Finding, Proving Bigfoot Does Exist: Texas Group Mission

[Frank Cannon]

Absolutely indeed. Why are so many so clueless about such realities?

I believe you are mistaking clueless with skeptical.

Blurry photos and shaky videos are not something to hang your hat on for definitive proof. All this is sophistry at this point.

[geronl]

Texas is flat, populous and has no extremely large forests (or untouched parts)

[Ghost Bear]

Texas is flat, populous and has no extremely large forests (or untouched parts)

Uhm well... except for the Piney Woods and the Big Thicket, both in East Texas. And folks in the Hill Country and out by Big Bend would disagree with it being "flat".

[Quix]

@Frank Cannon,


Thanks for your kind reply.

The cluelessness vs skeptical is an interesting point.

And, frankly, I do actually appreciate even the most rabid skeptic's . . . thoughtful challenges that can often serve to keep me on my toes more and to diminish my tendency toward too many false positives.

However, no, GENERALLY, in most cases, I mean clueless.

I realize that can sound harsh, overblown etc. and for some skeptics, it might be overblown.

However, in my experience, not for the bulk of them.

1. Too many simply do not research the topic remotely thoroughly--and particularly from all sides.
2. Too many of them write fiercely out of deeply entrenched and intensely emotional biases.

3. Too many of them are far tooooo addicted to a kind of mindless "objectivism" that has relatively little grounding in the average conventional reality that all of us deal with--whether acknowledged, or not.

4. Too many of them are far too addicted to and worship far too much at the high altar that strict conventional logic is the only and is an automatic deliverer of the truly truest truth.

5. Too many of them do not appear to be seriously interested in any robust construct of truth over falsehood. They are too intent and intense about wrapping themselves in their robes of their own brilliance and congratulating themselves on being supremely righteously right compared to the ignorant masses.

6. Too many of them have little to no appreciation for a detective's building of nuanced evidence. If it's not a pristine, brazenly micro-scoped neon !!!FACT!!! . . . in their view . . . then it MUST be absolute balderdash and wrong.

7. Too many of them have little to no appreciation for the merits and contributions of the HEBREW approach to discovery of truth and knowledge vs the GREEK. Phenomenological searches for truth have a very long and fruitful history, TOO. And some things are simply NOT sliceable, diceable, MRI scanable to discover the TRUEST TRULY TRUE TRUTH about them.

= = = =

YES, there ARE hazards with the phenomenological approach.

THERE ARE ALSO HAZARDS with the GREEK approach--and far too high a percentage of 'objectivist skeptics' UTTERLY AND TOTALLY DENY those hazards.

They doom THEMSELVES to the consequences of gullibly sucking-up to and worshiping at the altar of an unnecessarily large basket of false negatives.

Balance is crucial in a lot of things. I have persistently found it wise to try and balance both the HEBREW and the GREEK routes to knowledge and facts.

= = = =

It has also been my experience that

the typical skeptic is awash in an intense and huge degree of ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

Often their dads were super prissy, rigid, harsh, alcoholic, workaholic, &/or perfectionistic etc. or maybe the abject opposite, in some cases.

Their typical response was to try and be/do things ever more perfectly to gain daddy's almost totally absent heart-felt approval and love.

Consequently, they developed a similarly rigid set of criteria for what constituted proof, facts, knowledge etc. in order to absolutely minimize the horrific feeling of being WRONG and yet again rejected by daddy or whatever authority figure might be looking on.

Consequently, they tend to fight like a bulldog tooth and toenail for their perspective as though it were the only one Mt Olympus tolerated under pain of zots from Zeus etc.  . . . or, perhaps . . . for some few, from Almighty God Yehovah.

They posture as though their passion was for THE TRUEST TRUTH etc. . . . when actually, the intense motivation and energy come from dysfunctional parenting--particularly fathering--and their resulting internal stuff.

= = = =

I say "clueless" because

1. Too many of them typically really do NOT have much of a clue about the realities from the other perspective. They certainly do not have a very robust and solidly researched perspective on those realities.

2. Too many of them ASSUME up one side and down the other about the other perspective while harshly castigating any and every hint of assumption on the other side.

3. Too many of them show little to no interest in--and many seem even utterly INCAPABLE of apprehending any of the facts, truths, solid evidence on the other side.

4. Too many of them appear to be, to sound utterly and totally blind to anything they didn't think of first--or their idols didn't think of. Everything else is automatically trash, to them.

5. Too many of them appear to be INCREDIBLY GULLIBLE as long as information is presented to them in a way that mimics or appears to come packaged in suitable objectivist clap trap and costumes.

etc. etc.

