The Briefing Room
Archives => Alternate Realities => Topic started by: TomSea on November 16, 2016, 04:06:35 pm
-
Finding, Proving Bigfoot Does Exist: Texas Group Mission
BEE COUNTY (KIII NEWS) - This story may test your belief system, but for decades people all over the world have reported sightings of a mythical ape-like creature known as Sasquatch, or Bigfoot -- and one group in Beeville is working to try and prove it actually exists.
Baldemar Galvan is one of the people trying to prove the sightings are real. 3News met up with him as he was calling for Bigfoot to show itself in Normanna, just north of Beeville.
"Sometimes they're close by," Galvan said. "You can hear them knocking or shaking the tree or something, but they'll let you know they're close by."
Galvan runs the Bee County Bigfoot Research Group. He said the area along Medio Creek is a favorite hangout for the creature.
"When I saw it, it looked like a person," Galvan said. "A man with two legs."
Galvan and other Bigfoot believers gathered at the historic McClanahan House in Beeville to speak with 3News in hopes that others would step forward with their own stories of the beast.
Richard Rabe, a local real estate agent, showed 3News a picture he took of what he feels was a structure built by one of the creatures.
"Your blood runs cold," Rabe said.
Continued: http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/weird/finding-proving-bigfoot-does-exist-texas-group-mission/352464701
-
Some of the interviewees were even on the radio.
If Bigfoot exists, it won't be one only, there's got to be families of them.
The story above is getting some play. It is surprising that it is not one individual saying this but they have a few different reports.
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Y5TwdoOLPTI/S5f_kvx99uI/AAAAAAAAMVA/6yBTfIO7AXY/s400/PDVD_079.BMP)
-
Thanks.
A number of reports have cited their being 'let out' of UFO's or taken into and up by UFO's.
Time will tell.
Then there's the 411 missing-person-in-the-wilderness cases . . . one of which . . . about a 4 year old girl said the big furry 'wolf man' fed her some berries and kept her warm.
-
Thanks.
A number of reports have cited their being 'let out' of UFO's or taken into and up by UFO's.
Time will tell.
Then there's the 411 missing-person-in-the-wilderness cases . . . one of which . . . about a 4 year old girl said the big furry 'wolf man' fed her some berries and kept her warm.
Interesting. Scientist are always finding new creatures somewhere; and a lot of them are closer to home than you would think. I'm open to the thought, but wonder how many people would mistake a black bear on its hind feet for a big foot.
That sounds like an interesting story about the missing girl, you didn't happen to save the link did you?
-
Interesting. Scientist are always finding new creatures somewhere; and a lot of them are closer to home than you would think. I'm open to the thought, but wonder how many people would mistake a black bear on its hind feet for a big foot.
That sounds like an interesting story about the missing girl, you didn't happen to save the link did you?
It's in one of the 411 books by that famous detective author . . . blocking on his name at present--DAVID PAULIDES. I think it was the book about the Western USA.
He does NOT accept cases where there's any plausible involvement of wild animals etc. etc. He ONLY deals in cases where there's NO EVIDENCE of 'normal' wild animals.
Evidently there's no mistaking the horrible smell that usually goes with authentic big foot creatures. Nothing like bears etc.
One of the characteristics of such cases if often the child will be found on the trail that searchers have passed on multiple times without any sign of the child. Then suddenly, the child is there with no evidence of how the child got there. Usually the child doesn't have any memory or refuses to talk about it all.
And that's with the children found alive. Many are not. But are found several thousand feet and maybe a thousand feet HIGHER in impossible steep high mountain positions for a toddler child to have gotten to.
Often they are found in berry patches or were taken from berry patches.
Often they are found in swamps without their shoes or clothes being wet or muddy.
Often they are found after several days without evidence of being hungry etc. quite mystifyingly.
Sometimes they disappear like "POOF" within 6-15 feet of parents or other trail partners in front of or behind them--sometimes going "POOF" while in view of others--though rarely.
There are a lot more (way beyond statistical chance) of such cases in areas where geographic place names have "devil" in them.
Here's a link to the movie page:
http://www.missing-411.com/
Here's his website:
http://www.canammissing.com/missing_411.html
Avoid getting the books on Amazon--far too high priced. Cheaper from his site.
