Featured Sponsors

Featured Post
↓ Latest Post ↓
Showing posts with label Methods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Methods. Show all posts

Monday, July 2, 2018

Healing Yourself By Discovering Your Past Lives


Healing Yourself By Discovering Your Past Lives
My Past Life Healing Story

By Dorraine Fisher


Have you ever been going about your day like normal when you suddenly saw something that affected you in some way? Like there was something you were supposed to remember about it, but you can’t quite put your finger on it? It could be anything, really. A person, a place, a thing, a recurring dream.  And there’s this intuitive side of you that knows it’s something significant, but that logical side of you might just say you’re just imagining things. But you aren’t. It’s your intuition trying to tell you something.

We all have some kind of emotional/mental issues. We all have things about ourselves we don’t understand, and sometimes can’t seem to overcome.  Many things can be explained by our childhood or previous traumatic events in our lives. But other things aren’t so cut and dry. Some things about us seem to have no reason or explanation...at least in this life. Because some things about us were brought about in a past life. And there are clues we may see every day in this life that are trying to tell us why.  But we have to listen in order to hear. And the best way to explain this is for me to use myself as an example of how this can work.
Monday, July 02, 2018 No comments » by Thomas Marcum
Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Bigfoot Research: Is It Okay To Defy Science?


Bigfoot Research: Is It Okay To Defy Science? Just A Little Bit?
 By Dorraine Alters-Fisher

When I’m conducting research, or simply thinking about it, and I come up with a new idea about how to do it, I often find myself thinking that if the scientists were here watching me right now, they’d be rolling their eyes.

That’s because it’s necessary to really think outside the box sometimes in order to learn anything new. And sometimes you find yourself doing some pretty strange things simply because this thought process has led you there. 

But not all agree with this.

Science has their own set way of finding answers to questions. They let the evidence lead the way until they collect enough “facts” to prove the point to which the evidence has led them. It’s a very logical and concise system that sets the standard for everything scientists do. And it works…in that context.

But is that the only context? And what if we tried a different context?

I’ve taken a little heat before for challenging science a bit, and I get into a little trouble from time to time. But those of you who know me know I don’t really worry about that too much. Because some of the greatest knowledge and ideas we know about today started with someone imagining that the so-called evidence could be interpreted a different way. 

And what the h--- am I talking about? 

We’re taught that evidence is the vital element in finding the truth. And it certainly is. We’d be nowhere in bigfoot research without it.

But think about evidence for a minute. I often place quotations around the words evidence and facts. And that’s because, even though we’re taught to believe they are absolutely, unquestionably truthful entities, they are actually open to a bit of interpretation by the individual. How many people look at evidence and interpret it in a slightly different way than others that have looked at it? If you watch carefully, everyone who sees it will have a different take on it. And some will even reject it altogether. And that’s because evidence is, like everything else, open to the personal perception of the observer.

Bear with me while I attempt to explain what I mean. This is an example. I’ve talked to numerous bigfoot witnesses and people who think they may have them on their property who claim to mysteriously have fruit trees with the fruit removed from them to about 8 to 10 feet up. And the rest of the fruit on the higher branches is left unpicked. Now, if a scientist sees this and tries to solve the mystery of who did it, he or she weighs the visible evidence there (the missing fruit from the lower branches) and concludes that there are humans living in the area, and humans like fruit, and are capable of harvesting the fruit, and humans have been known to do such things before. So, therefore, it must have been humans that took the fruit.
Fair enough.

That’s a reasonable, logical conclusion…from someone who doesn’t necessarily believe in bigfoot. And if that scientist or any other person doesn’t believe in bigfoot, they are not even going to ask any pertinent questions in that context. Bigfoot has not been proved by science, therefore Bigfoot does not exist to science. So, as long as bigfoot doesn’t exist, then there’s no reason to believe that a bigfoot would have taken the fruit. So, the case is basically closed.

But if we’re a person that doesn’t believe in Bigfoot but, by some miracle, boldly decides to make a broad leap of faith and imagine that bigfoot MIGHT exist, how might that change the nature of the investigation of the missing fruit? Doesn’t the interpretation of the evidence change quite a bit?
I think it does.

If you start out as a bigfoot believer, homo sapiens might be the first culprit on your mind, but our hairy friends in the woods, even though they aren’t confirmed real by science, might be our second guess. And that’s because we’re going into the investigation with our minds more open to other possibilities. It doesn’t mean we have to drink the kool-aid. It just means we’re open to the idea of taking a little taste.

And of course, the critics might say that, with that way of thinking, it might also be a leprechaun on a ladder taking the fruit too. But let’s keep in mind, there is absolutely no physical evidence of leprechauns, no footprint casts, and no records of sightings of any kind, let alone sightings that go back hundreds or even thousands of years. Do you see where I’m going with this?
It’s kind of like being a little crazy…in the most sensible way possible. That’s how breakthroughs are made. Just because science hasn’t proved something to their own satisfaction, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means science doesn’t have its evidence yet.

Don’t let the negative side of the equation guide your research. Do it however you want, but try to keep your mind open. Follow the evidence where it takes you, but don’t stick to rigid rules. And don’t get so clouded by science that you shoot yourself and your research in the foot.

