Living In The Sky: PsyOps in the American Forests -- Post Script to the PNW Series

WHAT is happening in our forests?

QUALITY OF ARGUMENTS

The question is: can an organism not previously categorized be discovered in the North American continent? Sides have polarized in a way few subjects have commanded. One believes in circumstantial or lucky conditions to explain repeated findings, is reductionist without offering substantive alternatives, other than aforementioned luck, and very COMPLICATED in that it requires several things to happen in certain order, randomly but repeated similarly and simultaneously.

Another is evidence based, and growing in sample numbers every day; inclusive, taking underrepresented sources into account; agrees with all the evidence examined and accepted by multiple scientists; and adheres to Occam's razor, providing the simplest explanation (notwithstanding the recent questions regarding this tenet).

THINK OF IT

The practical nature in claiming any or all encounters and tracks have been faked is to claim that:

A person or group of people have been perfectly impersonating an 8 foot tall beast using a stretchy, hairy costume with muscles of Mr. Universe, running around usually at night, vision not impaired in the least, and who is perfectly agile on stilts with weights at the bottom to leave actual impressions professionally measured to have been up to about 1000 pounds each with strides 6 feet apart;

A person or group of people ascertained the plans of one or more famous explorers, and since the 1950s has laid tracks ahead of said famous exploerers to fool them just for fun, letting them take the credit for being the first ones up those mountains;

A person or group of people ascertained the location of police and sheriff vehicles, placing enough individuals around the boundary of their routes, spending many nights and lucky guesses in order to fake encounters with them WHEREVER and IF they may be answering the call of nature, and as with many hunters, knowing full well and of their own sound mind choosing to face the consequences of running up on the best armed and the most highly trained people who carry authority to respond how they see fit;

A person or group of people continue to ascertain the plans of outdoorsmen on any planned and unplanned trips into the wilds of the extreme north American continent, making the same tracks over all the beaches all at once the day before, just so wherever the boat happened to be landing, there would be a discovery;

Snow crushed the trees together in geometric shapes, breaking off all the needles/ branches neatly;

Wind blew only this tree in a 45 degree angle, in a group of many, sometimes without killing it;

Treefall caught these flexible trees, notching them into arches with other trees or windfall;

Puma, acting unnaturally in typical recorded behavior of burying their kills, and demonstrating they're selectively at times bionically stronger than their typical pull weight of about 70 lbs.;

Wolves, which have been absent until recently found in the single digits in the South Cascades;

Coyote, giving up normal behavior, apparently bringing knives to dinner;

Elk, confused and stumbling up a tree, pooped from up there all night.

THESE ONE IN A MILLION OCCURRENCES HAPPEN EVERY DAY

AND HAVE BEEN RECORDED FOR MILLENNIA

WHAT STANDARD IS APPROPIRATE

The lowest standard of proof in the legal world is termed Preponderance of the Evidence. This standard comes into play when evidence demonstrates the claims have a greater than 50% chance to be true, and is considred satisfied if it can be demonstrated it is more likely to be true than not true.This is baseline proof that gets people in jail. There is a greater standard that is applied in capital offense cases, although more vague, stating the evidence needs to be Clear and Convincing. We must then determine this definition, which states we must demonstrate that it is "highly and substantially" more probable to be true than not true. The next and highest standard, utiilized in criminal cases, is termed Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, defined as sufficient proof such that no other plausible account or conclusion is possible.

The critical mind observes that in the legal arena, one simple obstacle that is overcome in each instance is how that judge or that jury sees the body of evidence. If they are more than half sure, someone goes to jail and /or pays lots of money. If they "feel satisfied" that the evidence is highly and substantially more probable than the mere 50 %, or are convinced "no other plausible conclusion exists," this person is convicted of serious crimes and may even get a lethal injection. Eyewitnesses aren't required for the death penalty; recordings, material findings -- no particular recipe is required, just that whatever IS presented needs to give people various degrees of certainty.

The inquiring mind then sees that greater than 5% of death row cases alone are overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct, namely withholding favorable evidence and making improper arguments. This number does not reflect any misconduct in cases other than capital punishment. In looking just a little further, we see the ugly truth play out that humans themselves are unjust in judging, letting irrelevant factors determine whether someone is sentenced to death. Studies show that misperception, gender and race bias, and even geography, are 'constitutional problems' and have been commented on by the late Justice Bader Ginsberg when she said, "I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court... in which the defendant was well represented at trial.”

Tens of thousands of people have made sworn statements about their experiences with very real animals, and hundreds of eyewitness accounts around the world match over time -- more than enough, when properly and academically examined, to put thousands of people in prison or to death, if this were a trial -- just nowhere near good enough to acknowledge the existence of an organism. Thank goodness this crowd was not there to give Darwin their lack of approval of his measly drawings and observations. How many species were acknowledged and categorized when a retired minister drew pictures in his little journal. Most people in the world will never see a komodo, gorilla, or leatherback. They usually don't get a vote on scientific discovery validation, the way they signal disapproval of the subject, but then again their voting is not appropriate. Invalidating tens of thousands of sightings is equally inappropriate, especially in light of the weight the law gives it when a man's life is at stake.

Cryptids were organisms deemed by science to be 'cryptic' in nature: those who hide all too well, camouflage expertly, and are active in places or times not normally accessible by humans. One could argue that all animals we discover from here on out would be considered cryptids. Reports and other material findings go for years only to be thwarted and ridiculed hen we persevere in its detection. We have since discovered gorillas and other creatures we used to also christen 'mythological.' The poorly weighted arguments of many, and the silencing of voices, is added to the purposeful subterfuge by multiple authorities. You can identify them by their need for codes of silence and losing materials turned in by the public, or denying access altogether. If it was a new species of frog, instead of a bipedal intelligence, would this precipitate the same type of response?