Government cover-up?

    It is widely believed that “the Government” tries to conceal the existence of sasquatches and other cryptids and persecutes people who get too close to the truth or who have strong evidence the .gov doesn’t want made public.  Nobody knows exactly who is behind the cover-up or what governmental entity, exactly, is involved. 

I will attempt to parse out the reasons and theories behind the shady behavior of our  civil servants.

There are many stories of men in black (MIB) visits, some very threatening, threats against family members, harassment, IRS audits, disappearing records, failure to answer FOIA requests, loss of employment, and prosecution for crimes they know you did not commit.  This is a clear abuse of power and unconstitutional as all get-out.

Many students of the bigfoot phenomenon have disappeared from the public eye.  I will not name names because I do not want to multiply their troubles.

Usually, a run-of-the-mill government employee is just showing up to a job they can tolerate and getting a paycheck, like the rest of us drones.  The ones involved in this smoke-screen around cyptids seem unusually enthusiastic, even vicious.  They are highly motivated.

Law enforcement on every level and the military appear to cooperate with the thugs who bully citizens into silence.

That all said, we ask ourselves “Why?

Why would our government go to all this trouble to hide bigfoot, for example, when so many people already know or believe the species is real? That ship has sailed.  The squatch is out of the bag.  Another cryptid species less well known is the dogman .  Apparently there are others.  So?  Why pretend there are no such things?

Theories abound.

⇒  It’s the Lumber Lobby:  The lumber industry would be forced to stop logging in many areas because their activities disturb the newly discovered animals.  The Timber Barons have clout in Washington and prevent bigfoot from discovery.   Also, this would result in a huge economic loss for the regions involved in terms of jobs and tax revenues.

⇒  Spotted owl rewind:  The lumber industry would be forced to stop logging in many areas because their activities disturb a sensitive or endangered species.  Ecological concerns would create a complicated mountain of reports, red tape, expense, and law suits.

⇒  It’s park revenue:  State and national parks would be abandoned by citizens traumatized to learn the landscape is inhabited by very large and very dangerous predators.  This would result in a huge economic loss for the governments, regions, and contractors involved.

⇒  It’s the reservations:  Once bigfoot is “discovered,” it’s possible they will turn out to be humans.  A recently found tribe of Native Americans of a new kind might be given land, like reservations, and a lot of apple carts will overturn.  But think of the casinos.  Will they receive a free education, voting rights, drivers’ licenses?

⇒ It’s government liability:  In the past people have been killed and injured by cryptids, and the government did not tell the public such creatures were out there.  They have continued the policy of pretending cryptids are not real because as incidents mount up, their legal liability grows and grows.  Imagine the lawsuits.  Negligence on the part of the Forest Service, Department of the Interior, Defense Department, and goodness knows who else caused the deaths of many innocent citizens.  They can have no real defense at this point and have to keep the lid on or massive, massive amounts of shit will fly.

⇒  Murderous rednecks:  The government has not disclosed the existence of the cryptid species because it is afraid rifle-toting gentlemen will descend in droves into whatever they think is cryptid habitat in order to shoot dead the scary monsters.

⇒ Panic in the streets:  If the public is aware of the presence of terrible and enormous intelligent predators among us, they will panic.  Many homes and small towns will become citadels filled with cowering, trigger-happy people.   Cities will set up barricades.  There will be civil unrest.  People will shoot each other and shoot the monsters.  There will be looting.

⇒ Interspecies warfare:  If people begin to shoot bigfoot or other animals on any kind of scale, there could be carnage.  Bigfoot is known to revenge the deaths of others of their species.  It could turn into outright war.  No one would be safe.

⇒ They are protecting us:  We don’t know it, but the situation is worse than anything described above.  Civil servants are just trying to protect the populace from both the effects and the awful knowledge of the reality of a truly nightmarish situation.

All of the above are possible, though perhaps described with some hyperbole.  I hope it’s just pure covering up of their behinds, but some of the alternatives are chilling.

 

 

Pareidolia and selective blindness

Pareidolia  is seeing patterns and images where only random colors and shapes really are present.  It’s a very human thing that your brain does.  Our  brain is built to see patterns and images, and it will see patterns and images even where there are none.  It’s hard not to see them.