Cheers. I need to eat something.

===========

I believe you are mistaking clueless with skeptical.

Blurry photos and shaky videos are not something to hang your hat on for definitive proof. All this is sophistry at this point.

[Quix]

I believe you are mistaking clueless with skeptical.

Blurry photos and shaky videos are not something to hang your hat on for definitive proof. All this is sophistry at this point.

Uhhhhhhhhh . . . Noooooooooo,

It is NOT ALL sophistry, at this point.

There's a ton of anecdotal data built up over a lot of years with amazing internal consistency in terms of a list of variables--from a great diversity of locations, researchers/observers/experiencers.

To UTTERLY DENY that body of data as 100% unreliable and 100% unable to contribute to any significant facts or truth is . . . imho . . . thoroughly ignorant, undiscerning, UNobjective and silly.

@roamer_1 courtesy ping.

[roamer_1]

There's a ton of anecdotal data built up over a lot of years with amazing internal consistency in terms of a list of variables--from a great diversity of locations, researchers/observers/experiencers.

@Frank Cannon

@Quix , while I agree with you largely on this point, a track on the ground is no more anecdotal than the beasty that put it there. It's a fact.

If I see a coon track down on the river bank, and I see a little stack of crawfish shells, neatly piled in shallow water, I can be pretty damn sure there's a coon about, regardless of my neighbor swearing up and down that a coon has never been seen hereabouts in years, or likely, ever (this really just happened, btw, so it comes to mind)

Now, I never saw the coon itself... But I'd have to be an idiot to deny his existence. There is no reasonable thinking that would.

A Sasquatch track is no different.

[Quix]

@Frank Cannon,

Putting it another way . . .

I assume, Frank, having watched you for more than a little while . . .

That were you deep in the midst of the West Fork of Oak Creek (between Sedona and Flagstaff) and wanted to get out on top . . . and

IF you decided the best route was to climb the cliffs on the right . . . to no avail--no viable route up.

And, so, you then decided to climb the cliffs on the left . . . to no avail--no viable route up . . .

That THEN in your typical true brilliance . . .

You'd find A DIFFERENT route out--either back or straight up the very narrow canyon to its end.

= = =

The Bigfoot phenomenon is

INHERENTLY full of fuzzy pics and shaky videos.

It is INHERENTLY unlikely to be otherwise--at least, in the short term.

Yes, one can beat their heads against the brick wall of no clear photos or solid sharp videos--until their scalp is bloody. Truth will not, thereby, be much advanced.

To say again . . . absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A DIFFERENT ROUTE toward discovery of truth is well advised--at least until such time as sharper pics and videos appear.

The phenomenon (like the UFO phenomenon) has long demonstrated  an incredibly tenacious and comprehensive capacity to avoid sharp pics or videos--at least that have survived in the non-classified public domain. There are certainly reports of classified pics and videos that are sharp from close range.

Soooooooooo . . . just even as a thought experiment . . .

What OTHER routes to truth might one  postulate, hypothesize, explore--than desperately searching for and DEMANDING sharp pics and videos that are highly unlikely to suddenly appear?

I  don't think hyper-objectivists have a good answer for that.

They merely keep banging loudly on the door DEMANDING sharp pics and videos and trashing all other evidence.

[Quix]

@Frank Cannon

@Quix , while I agree with you largely on this point, a track on the ground is no more anecdotal than the beasty that put it there. It's a fact.

If I see a coon track down on the river bank, and I see a little stack of crawfish shells, neatly piled in shallow water, I can be pretty damn sure there's a coon about, regardless of my neighbor swearing up and down that a coon has never been seen hereabouts in years, or likely, ever (this really just happened, btw, so it comes to mind)

Now, I never saw the coon itself... But I'd have to be an idiot to deny his existence. There is no reasonable thinking that would.

A Sasquatch track is no different.

I totally agree with you, Roamer.

I'm just aware that the objectivists seem to be allergic to such hard objective facts having any lasting substantive validity in the quest for truth. Their stance on such is IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL . . . but that doesn't seem to occur to them.

They still demand a BIGFOOT in their lap or under their microscope before admitting to any significant possibilities about Bigfood realities being tangibly, solidly real.



It IS an interesting mental dysfunction that they do not ascribe more weight to such solid evidence. Will have to ponder that.

I think it has something to do with the fact that:

1. tracks, hair, etc. are CONSTRUED TO BE ephemeral--relatively insubstantial. I don't  know what they do with the DNA analysis other than to pretend that the labs somehow made stupid errors. I think hair etc. are about as solidly tangible as one has any sane, logical right to ask for.