He will no longer go in the field without a gun and a satellite locator/alert beacon that can be immediately triggered.
I think there have been cases of people so abducted who had guns. But none who had both a gun and a locator beacon.
I don't think that's great insurance, depending.
I think it's a spiritual warfare sort of situation, too.
Guy Malone has found that folks who have an active, authentic relationship with Jesus The Christ do not get abducted.
David Paulides used to not discuss the possibility of UFO's being involved. I think he's slightly more open to that possibility, now.
From his website:
.
. . .
The research depicts 28 clusters of missing people across the continent, something that has never been exposed and was a shocking find to researchers. Topography does play a part into the age of the victims and certain clusters have specific age and sex consistency that is baffling. This is not a phenomenon that has been occurring in just the last few decades, clusters of missing people have been identified as far back as the 1800’s.
The manuscript for the research was extremely large so the story was split between two books, Missing 411 Western United States and Canada and Missing 411 Eastern United States. The Eastern version will be released in late March and will include a list of all missing people in each edition and a concluding chapter that draws both books together for conclusions.
Some of the issues that are discussed in each edition:
• The National Park Service attitude toward missing people
• How specific factors in certain cases replicate themselves in different clusters
• Exposing cases involving missing children that aren’t on any national database
• Unusual behavior by bloodhounds/canines involved in the search process
• How storms, berries, swamps, briar patches, boulder fields and victim disabilities play a role in the disappearance
• The strategies of Search and Rescue personnel need to change under specific circumstances
After reading this book, you will forever walk in the woods with a different awareness.
Reviews:
"Major news organizations do a deplorable job of covering
stories and issues which are deemed too unusual
or too far outside the box. Chances are, they will find a way
to trivialize or ignore the disturbing evidence accumulated
by David Paulides, a former lawman turned investigative
journalist. The paper trail uncovered by Paulides through
sheer doggedness is impressive, the evidence indisputable.
People are vanishing without a trace from our national
parks and forests, yet government agencies are saying nothing.
At a minimum, this story deserves space on the front
page of every newspaper in the country, and it warrants a
formal high level inquiry by the federal agencies whose files
leave little doubt that something very strange is unfolding
in our wilderness."
George Knapp, Host, Coast to Coast AM
.
. . .
-
It's in one of the 411 books by that famous detective author . . . blocking on his name at present--DAVID PAULIDES. I think it was the book about the Western USA.
He does NOT accept cases where there's any plausible involvement of wild animals etc. etc. He ONLY deals in cases where there's NO EVIDENCE of 'normal' wild animals.
Evidently there's no mistaking the horrible smell that usually goes with authentic big foot creatures. Nothing like bears etc.
One of the characteristics of such cases if often the child will be found on the trail that searchers have passed on multiple times without any sign of the child. Then suddenly, the child is there with no evidence of how the child got there. Usually the child doesn't have any memory or refuses to talk about it all.
And that's with the children found alive. Many are not. But are found several thousand feet and maybe a thousand feet HIGHER in impossible steep high mountain positions for a toddler child to have gotten to.
Often they are found in berry patches or were taken from berry patches.
Often they are found in swamps without their shoes or clothes being wet or muddy.
Often they are found after several days without evidence of being hungry etc. quite mystifyingly.
Sometimes they disappear like "POOF" within 6-15 feet of parents or other trail partners in front of or behind them--sometimes going "POOF" while in view of others--though rarely.
There are a lot more (way beyond statistical chance) of such cases in areas where geographic place names have "devil" in them.
Here's a link to the movie page:
http://www.missing-411.com/
Here's his website:
http://www.canammissing.com/missing_411.html
Avoid getting the books on Amazon--far too high priced. Cheaper from his site.
He will no longer go in the field without a gun and a satellite locator/alert beacon that can be immediately triggered.
I think there have been cases of people so abducted who had guns. But none who had both a gun and a locator beacon.
I don't think that's great insurance, depending.
I think it's a spiritual warfare sort of situation, too.
Guy Malone has found that folks who have an active, authentic relationship with Jesus The Christ do not get abducted.
David Paulides used to not discuss the possibility of UFO's being involved. I think he's slightly more open to that possibility, now.
From his website:
Thanks.
-
they exist. Tracked them twice. seen hair, scat, and piss. Had an encounter. Never saw one yet, but they exist.