Then there is the contrary phenomenon.  It doesn’t have a name, but I am going to call it selective blindness.  It amounts to not seeing patterns and images where there are patterns and images.  If you don’t see a hiding fox, that is normal,  but if you don’t see a fox that is in the open, and you deny that there is a fox even if it’s pointed out, I’d call that selective blindness. 

In order to see sasquatches that are there and not to see ones that are only imaginary, it helps to look for some specific clues.  There are some photos below only to illustrate what sorts of things clue you to the possible presence of a sasquatch.  Do not interpret these as picture of actual bigfoot.

→  Where are they?  Ask yourself, If I didn’t want to be seen where would I hide?  Look at those places first.

→  Off color:  You’ve been looking at nature your whole life.  You know what is normal.   One not-normal thing to spot is a color that seems wrong.  Is the black way too black?  Should the tree trunk be that color of reddish brown?  Are those dead leaves or is that red color someone’s fur?

Orange color out of place, possibly.

→   Shadows:  Shadows of trees are generally dappled.  A solid shadow cast by a tree means look again.  A shadow of a boulder is a great place to blend in if your fur is darker.

Hiding beside boulder?

→  Textures:   look for furry texture and the leathery texture of skin.  Especially telling is a furry arm wrapped around a branch or feet dangling from a tree limb.

Are those arms wrapped around tree trunks?

→  Look twice at objects a bigfoot could mimic. Tree trunks, tree stumps, boulders, tree roots, shadows, and deadfall can turn out to be more lively than still.

→  One thing to be aware of is that someitmes when you see them, they are sort of piled up so it’s hard to tell where one begins and the other ends.

→  Feet and hands:  look for the pale bottoms of feet and for pale nails on hands. 

→  Look for eyes and eyeshine.   The white of teeth shows up well, too.

→   Be sure to look down at ground level and under and around shrubs and trees.

 

 

 

 

 

Tree Craft

See also:  more tree photos

One area I frequented to observe bigfoot was quite near my home, so I got a good look at the place over the seasons and years.  Another spot was visible from my backyard.  Over time, I was able to see changes and patterns that maybe most people would not have been in a position to pick up.  Another set of linked trees is at China Creek Park.

Canary Island pine group, which has since been pruned back to nearly bare by local amateur “arborists.”

 

Cottonwood complex.  These are about 70′ tall or more.  Fremont cottonwoods have leaves up to about three inches long.

Let me note that I have worked for some time in an occupation that required me to look for tiny errors.  I can tell the difference between a 6 font and a 7 font in a typeface, in the middle of a sentence, for example.

The climate here is semi-desert.  Twelve inches of rain a year is average.  Most trees are near water sources like rivers. except for the valley oaks which spring up in the foothills, where the water table is higher than in the valley floor.  Geologically, it’s a different terrain from the Sierras or the Valley.  The valley floor is a mile deep in sand and gravel, so the water table is far down.

Another matter that will aid understanding here is that, in this part of California we have the world’s tallest and biggest oak species.  The valley oak may have a trunk diameter greater than ten feet.  It can reach a height of over 150 feet.  The branches have an irregular, spreading and arching appearance.

We also have planted non-native Canary Island Pines which have really long needles.  If you see a photo of one of these, remember the needles can be over ten inches long.  The local Fremont cottonwoods have leaves up to about three inches long.

Here we have a few native vines, but they are all small and thin.  Yet up in the trees one can sometimes see what look like sturdy vines.  I don’t know what those might be.   Bigfoot construction zones seem to teem with many vines and small branches.  The climate here doesn’t lend itself to jungle-density vine growth.  I am not sure what is going on with the viny looking material, but intend to look some over next opportunity.  I wonder if it could be mistletoe.

I do not know what the twisted, vine-like wood is.

All that now said, I have noticed what I believe is bigfoot manipulation of trees and tree branches.  In a previous post called Bigfoot Sign, I mentioned screens, hunting blinds,  and ramps, but their use of trees may go way beyond such rudiments.

Adjacent trees can be worked into a large network of branches forming a grand dwelling.

They will take branches from one kind of tree and put them up into another sort of tree.

They will begin with young trees and over time shape them into whatever they like.

I believe sasquatches also will also take mature trees and bend and shape them, a little at a time.

Adjacent trees can be linked together using the two methods above.  Walkways between them, larger screened in areas, lookout posts, and other useful structures can be made, and this gives greater security and strength than a single tree.

