Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

62 Responses to “Breaking News: Navajo Bigfoot Captured in Photos by Paramedics!”

1. lancemoody responds: March 14th, 2013 at 12:18 pm

   DWA,

   Yes, current knowledge DOES have a privilege over unproven paradigm-changing ideas. This does not mean that current ideas are always correct. They aren’t. But scientific ideas supported by evidence conforming to the hypothesis ARE preferable to unsupported paranormal guesswork devised mostly by amateurs.

   And make no mistake, the Bigfoot hypothesis IS a paranormal belief. It wasn’t always so but as time has gone on and the hypothesis has expanded (even while the evidence has remained stagnant, wretchedly worthless and wholly unconvincing), it has become an hypothesis that only exists by special pleading against all known scientific data.

   The Bigfoot hypothesis suggests that the Bigfeet occupy the entire North American Continent (as well as almost everywhere else in the world)! The breeding population for such a creature would have to vast. That there is no specimen makes the idea ridiculous on the face of it and well-deserving of all derision cast by skeptics and scientists.

   Indeed it is this expansion of Bigfoot’s domain that underlines and supports what skeptics argue: that this is a sociological/psychological phenomenon (along with a healthy amount of fraud). Bigfoot is seen everywhere because he isn’t real.

   I realize that Bigfoot proponents desperately want their beliefs to be validated by science. But the fact that evidence never gets any better and never converges (as would be expected by a real phenomena) even while the claims get more and more grandiose insures that this will never happen.

   Best,

2. DWA responds: March 14th, 2013 at 5:44 pm

   Lancemoody; nope.

   Not paranormal at all. The evidence is extensive, Scientists with directly relevant training see this. That the scientific mainstream simply does not is a fact plainer than plain to anyone who takes the time required to, well…to have any reason to be here.

   And why is that for you again…?

3. dconstrukt responds: March 19th, 2013 at 10:42 am

   DWA. i tend to agree with almost all you say… (plus you seem to know a heck of a lot more ‘inside’ stuff than me). i’m just a dude who’s been fascinated with this since I was a kid.

   but me? i’m not after stories… which is what people’s accounts are… (albeit some really interesting stories)

   i’m after hard, real tangible proof.

   ALmost everything I’ve seen can be either hoaxed or debunked.

   Most of which to me, is garbage.

   you bring up the ghost stuff… but here’s where those “ghost hunters” succeed… where this community seems to fail miserably….

   their entire goal is to DEBUNK any possible evidence… then… and only then they are left with REAL, credible evidence.

   bigfooters on the other hand (and sorry for making an overall generalization – just my take from what I’ve seen), they take everything and assume its bigfoot… INSTEAD of doing this same process of debunking FIRST before revealing any evedence as “this is bigfoot”

   no credibility in my book… and the “evidence” would get an F – in grade school…

4. DWA responds: March 19th, 2013 at 3:45 pm

   dconstrukt:

   Here’s where acquaintance with evidence comes in handy.

   99.9% of this field, roughly, is sideshow crapola. Too many bigfooters see a squatch (I hate that word) behind every bush. But the ones I pay attention to don’t, because they’re skeptics. Proper skeptics, not “bigfoot skeptics,” who aren’t skeptical. Relentless naysaying isn’t skeptical. That’s cynicism, and cynicism tends not to be intelligent. It’s interesting that many bigfoot skeptics used to be believers. They didn’t understand evidence and the workings of the scientific method then, and unsurprisingly they don’t now.

   Reviewing each piece of evidence with a critical eye? That is skeptical; and that’s what Jeff Meldrum and the TBRC (apparently just renamed, but hey) do. And calling crap on a story just because it isn’t proof isn’t skeptical. The fact is that no one calling BS on this has a thing to back that up. And the fact also is that if no one follows up there and finds evidence, then all this is is one more story that doesn’t matter.

   Bigfoot skeptics are the ones who should be debunking and aren’t. They are calling BS on legitimate evidence – which most any evidence is that has not been debunked. Debunked means proven to be something other than authentic. Note that word proven. The only skeptical approach to this topic that dignifies the term is an approach that exposes fakes with evidence. Generic naysaying – like we see here – wastes bandwidth and hinders the march of science. It is patently not true that the skeptics are being asked to “prove a negative.” They must prove false positives, which involves legwork and deductive reasoning and not generic crap-slinging. For 45 years now they have been yelling about Patty. Not one piece of evidence have they produced that Patty is anything but what Patterson and Gimlin say she was. That’s only one example. The they-are-seeing-bears tack is one of the silliest things I have ever heard, no honest, and is completely contradicted by the evidence they fail to read. I could go on. And on.