-
they exist. Tracked them twice. seen hair, scat, and piss. Had an encounter. Never saw one yet, but they exist.
For real man?
-
they exist. Tracked them twice. seen hair, scat, and piss. Had an encounter. Never saw one yet, but they exist.
Thanks!
@Frank Cannon,
Frank, WHEN various "curtains" are 'pulled back,'
REALITY is going to turn out to be a LOT more complex than even the mind-boggling complexities we are aware of, on average, generally, in the public domain.
A LOT of people are going to be like deer or rabbits in the headlights--catatonic, vulnerable . . . or worse.
Some folks like to pretend that
1. ONLY that which they can TOUCH;
2. ONLY that which they can see at close enough range to reach out and handle;
3. ONLY that which they can slice, dice, measure, hold still under a microscope or scalpel
constitute "reality" in their view.
imho, that's supremely arrogant and ignorant on the face of it.
Some of us who have studied the fringe topics for decades may not know precisely what's going on . . . even in somewhat minimally bounded terms.
But we know a lot more than nothing.
Seasoned Detectives KNOW a given suspect is guilty usually long before they can prove it in a court of law.
And, actually, proof in a court of law is merely one type and one degree of proof. There are others--some every bit as functional.
And, in terms of a court of law--10's of thousands of witness testimonies are AT LEAST AS RELIABLE as that which has sent many murderers to death row. Yes, there are problems with perception and witness consistency and reliability. But they are not such problems that they blow all reliability and usefulness of the testimony clear out of water and beyond reason.
From what I know of
@ roamer_1,
He's as solid as they come. I'd trust him with my life.
-
I'm a hard evidence guy. I've seen fairly decent evidence of ghosts, chupacabras and Presbyterians.
I have seen nothing that makes me believe in Big Foot. Almost everyone carries a camera with them, but no pics. No skeletal remains. No letter from their mother.
I want proof.
-
For real man?
yeah, for real.
-
I'm open to the thought, but wonder how many people would mistake a black bear on its hind feet for a big foot.
Folks like you and me? Accustomed to bear country?
-
Some folks like to pretend that
1. ONLY that which they can TOUCH;
2. ONLY that which they can see at close enough range to reach out and handle;
3. ONLY that which they can slice, dice, measure, hold still under a microscope or scalpel
constitute "reality" in their view.
@Quix
Well, that's all I am going by in this case - It ain't hard to find folks that have cut sign on these critters. And there's buckets of hair and scat... DNAs been mapped... And literally hundreds and hundreds of prints captured in plaster....
Whether they pop in and out of dimensions or UFOs, is beyond my ken, but I can tell you they leave prints. I can tell you they leave hair. I can tell you they leave poop and urine. I can tell you they eat normal things found in the forest... They do build landmarks... what for, I don't know.. They do knock, and they do howl.
And according to every native tribe, here and around the world, they have been around all the way along.
That's all tangible evidence. Nothing fanciful to it at all.
From what I know of
roamer_1,
He's as solid as they come. I'd trust him with my life.
Thanks for that... :beer: :seeya:
-
@Quix
Well, that's all I am going by in this case - It ain't hard to find folks that have cut sign on these critters. And there's buckets of hair and scat... DNAs been mapped... And literally hundreds and hundreds of prints captured in plaster....
Whether they pop in and out of dimensions or UFOs, is beyond my ken, but I can tell you they leave prints. I can tell you they leave hair. I can tell you they leave poop and urine. I can tell you they eat normal things found in the forest... They do build landmarks... what for, I don't know.. They do knock, and they do howl.
And according to every native tribe, here and around the world, they have been around all the way along.
That's all tangible evidence. Nothing fanciful to it at all.
Thanks for that... :beer: :seeya:
I realize that.
I just get weary at times . . . with the purported 'logic' that there is only one criteria or route for discover of truth; for facts; etc.
Otherwise bright folks can be sooooooo wedded to such a rigid and narrow so called 'objectivism' that they are utterly blind and ignorant to great swaths of reality.
-
There are all sorts of things we don't know. For instance, we knew the coelcanth (sp?) went extinct thousands of years ago, until a fisherman pulled a live one into his boat. We knew that the tasmanian tiger went extinct in the 30's, but then there have been spottings and pictures of them taken as recently as September.