I think they may know a way to initiate branch growth where they like and so can form geometrically regular shapes and angles.

THE GROUP OF THREE PINES

My earlier photos of these seem to have gone the way of the dodo.   I am on my third laptop.  The most recent one was fried by  the repairman.  Most data was lost.

I guess I am just going to have to say that these started out as three separate trees and over time were pulled together toward the top.

Cottonwood with normal structure.

Cottonwoods at canal, linked together:

Enlarge to 300% for best views.

Notice where the bark is missing.  This may be a spot where bark was worn away by use.

So then how are the trees connected?

There are several ways the trees are linked.

→  Branches can be looped around each other

→   Young branches can be trained to grow in the desired direction by gentle bending or by tying.

→  Vines or twisted branches can be extended between the trees and lashed around strong branches

→  Live branches can be interwoven into a lattice between the trees

→  Branches from other trees can be placed from one tree to the next and secured by being  lashed or having smaller branches wrapped around it.

→  Larger branches can be grown from one tree and into the other over time, twisted around each other, interwoven.

→  Tree tops can be drawn together and secured by several of the above methods.

→  Large structures can be built between trees to make the individual trees stronger and form a place of refuge or a living space for a larger community.

How many generations of sasquatches would it take to form the elaborate twists and turns of the oak structures?

The height of larger trees is an advantage because lookouts can see anything heading the way of the community.  Life in large deciduous trees, especially ones thus joined, is secure from flooding, is breezy in the heat of summer, safe from predators, and away from human foot traffic.  Humans do not often look up to see if any sasquatches are hanging out upstairs and, anyway, the inhabitants are screened from view.

Ideally, such trees would be situated by a body of water to provide drinking water and serve as a swimming hole and outhouse.  The sound of running water covers little noises like babies crying or conversation. Canals and rivers are routes of transportation or an escape route in case of danger.

The main drawback would be lightning and strong winds.  Other than that, the living would seem easy.

In wintertime, evergreens would be an alternative.  Frameworks for screens etc. are mostly dismantled, perhaps, in autumn.

 

Reasons Why Bigfoot Does Exist

I was looking for a particular website with Google and noticed that there are a great many pages telling why there cannot be any such-a-thing as bigfoot.  I found myself moved to post a contrary point of view.

1.    Many footprints have been found and photographed or cast in plaster.   The prints, photos, and casts are physical evidence.   

2.  Sasquatch fingerprints and footprints with dermal ridges have been found and preserved.    Dermal ridges

3.  Witness sketches of sasquatch show great similarity.  Sketches

4.  The howls, screams, and other calls of unknown animals have been recorded, which sounds bigfoot are known to make and have been observed making.  SierraSounds

5.  Remains of prey animals are commonly found with a pattern of killing and consumption that is linked to bigfoot prints and habitat and not linked to anything else.  Remains

6.  Odd tree structures, some of massive, impossible size, have been identified and photographed in many areas.  Bigfoot has been observed constructing such wood shapes.  Structures

7.  There are thousands and thousands of reports of people seeing bigfoot.   BFRO        Encounters                  Also see Youtube, and the Internet in general.   The accounts have commonalities that transcend time and place.

8.  If even one of those reports is true, then there IS such a species.

9.  The large number of sighting reports alone argues that there must be such a creature because no other explanation really makes sense.  At.  All.

10.  There are photos and video of bigfoot.    See some below.

11.  Including the Patterson Gimlin film of 1967.  Patterson Gimlin

12.  And lastly, even if you should think this evidence is a pile of crap, it’s a pretty damn big pile of crap to accumulate around something purely imaginary.  Oh, and here is some scat, while we are on the subject.  This was part of a trail of poo that consisted on many different sized bits and bobs of feces.  This pictured is just the last one of the many.

 

 

 

 

Deduction and experience–to dogman and back

As I get older, I have come to appreciate that older people are underappreciated.  We, the elders, are wise, and our wisdom should be respected by our juniors. Like that will happen.  But I nevertheless offer some wisdom for your consideration.  It may sound familiar to some.

✶  The spiritual realm is real.   For real.

✶  There are many invisible, incorporeal, immortal spirit beings with whom we share the cosmos.  Ask about those out-of-body experiences.

✶The spirits already chose sides– good or bad.

✶ The ones who chose bad like to see us suffer and want to make us miserable as possible for as long as possible.