So many people involved in bigfoot research try so hard to stay on the side of science because they believe that science is the only thing that will make bigfoot credible, and that we absolutely must stick to the scientific method in order to be taken seriously. And there is some validity to that. But a lot of great knowledge over centuries has come to light through the work of regular people with limited education, but rather a keen, out-of-the–box- thinking mind, and good hard work. And they forced science and the masses to pay attention. And that could be you someday. And you’ll be up there with the forward thinkers like the young apprentice, Leonardo DaVinci and modern independent thinkers like famed anthropologist Jane Goodall who started her career as a secretary. Both managed to make their marks on the world in spite of the status quo of their times.

If you can simply imagine that bigfoot might be real, then it makes all the so-called evidence seem a little different, and it would cause us to investigate in a completely different way. It would take you in a different direction and make you rethink everything you’ve seen and heard in the back yard. Some very puzzling events of the past might finally make perfect sense. How can we possibly learn anything new if we’re not open to it?

Science’s method is to let the evidence lead them to the truth. But what if it really was a bigfoot that took the fruit? If we keep our minds closed and approach the situation without being able to imagine another scenario, we’ll be blaming the neighbors for stealing the fruit. And we’ll never evolve. The evidence in this case is open to interpretation. If our minds are open.

I think of all those years I hiked in the woods and saw things I couldn’t really explain but labeled them as human activity because Bigfoot was barely a thought in anyone’s mind.; barely the stuff of legend or even myth. So, how could I have possibly imagined another scenario? Everyone would have said I was crazy.

And they could still do that, but things are different now. Should we acknowledge science? Of course, we should. We need science. It’s our best friend in the quest for bigfoot. And our scientists are some of our greatest allies even though most remain very skeptical.

But there’s enough evidence for the existence of bigfoot for us all to be a little more confident in what we’re doing. So, in my humble opinion, it’s okay to defy science just a bit (within reason) and slip outside the proverbial box in order to take the research to a higher level. Thinking positive is key. Go ahead and do your research like you’re looking for something that we already know exists, and don’t worry so much about what science might think of it. Maybe someday they’ll catch up. ***************DAF



This Post By TCC Team Member Dorraine Alters-Fisher. Dorraine is a Professional Writer, a nature, wildlife and Bigfoot enthusiast who has written for many magazines. Dorraine conducts research, special interviews and more for The Crypto Crew. Get Dorraine's book The Book Of Blackthorne!



This post sponsored in part by

(Interested in sponsoring a story? then send us an Email!) 

Sunday, January 17, 2016 1 comment » by Thomas Marcum
Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 25, 2015

21 degrees between Bigfoot and You - Maybe Not

73 degrees of Bigfoot (Patty)
21 degrees between Bigfoot and You - Maybe Not

First, let me say this is in no way an attempt to debunk the Patterson-Gimlin film of Patty. Instead, it is yet another attempt by me to clear up a misconception about the shin rise angle of Bigfoot when compared to humans. I made a very simple video about this idea several months ago. (Watch Video By clicking Here ) The video was not well received or maybe just not understood. But, it was just a very quick attempt to show the problems of using the shin raise method to authenticate Bigfoot videos and pictures. So now, I'll try again.

The theory was made popular by a very popular video posted on youtube. It was posted by a guy who calls himself ThinkerThunker. He has a large following and has very good editing skills. The theory, in a nutshell, goes like this: The shin raise of a human walking is at a 52-degree angle and Patty in the Patterson-Gimlin film has a shin raise of 73 degrees, thus resulting in a 21-degree angle difference between the human gait and Bigfoot gait.

This theory has been taken to heart by a very large number of people who have an interest in Bigfoot. They use this theory to determine if a Bigfoot video or photo could possibly be that of a real Bigfoot. And while the theory and the video explaining it sounds very feasible, there are some problems with it. First, the theory fails to make comparisons with people in suits or wearing oversized shoes.

I will offer the following picture as an example that this theory can not and should not be used as a reliable method in determining if a video or picture is that of a real Bigfoot.

  
Clearly, this is a man in a popular Bigfoot suit, but yet his shin raise appears to be 73 degrees. So either the Shin Raise theory is moot or this is a real Bigfoot. I'm sure no one considers the Bigfoot on the left to be real.

Bigfoot may very well walk with a shin rise of 73 degrees. But with the above photo, it should be clear that the angle can be reproduced rather easily.  In the above photo comparison, the person in the Bigfoot suit achieves the 73-degree angle due to the fact the feet of the suit are larger than the person's real feet. It causes the leg to be lifted higher thus resulting in the target angle.

I hope you got something out of this post.
Have a great day.

Thanks
~Tom~



This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years of experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and a poet


This post is sponsored in part by
(Interested in sponsoring a story? then send us an Email!)
Sunday, October 25, 2015 No comments » by Thomas Marcum
Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
The Crypto Crew - Submit Sighting - TCC Team
Interactive Sightings Map

SPONSOR LINKS: Available Contact us

Help Us!

Help Support
The Cyrpto Crew

[If interested in licensing any of our content,Articles or pictures contact us by Clicking Here]

.
"..you’ll be amazed when I tell you that I’m sure that they exist." - Dr. Jane Goodall during interview with NPR and asked about Bigfoot.

Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material and is presented in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, of US copyright laws.


Contact Form

The Crypto Crews blog is protected under the Lanham (Trademark) Act (Title 15, Chapter 22 of the United States Code)

Site Stats

Total Pageviews