Joshua Cutchin, From Bigfoot to Extended Consciousness |418|

#41
Should also add to my Bigfoot story, sometime later this shows up on my Facebook feed. Hilarious.
...Similar stories here is Australia - big black cats - panther size (supported by apparent video shown on telly).
I really do not believe that there are physical cats behind the vast majority of the big cat stories. There is no way that the cat in my story is real animal.

But, then, you get stuff like this which is pretty amazing. Very clear video. This is hundreds of miles from me.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...t-spotted-prowling-field-family-s-garden.html

A bit like UFO videos I suppose. :)
 
#42
I really do not believe that there are physical cats behind the vast majority of the big cat stories. There is no way that the cat in my story is real animal.
The problem lies in your definition of 'real'.If you mean physical in the sense we normally understand I am disposed to agree. But quite clearly these appearances are not figments of imagination. So whatever the 'reality' is, it ain't our familiar warm and comfortable one.

The thing is that we have become used to defining reality by the rules of materialism, and even when we repudiate and deny materialism we are still contaminated by its influence. Other 'realities' can intersect with our own. We assume that our 'horizontal' plane is the definitive reality. But residents of a 'vertical' plane may disagree.

There's a classic publication called 'Flatland: a Romance of Many Dimensions' by Edwin A Abbott, published in 1884, that reminds us to be careful of what we presume. You can download a pdf at: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Abbott/paper.pdf
 
#43
In May 2006 Maria Goodavage assembled a propaganda article in USA Today entitled, "Bigfoot Merely Amuses Most Scientists." In it she quoted John Crane, a zoologist at Washington State University, as saying, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."

As part of my review of material that's clearly been fabricated... I purchased the Ketchum Bigfoot De Novo study years ago and have read it several times through. As a person who has been involved in and commissioned several DNA studies - as always, I could not find the part which Crane identified as 'fabricated' (nor could I substantiate his claim that he had reviewed every single bit of BF evidence out there). Skeptics tend to run off when their apothegms are tested below skin deep. They package their conclusions for public consumption, and those claims they make are never tested for merit. This is called an Imposterlösung Mechanism - or The Cheater's Hypothesis - packaging purported CLAIMS of science which are never challenged in the least, and are crafted so as to sound reasonable to a lay public and media, but are total baloney.

The labs which were used in the assembly of the Ketchum consensus DNA results are below. They would absolutely HAVE to be involved in the fabrication - as we do not have the capability to fabricate whole DNA. It would cost me close to $50 million to bribe all the officials at the following labs in order to get them to fabricate results and keep quiet about it for a decade now. Then it would still get out anyway.

University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas TX​
University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles CA​
Texas A&M University, Dept. of Biology Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station TX​
Texas A&M University, Veterinary Medical Diagnostics Lab, College Station TX​
FTDNA Genomics Research Center, Houston TX​
SeqWright, Inc., Houston TX​
Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Dallas TX​

Regarding the makeup of the samples analyzed (103 of them) - the mitochondrial DNA (female lineage) sequencing placed the creature as human, and Sample 40 in particular (below) aged the version of the mtDNA to 15,400 years ago. An accusation of fraud MUST BE PROVEN - it cannot just be tossed out and left baking in the sun, presumed as true. This presents some questions which Dr. Crane, who is a zoologist and not a Biophysicist, needs to explain.

1. How does one fabricate novel DNA sequence blocks (no GenBank ID) in a 3' to 5' sugar spline wrapped around histones? Which then PCR replicate for a professional lab third party... How does one do that? If they can do that - they should be awarded the Nobel Prize in Biophysics, Biochemistry and Biogenetics.​
2. How does one fabricate a sample, which at least 3 independent and blind study labs extract and agree upon, to analyze an entire mitochondrial DNA genome (16,569 contiguous base pairs)? An amazing feat of deception...​
3. How does one fabricate a human DNA which is 15,400 years old? It no longer exists, so where could one possibly get it? One cannot CRISPR assemble whole mtDNA genomes. Did they find some unfrozen caveman and take a sample of his skin?​
4. How do 7 labs all come up with the same answers, to a fabricated DNA sample? How does one possibly accomplish this?​
If fraud were enacted here, we are talking about a skill in forgery which is god-like in its capability. Crane should have been pounding on their door, asking for lessons in such an art in gene assembly, hundreds of years in advance of any of our current CRISPR capabilities as mankind.

dna legacy.png
 
Last edited:
#47
No :) I am under a non-disclosure agreement (MNCNDA) on most of those.
Okay TES, for we innocent souls what does the MNC bit mean. I presume I understand the NDA bit. In my pretty normal world MNC stands for Mid North Coast (that's between the Far North Coast [only from a Sydney perspective] and the Hunter). I am sure you MNC is way more sinister.
 