   Wanna stop hand-wringing over stories like this? Follow texasbigfoot.com; and read Meldrum and Bindernagel. Toss in Alley’s Raincoast Sasquatch and the BFRO database. (That is legit, “Finding Nothing” notwithstanding.) No bigfoot skeptic ever bothers to confront these people on the science.

   Which tells you something, right there.

5. dconstrukt responds: March 19th, 2013 at 8:56 pm

   thanks for the heads up…. interesting thoughts…. thats what i’m talking about. i like the stuff you say.

   so i went to the tx bigfoot site… looking @ the evidence page… and read this on #8.

   Two images, in the possession of the NAWAC, of a wood ape photographed in Oklahoma bear a remarkable resemblance to the Patterson/Gimlin subject, lending further credence to the film (and to the photos).

   so why, if you have these photos, why wouldn’t you show them on your site?

   what are you hiding?

   I dont get it.

6. DWA responds: March 22nd, 2013 at 9:18 am

   The photos are on the site.

   Gotta click links and move around.

   Keep in mind: only the analysis that followed the photos means anything. These are not blobsquatches. Followup is critical.

   And this is what I mean about hip-shot ‘analysis’. Because it ain’t analysis.

7. DWA responds: March 22nd, 2013 at 10:12 am

   I probably should add that those photos weren’t on the site for a long time. Brian Brown of the TBRC (now NAWAC) said, over on the Bigfoot Forums, that one reason they didn’t was that they didn’t want to deal with the bandwidth-hogging from hip-shot artists who do all their “analysis” inside their heads.

8. DWA responds: March 22nd, 2013 at 11:42 am

   Here’s another report with two of the kind of photos we’re talking about.

   Again: combine the report and the post-analysis with the bad cell photos and you can see pretty clearly that this isn’t red-circle-around-a-shadow blobsquatch material.

   (You can also see why anyone who tells you that millions walking around with camera phones would have to equal proof of sasquatch by now is talking out the wrong orifice of his ape suit.)

   You don’t know what those photos are. Saying you do only highlights that you don’t.

9. Goodfoot responds: March 22nd, 2013 at 3:01 pm

   DWA: Are you saying analysis occurs someplace other than the head?

   Yer pal,
   Puzzled

10. Goodfoot responds: March 22nd, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    DWA: regarding the link to the photos you posted, all I can get out of it is the “photographer” can even get a clear picture of a TREE. SERIOUSLY, does he have palsy or something? I can’t see anything in Photo 1, and I agree with you that no decision or claim can be made about any of those. Except the the picture-taker can’t hold a cell-phone still.

11. DWA responds: March 22nd, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    Goodfoot:

    “DWA: Are you saying analysis occurs someplace other than the head?”

    Well, sometimes – even in bigfootery – it happens in the field.

    EXAMPLES:

    IN THE FIELD:

    Let’s put a guy there. He’ll be holding a pole of known height so as to provide a solid yardstick. At least we’ll say how tall/heavy he is. If that object isn’t there at that time, then it must have arrived at the scene, then left. Unless somebody put something there, then removed it. OK. Any other evidence? Tracks; hair; scats; kills; other reports; LARGE dark bigfoot statue in front of somebody’s trailer; anything…? etc.

    IN THE HEAD:

    Not a bigfoot. Trust me, I just know.

    OR:

    That’s clearly a bigfoot. We are Facebook Find Bigfoot. Confirms on: squatchiness; likes Indians; tree-peeking (without tree); gas station with beef jerky nearby

    And as to that other link I provided, there seems an object – bigger than the human by about the margin sasquatch reports would lead us to expect – that was on the scene at the time of the sighting but not when the followup got there. It seems to have traveled the same route as explained in the very detailed report of the sighting. Maybe that’s a head with sagittal crest in the “clearest” photo. Now: what other evidence is there…?

    Anything is better with followup. Even bad photos.

12. Goodfoot responds: March 23rd, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    DWA: All right then. It’s just that I never heard of a field analyzing ANYTHING.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|