very long time.
Also, I don't really have a problem with the Uranium One deal, and any relationship with President Putin should be and can be mutually beneficial, as are other existing international agreements. Plus, mining in the area should not interfere with the ranchers grazing their cattle, and the ranchers should be allowed to return. Actually, we need the mining. It will create many, much needed jobs and improve the overall economy.
Right. The cave is another story worth investigation.