#48
If fraud were enacted here, we are talking about a skill in forgery which is god-like in its capability. Crane should have been pounding on their door, asking for lessons in such an art in gene assembly, hundreds of years in advance of any of our current CRISPR capabilities as mankind.
So, TES, you are saying BigFoot (what a monopedal notion - reminds me of the Tasmanian Blue Unique) is a concrete biological entity, based on the evidence you allude to?

What I take you to mean is that the genetic evidence can't be forged.

So if we stick all the bits of the story together we have a proper biological entity that has magical attributes that give it the capability to shift from one dimension to another.

This is my problem with BigFoot in general. Its not that I doubt its existence. It does not fit anywhere sensible. It is not apparently a creature of sophisticated behaviour in terms of its interaction with humans - and yet is possesses what we would regard as 'magical' capabilities we do not associate with other-than-human agencies. At the risk of violating any sense of crypto-biological PC, BigFoot seems 'sub-human' on the primate scale

Apparent form and conduct are not consistent with what we know. That does not mean that this rules that form/conduct blend out - just that it falls into our 'does not compute' zone.

I have read on BigFoot over a number of years, noting apparent parallels globally. But at no stage have I been convinced there is anything of sufficient coherence that demands more than a glancing level of coherence. I am aware that there are markedly different camps - those who see BF as an entirely organic agent and those who have a more magical conception of it - and never the twain shall meet, by all accounts.

So we cannot doubt that BF encounters are real - but real what? If the reality go BF is not in dispute then the nature is.

You have made an assertion in relation to genetic material. Care to riff on the question of nature?
 
#49
Okay TES, for we innocent souls what does the MNC bit mean. I presume I understand the NDA bit. In my pretty normal world MNC stands for Mid North Coast (that's between the Far North Coast [only from a Sydney perspective] and the Hunter). I am sure you MNC is way more sinister.
A MNCNDA is a Mutual Non Compete Non Disclosure Agreement... :)

I don't tell about them
They don't tell about me

They don't tread on my turf
I don't tread on their turf

They don't take my people
I don't take their people

I don't tell of anything we find
They don't tell of anything we find

They don't derive revenue without me
I don't derive revenue without them

I don't contact their partners without them
They don't contact my partners without me

(not all of course are applicable in every situation - but generally the document covers this anyway - Lawyers....)
 
Last edited:
#50
You have made an assertion in relation to genetic material. Care to riff on the question of nature?
I'll answer this from the standpoint of The Seven Elements of Hypothesis. While the hypothesis that a creature exists bears all seven elements of hypothesis (it is not a pseudoscience contrary to the claims of fake skeptics terrified by this idea), the 'magical' creature option does not yet bear these mature elements. It is not that the magical option is true or untrue, nor that it should be relegated to pseudoscience either - rather that, in a lab setting, that question cannot be tackled yet, because we have not addressed the core question of existence to begin with. Items 2 and 6 below are fatal and not simply procedural - you cannot test for, that which you cannot define, nor do you have in your possession.

So, were I in a research setting - asking my team to prosecute this question critical path - I would say "Let's table the magical alternative until we establish the fact that the creature exists to begin with. Once we have done that - then and only then, can we begin to test its magic - because the latter is dependent upon both the existence of, and the ability to test, the former. Magic proponents, throw your support behind materialists - but realize that your secondary goal is to establish elements 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 for a later date."

This would be the nature of 'Incremental Critical Path'. ('Magical' being just a convenient name and not intended to be pejorative)

The Seven Elements of Hypothesis

1. Is a Construct based upon necessity

Material ✅​
Magical ✅​

2. Bears Wittgenstein definition and defined domain

Material ✅​
Magical ❌​

3. Features Parsimony
a. Is incremental and critical path in its construct
Material ✅​
Magical ❌​
b. Methodically conserves risk in its conjecture
Material ✅​
Magical ❌​
c. Posed so as to minimize stakeholder risk
Material ✅​
Magical ❌​

4. Serves in its Duty to Reduce Address and Inform

Material ✅​
Magical ❌​

5. Bears Growing Structured Intelligence

Material ✅​
Magical ✅​

6. Bears Testable Mechanism

Material ✅​
Magical ❌​

7. Bears Exposure to Accountability

Material ✅​
Magical ❌​
 
Last edited:
#51
I'll answer this from the standpoint of The Seven Elements of Hypothesis. While the hypothesis that a creature exists bears all seven elements of hypothesis (it is not a pseudoscience contrary to the claims of fake skeptics terrified by this idea), the 'magical' creature option does not yet bear these mature elements. what are check right now they're like that I mean like