✶These bad spirits have been here with us on Earth for eons.   They know us well, are smart, and are much more knowledgeable about the universe than we are.

✶    The sight of one scares us stone stupid.

Given the above, I have come to these conclusions:

➙  Bigfoot can be influenced or possessed by bad spirits.   This explains some of the weirder experiences of bigfoot.

➙ Not all bigfoot are likely to be evilly influenced.

➙ “Aliens” may be bad spirits.  These aliens would have no relation to actual aliens.

➙  They had plenty of time to develop advanced technology like flying saucers.  This explains why UFOs can be “summoned,” why they sometimes zoom up to observers, and why they abduct and torture people.

➙  No way dogman evolved from dogs or people.   Some  contend that dogman creatures were created by genetic engineering.   Aliens and demons perhaps being the same thing, I guess it would be possible for them to make dogmen, and it sure would explain the dogman temperament.

➙  Other stuff is out there.

The Bodies–where are they?

Here, again, I consider the eternal question, that being what happens to all the bigfoot bodies that should by all rights be lying around in their forest or other habitat?  They certainly don’t leave them where we can find them.

Logically, there is a limited number of alternatives.  Either  they bury them, burn them, eat them, or   . . . . what else is there?   I have considered the question of whether bigfoot eat their dead here .  Dead post.

It is possible they cremate their remains.  If they do, they would probably burn them at night to conceal the smoke plume and do so in a place hidden from ordinary view, such as partway into a cave or mine, or a very low and remote spot.  We don’t know that they use fire, but they are smart enough to do so.    Absence of proof isn’t proof of absence, as they say.   Ashes would be easy to dispose of, say to dump into a river or scatter, leaving us clueless as ever.

If they eat them, they may smash and consume even the bone.  And in fact, this would fit perfectly into their lifestyle of extreme, compulsive secrecy.   We would never know.

If they bury bodies, they probably don’t just dig a hole on a pretty spot and plant their loved one.  Their need for secrecy would probably compel them to put large rocks on top of a grave, put graves under very large trees, put bodies in caverns, or otherwise effectively hide corpses.   I have heard it suggested that they may put the dead in hollows in trees, but that seems too likely to be discovered, as does putting a body underwater somewhere or in a body of water.

It’s possible that they simply dig a hole that is much deeper than we would expect.  Yet, we dig around too much ourselves for such a thing to escape our notice.

One other method of disposing of the dead is practiced by some humans–natural defleshing followed by burial of bones.   In Tibet, for example, the dead are disposed of via “sky burial.”  Bodies are left for the birds to clean the flesh from, and, after that is accomplished, the bones are buried.  It may be that instead of burying them, bones could be smashed to render them unrecognizable.

Comanche Indians used  a platform for a version of a sky burial, so this practice is not as foreign as it might at first sound.

Finally and most creepily, the Maori of the Chatham Islands strap some dead to a young tree and over time the tree grows to envelop the body.  Bigfoot does not do so that we know of, but it seems like something that would  appeal to them, somehow.

It’s my guess that the sasquatches do a little bit of sky burial with an added tree element.  I think they put the dead up on platforms built high in trees to be defleshed, up where we won’t see them and higher than we can climb.   Then they place the disarticulated bones up among the topmost tree branches.   Just a theory,   of course.

Now that we have drones, at least some of that will now be easier to investigate.

Google Earth Street View Particulars

I am sure you can find some bigfoots on Google Earth using Street View.   But you can’t just land on spot and start looking, expecting they are near.  Remember they can be about any color human hair can be.

When I go Google-footing, I look for certain features.

1–The resolution has to be the newest and best.  Old pictures are just too smeary.

2–Look for low spots where the road crosses a gully or valley, around bridges, along riversides, beside lakes, or any place en route to water.

3–Don’t look in the higher spots because they don’t tend to silhouette themselves against the sky.

4–Do look in trees as best you can.  Look under trees and around rocks.

5–Check out shadows.  Are some really  a crawling  bigfoot?

6–Keep an eye out for big trees and someone peeking out from behind.

7–They do NOT avoid people entirely. Look around the edges of towns and farms, on or in buildings, in with herds of livestock, and under cars and trucks.

8–Look in lakes and rivers and on the banks thereof.