2. They seem to be prone to desperately try and explain away tracks because hoaxers have made tracks pretending to be Bigfoot . . . or they claim it's erosion from animal tracks or whatever other nonsense their pretend logic illogically cooks up.

Thanks.
 

[roamer_1]

2. They seem to be prone to desperately try and explain away tracks because hoaxers have made tracks pretending to be Bigfoot . . . or they claim it's erosion from animal tracks or whatever other nonsense their pretend logic illogically cooks up.

@Quix

I'll pick up on this bit... It ain't just a drunk hillbilly with carved boards strapped to his feet... To someone who is accustom to reading sign, it would be nearly impossible to create a track-line hoax... Maybe a track or two, but not a track-line. There are subtleties in tracks that are imminently only biological... the way the toes pinch up in a muddy spot, looking for traction, the twist of the instep rolling across a rock or protrusion. Weight moving to the ball going uphill, etc... no two tracks are the same.

To create a mechanical device that is anatomically correct, that can mimic not only the biological movements and micro-movements of a foot would be a remarkable fete. Then add to it enough weight to mimic something easily 3 times my weight to get it to settle the dirt deeply... Then measure a stride easily twice my own, then haul it 2 days out into the woods, being careful to hide all sign of yourself and your camp, Then lay in wait for a big dumb redneck to come along (where no one ever goes)... It's just beyond all reason.

What I saw... twice... is a natural track-line, made by natural feet, with *no* hoomin sign around for miles except my own. How that can be discounted is completely beyond me.

[Frank Cannon]

@Frank Cannon

@Quix , while I agree with you largely on this point, a track on the ground is no more anecdotal than the beasty that put it there. It's a fact.

If I see a coon track down on the river bank, and I see a little stack of crawfish shells, neatly piled in shallow water, I can be pretty damn sure there's a coon about, regardless of my neighbor swearing up and down that a coon has never been seen hereabouts in years, or likely, ever (this really just happened, btw, so it comes to mind)

Now, I never saw the coon itself... But I'd have to be an idiot to deny his existence. There is no reasonable thinking that would.

A Sasquatch track is no different.

Yes, but we all know what a coon is. I see them at my back door. People have them as pets. As for the track you found that you are sure is a Big Foot, couldn't it as easily be from a dinosaur? We don't know yet. We haven't examined the thing that made it. Right now the track is just an anomaly that needs further research. It may end up being what you think it is, but it could be something entirely different.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Sadly he died a few years ago...

[roamer_1]

Yes, but we all know what a coon is. I see them at my back door. People have them as pets. As for the track you found that you are sure is a Big Foot, couldn't it as easily be from a dinosaur? We don't know yet. We haven't examined the thing that made it. Right now the track is just an anomaly that needs further research. It may end up being what you think it is, but it could be something entirely different.

@Frank Cannon

It wasn't 'a track'. it was a track-line. numerous tracks. And I've crossed good sign twice - So two different track-lines, two different times and locations... one of which was female, surely... The other, very likely male.

And no, it is not anomalous. It's Sasquatch. Any native, going back hundreds of years, will tell you exactly what it is.

I once saw something big... bigger than any bird I know, big enough to shake the tree it was in HARD when it took off... I didn't see much of it... just what looked to me to be a semi-folded leathery wing. Now, I have no idea what that was. I could say it was a dragon, or a pterodactyl... but not with any surety at all... THAT is an anomaly.

Sasquatch is well known. And anybody around here, if I brought them to those tracks, would immediately identify them just as I did. Including you, I'd bet.

[Quix]

@Quix

I'll pick up on this bit... It ain't just a drunk hillbilly with carved boards strapped to his feet... To someone who is accustom to reading sign, it would be nearly impossible to create a track-line hoax... Maybe a track or two, but not a track-line. There are subtleties in tracks that are imminently only biological... the way the toes pinch up in a muddy spot, looking for traction, the twist of the instep rolling across a rock or protrusion. Weight moving to the ball going uphill, etc... no two tracks are the same.

To create a mechanical device that is anatomically correct, that can mimic not only the biological movements and micro-movements of a foot would be a remarkable fete. Then add to it enough weight to mimic something easily 3 times my weight to get it to settle the dirt deeply... Then measure a stride easily twice my own, then haul it 2 days out into the woods, being careful to hide all sign of yourself and your camp, Then lay in wait for a big dumb redneck to come along (where no one ever goes)... It's just beyond all reason.

What I saw... twice... is a natural track-line, made by natural feet, with *no* hoomin sign around for miles except my own. How that can be discounted is completely beyond me.

I love your excellent analysis and experience.

Thanks thanks.