So, were I in a research setting - asking my team to prosecute this question critical path - I would say "Let's table the magical alternative until we establish the fact that the creature exists to begin with. Once we have done that - then and only then, can we begin to test its magic - because the latter is dependent upon both the existence of, and the ability to test, the former. Magic proponents, throw your support behind materialists - but realize that your secondary goal is to establish elements 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 for a later date."

This would be the nature of 'Incremental Critical Path'. ('Magical' being just a convenient name and not intended to be pejorative)

The Seven Elements of Hypothesis

1. Is a Construct based upon necessity

Material ✅​
Magical ✅​

2. Bears Wittgenstein definition and defined domain

Material ✅​
Magical ❌​

3. Features Parsimony
a. Is incremental and critical path in its construct
Material ✅​
Magical ❌​
b. Methodically conserves risk in its conjecture
Material ✅​
Magical ❌​
c. Posed so as to minimize stakeholder risk
Material ✅​
Magical ❌​

4. Serves in its Duty to Reduce Address and Inform

Material ✅​
Magical ❌​

5. Bears Growing Structured Intelligence

Material ✅​
Magical ✅​

6. Bears Testable Mechanism

Material ✅​
Magical ❌​

7. Bears Exposure to Accountability

Material ✅​
Magical ❌​
this is great. also, the DNA stuff is stunning... still can't grock it.

I am also open to the idea that as raymond moody told me we need a new "system of logic" to understand some of these problems. and even though I wouldn't have put it quite that way I think I know what he means :) what does a "consciousness is fundamental" paradigm shift do to the above analysis? maybe the stuff we're measuring and analyzing is the end result symptom rather than the cause.

a consciousness first (magic first perspective) might be, "ok can our known systems of magic produce we're seeing, or do we have to fall back on dorky old material science" :) tongue and cheek... but only slightly.

== matter is primary/fundamental
It is not that the magical option is true or untrue, nor that it should be relegated to pseudoscience either - rather that, in a lab setting, that question cannot be tackled yet, because we have not addressed the core question of existence to begin with.

== consciousness is primary/fundamental
It is not that the material option is true or untrue, rather that, the question cannot be tackled yet, because we have not addressed the core question of how many angels fit on head of a pin.
 
#52
In May 2006 Maria Goodavage assembled a propaganda article in USA Today entitled, "Bigfoot Merely Amuses Most Scientists." In it she quoted John Crane, a zoologist at Washington State University, as saying, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."

As part of my review of material that's clearly been fabricated... I purchased the Ketchum Bigfoot De Novo study years ago and have read it several times through. As a person who has been involved in and commissioned several DNA studies - as always, I could not find the part which Crane identified as 'fabricated' (nor could I substantiate his claim that he had reviewed every single bit of BF evidence out there). Skeptics tend to run off when their apothegms are tested below skin deep. They package their conclusions for public consumption, and those claims they make are never tested for merit. This is called an Imposterlösung Mechanism - or The Cheater's Hypothesis - packaging purported CLAIMS of science which are never challenged in the least, and are crafted so as to sound reasonable to a lay public and media, but are total baloney.

The labs which were used in the assembly of the Ketchum consensus DNA results are below. They would absolutely HAVE to be involved in the fabrication - as we do not have the capability to fabricate whole DNA. It would cost me close to $50 million to bribe all the officials at the following labs in order to get them to fabricate results and keep quiet about it for a decade now. Then it would still get out anyway.

University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas TX​
University of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles CA​
Texas A&M University, Dept. of Biology Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station TX​
Texas A&M University, Veterinary Medical Diagnostics Lab, College Station TX​
FTDNA Genomics Research Center, Houston TX​
SeqWright, Inc., Houston TX​
Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Dallas TX​

Regarding the makeup of the samples analyzed (103 of them) - the mitochondrial DNA (female lineage) sequencing placed the creature as human, and Sample 40 in particular (below) aged the version of the mtDNA to 15,400 years ago. An accusation of fraud MUST BE PROVEN - it cannot just be tossed out and left baking in the sun, presumed as true. This presents some questions which Dr. Crane, who is a zoologist and not a Biophysicist, needs to explain.