9–If you find something, exit street view and hover just above the spot.   The higher shot is from a different day.  If your something is on the higher shot, then it’s a natural object that doesn’t move.

10–If you do find a bigfoot, the clearer it is, the closer it is, the more detail you can get, the better off you are.  A lot end up looking like cartoons and it’s hard to defend that they are real and not Scooby Doo.

11–You are going to see some weird stuff.

12–Google blurs out faces. Including bigfoot’s.

13–Google misses some faces.

Skepticism and Science or Someone Please Tell Me I Didn’t See a Giant Ape

Skeptic: A person who tends to question or doubt an opinion; one who denies the possibility or does not believe certain ideas; one who purports to think in a more scientific manner than other persons whom the skeptic treats as simpleminded.

Scientist:  Someone who purports to use scientific method while actually fudging data and wallowing in confirmation bias.

Simpleminded folk: Those who seek and accept as proof questionable or trivial evidence; belief precedes proof; these folk dismiss alternative ideas or contrary evidence; and accept ideas that lack experimental confirmation.  See entry for Wu.

What I get from the above is that skeptics just won’t believe and the simpletons believe too readily.  Neither position is justifiable in science.

The heart of science method is that an idea is best evaluated by experiments carefully designed to test whether the idea comports with reality and to disprove other possibilities.  Supposedly.

To prove that a North American great ape exists –aside from humans– there must be sufficient evidence to establish that fact and insufficient evidence to prove one does not exist.     But how much and what kind is sufficient are unclear.

The common idea of a hypothesis is part of the problem.   You cannot start out with a theory and gather evidence from there….you have to start with a question, not with a proposed answer or solution.  Let me say that again:

Science starts with a question, not with one proposed answer or solution.  By starting with the answer instead of the questions, you have put the cart before the horse, are doing it all bass ackwards, and have automatically twisted your results with confirmation bias which humans cannot completely overcome.

You should start with a question and then make a comprehensive list of possible solutions, and only then may you start to design experiments.   But how can you experiment on this bigfoot question?

Take this situation:

I saw something, in bright light during daytime, by the side of a road. Five other people also saw it, three ten-year-old children, two adults. We were driving by in a tour bus. It was less than twenty feet away.

Seen: something, a creature, standing upright, hair all over it, can’t see a face, did see brown skinned fingers, unable to measure sign later for height estimate, but guessed six feet tall, was seen to turn its head, step back, and slide hand around tree trunk.

Let’s figure it out….

Go read about 30 reports from the BFRO state sightings and see if you can come up with a good alternative.  I’d like to hear any ideas that make any sense.  Believe me, people who see one have no wish to believe they saw a giant ape thing.

Straightening Out Skeptics About Ockam’s Razor

The skeptics mantra is “Ockam’s Razor.”  They hold it up in support of the idea of parsimonious evaluation of data–the conventional method of choosing an answer where conclusive evidence is lacking.  I often hear skeptics characterize the Ockam’s razor test as accepting as true whichever is the simpler answer to the question.  In other words, we don’t have enough evidence to tell, actually, so let’s go with the easiest one.  Really?  In real life, this is a bad plan.  Trust me.  See references below on that.

But more to the point, what William of Ockham (1286–1347) actually said was “Among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.”   Not the same as what is usually quoted, is it?  Fewest assumptions, people.

See PDF;  acm;  foundation. rational

I think we can all agree that it’s good to maintain a doubtful frame of mind about stories that seem outlandish, unlikely,  or wild.

WTF:    Marcello Truzzi said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” or some such thing.    Accompanied by a smug look, probably.    But wait a damn minute, not so fast.

That’s a nice pat answer to claims you don’t care for, but opinions about what is outlandish do not belong in scientific inquiry.    All ideas and theories should require the same proof, and different standards should not apply to ideas or theories based on anyone’s preexisting opinion of those ideas or theories.

Extraordinary proof  for extraordinary claims does not comport with scientific thought.

Skepticism is the proper attitude toward an idea or theory before sufficient proof is had, but must be abandoned after proof is brought forward.  Today, it’s as ridiculous to roll your eyes at the idea that ulcers can be caused by bacteria as it will someday be to sniff primly at the idea that North America harbors at least one great ape.

Bigfoot will someday be listed along with continental drift, plate tectonics, warm blooded dinosaurs, and germ theory count among the ideas once scorned by the science establishment.