To think we know everything is just too arrogant for me.
-
Folks like you and me? Accustomed to bear country?
I doubt it, from the descriptions I've read it'd be hard to mistake them if you got a clear view of them.
Whatever they are they must be pretty skittish to the presence of humans or we'd probably see more trail cam photos of them.
-
I doubt it, from the descriptions I've read it'd be hard to mistake them if you got a clear view of them.
Whatever they are they must be pretty skittish to the presence of humans or we'd probably see more trail cam photos of them.
I dunno that they are down low all that much... maybe just passin through. Where I cut sign was days in, and my encounter was way, way up in the deep woods... Ain't all that many trail cams up in there...
You get to thinking on it, outside of using dogs, I think I have seen two cougars in the wild... Wolf, maybe a handful of times (and I am actually looking for them), bear a bunch more, but not all that many times... And a sasquatch is a whole lot smarter than them. One of my friends is a nam vet, and a hillbilly boy - if he don't want you to see him, he's just gone.
-
they exist. Tracked them twice. seen hair, scat, and piss. Had an encounter. Never saw one yet, but they exist.
Cool!
For some reason, I want them to be real. I love the mystery.
-
"When I saw it, it looked like a person," Galvan said. "A man with two legs."
So....maybe it was a man?
-
We knew that the tasmanian tiger went extinct in the 30's, but then there have been spottings and pictures of them taken as recently as September.
Really? That's great! I have a good friend who's an Ozzie. Met him up here punchin cows. He swore up and down he'd seen a taz tiger with his own eyes... That was probably 25 years ago. I'll have to look him up over that.
To think we know everything is just too arrogant for me.
The hubris of modern man... Homo Sapiens... Wise man... Rom1:22-32 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...
-
I realize that.
I just get weary at times . . . with the purported 'logic' that there is only one criteria or route for discover of truth; for facts; etc.
Otherwise bright folks can be sooooooo wedded to such a rigid and narrow so called 'objectivism' that they are utterly blind and ignorant to great swaths of reality.
It is a pity...
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet, Wm. Shakespeare
-
Cool!
For some reason, I want them to be real. I love the mystery.
Well, my encounter was not cool - turned my malamute into a gibbering idiot... and he whooped up on bears for fun...
When that dog don't like it, there's but one thing to do... get the hell out... which is what I done. :)
-
I dunno that they are down low all that much... maybe just passin through. Where I cut sign was days in, and my encounter was way, way up in the deep woods... Ain't all that many trail cams up in there...
You get to thinking on it, outside of using dogs, I think I have seen two cougars in the wild... Wolf, maybe a handful of times (and I am actually looking for them), bear a bunch more, but not all that many times... And a sasquatch is a whole lot smarter than them. One of my friends is a nam vet, and a hillbilly boy - if he don't want you to see him, he's just gone.
Maybe I've gotten too cynical at the typical responses from the average citizen.
I'm cool with a reasonable amount of critical thinking skepticism.
Swallowing a list of false positives just because one is lazy-headed is nonsense.
However, the other extreme of swallowing all the false negatives far and wide is equally stupid.
The accounts taken in toto describe critters that are quite smart, wiley . . . . as well as mysterious and often enough fairly frightful.
I don't know how better to communicate to people the need for being aware and alert to changing times and particularly major paradigm shifts. Assumptions about conventional reality and historic times are likely to be greatly flawed, if not hazardous.
Most folks in most places are likely to be confronted with events, creatures, forces, dynamics, . . . which will be at least significantly hazardous to life and freedoms within their lifetime.
Yet, millions go blithely on as though nothing significant will change--practically their constructions on life and how they know that what they think they know is true.
-
It is a pity...
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet, Wm. Shakespeare
Absolutely indeed. Why are so many so clueless about such realities?
-
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.
-
Texas is flat, populous and has no extremely large forests (or untouched parts)
-
Texas is flat, populous and has no extremely large forests (or untouched parts)
Uhm well... except for the Piney Woods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piney_Woods) and the Big Thicket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Thicket), both in East Texas. And folks in the Hill Country and out by Big Bend would disagree with it being "flat".
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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
@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.
-
Sadly he died a few years ago...
(https://deepasabirdbath.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/andy-rooney1.jpg)
-
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
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.