1. How does one fabricate novel DNA sequence blocks (no GenBank ID) in a 3' to 5' sugar spline wrapped around histones? Which then PCR replicate for a professional lab third party... How does one do that? If they can do that - they should be awarded the Nobel Prize in Biophysics, Biochemistry and Biogenetics.​
2. How does one fabricate a sample, which at least 3 independent and blind study labs extract and agree upon, to analyze an entire mitochondrial DNA genome (16.569 contiguous base pairs)? An amazing feat of deception...​
3. How does one fabricate a human DNA which is 15,400 years old? It no longer exists, so where could one possibly get it? One cannot CRISPR assemble whole mtDNA genomes. Did they find some unfrozen caveman and take a sample of his skin?​
4. How do 7 labs all come up with the same answers, to a fabricated DNA sample? How does one possibly accomplish this?​
If fraud were enacted here, we are talking about a skill in forgery which is god-like in its capability. Crane should have been pounding on their door, asking for lessons in such an art in gene assembly, hundreds of years in advance of any of our current CRISPR capabilities as mankind.

View attachment 1227
TES,
Are you saying that you actually have seen the separate and detailed results from each lab's tests?
 
#53
TES,
Are you saying that you actually have seen the separate and detailed results from each lab's tests?
Yes, each lab contributed different sets of analyses - but three prominent outside labs produced the entire genome and mtDNA... and all agreed as to the result. One of the labs was pretty pissed off that their reputation would be dragged through the mud over this... but...

DNA don't lie.... and you can't fabricate it from scratch.

This is an issue called 'critical path'

Everything else is irrelevant smoke and mirrors, hand waving.
 
Last edited:
#54
I am also open to the idea that as raymond moody told me we need a new "system of logic" to understand some of these problems. and even though I wouldn't have put it quite that way I think I know what he means :)
Agreed Alex,

And before I die - my mission is to outline this new system of logic, if you will. A means of catching our young people, and arming them with philosophy of ethical skepticism - before the brainwashers can hand them answers and apothegms (AaA).

A New Ethic

Ethical Skeptic Faith sm.jpg
 
#55
a consciousness first (magic first perspective) might be, "ok can our known systems of magic produce we're seeing, or do we have to fall back on dorky old material science" :) tongue and cheek... but only slightly.
I don't see that 'consciousness first' = 'magic first'. It might be better to say that the physical distils from the metaphysical - as a more dense expression of precedes it. This perspective asserts that the physical is the realm of effects - not causes. Things in the physical world tend to be assemblages from progressively less physical components. The difference between 'man-made' and 'natural' is really only a question of agency - and, even so, what is 'man'- made finally falls into the category of 'natural'.

The trouble with "dorky old material science" is that it is exactly that. It has to draw a line beyond which it cannot go. The root of everything material is immaterial - that's what science says. But because it can't measure what is immaterial it puts up a wall to hide it and then does the Christian thing of insisting the only way to what is beyond the wall is through science.

This is, of course, complete bullshit, which is supposedly masked by the nonsensical idea of 'pseudoscience'. So any attempt to inquire into immaterial foundations of the material is dismissed as 'pseudo'. The risk is that, as words and their meanings evolve, one day 'pseudo' will come to mean - real, good, true.

I come back to my assertion that the structure of thought/inquiry/knowledge is well established in the Vedic, Qabalistic and Hermetic systems. Even rudimentary familiarity with any of these will provide critical thinking models to enable an inquirer to get the gist of how things work. Its not a mystery.
 
#56
I am also open to the idea that as raymond moody told me we need a new "system of logic" to understand some of these problems. and even though I wouldn't have put it quite that way I think I know what he means :) what does a "consciousness is fundamental" paradigm shift do to the above analysis? maybe the stuff we're measuring and analyzing is the end result symptom rather than the cause.
There are some hints of this new logic - which is really thinking from a metaphysical perspective, rather than a physical one - and that's so damned hard because almost all our thought models are physical - and those that are not are scattered across religion, philosophy and various forms of art. We don't respect it/them as the proper discipline of head and heart united because we are idiotically biased toward head as the sole source of 'reason' (it isn't).

You can check out White's 'Unobstructed Universe' free here - http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301131.txt

Its a good place to start.
 
#57
Agreed Alex,

And before I die - my mission is to outline this new system of logic, if you will. A means of catching our young people, and arming them with philosophy of ethical skepticism - before the brainwashers can hand them answers and apothegms (AaA).

A New Ethic

View attachment 1232
ok, but you've deftly avoided the question of how many angels fit on the tip of that bullet in the gun :)
 
Top