Leaderboard

I have for a long time tried to structure my thoughts on what makes a cryptid claim credible or not. I came up with a number of somewhat organized points and fed them into the the large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence program (AI) ChatGPT 4.o. It organized and expanded on my points with its mystery algorithm, drawing on its database of unclear provenance. I have long felt that many sightings and evidence presented a fairly unambiguous picture of the existence of a large world-wide cryptid primate species, maybe multiple species. I believe many of the posters here regarding their sightings. I also have met several people over the years who present a credible account of their sightings. I am highly persuade by the work of Bill Munns, So, the upshot is that I am pretty well convinced by various lines of evidence. Not all on this forum are. Some are here to troll, others are here for reasons I do not understand. I don't think discovering truth is necessarily one of them, but I can't read minds. There is nothing new here that has not been discussed in this forum many times over the decades, but for me, it is useful to see the points somewhat organized. I am sure that I have missed things, and perhaps some things are misstated; I show the AI output below. ChatGPT 4.o did a decent job of organizing my points, made no mistaken reinterpretations (it often does though) and saved me a lot of time and effort. I don't call it cheating, I call it using an AI ghostwriter and research assistant. So sue me if you don't like it. ;-) If this topic creates interest, and people make valuable additions or changes, I will amend the ChatGPT chat and republish at a later date. In any case, I have managed to scratch an old itch of mine; to think through what counts as unambiguous evidence and lay it out systematically. It has been done before I am sure, but I am old and have trouble remembering things some days: read a lot, retain far too little. On Seeing Cryptid Animals: Evaluating Credibility of Claims Logical Framework Existence Dichotomy: Current Existence: The cryptid either exists or does not exist currently. Non-Existence: If it does not exist, any sighting or evidence is inherently incorrect. Evaluation of Evidence: If the cryptid exists: True Sightings: Accounts may be correct. False Sightings: Accounts may still be incorrect due to errors or fabrications. Sources of Error in Claims Fabrication: By Claimant: The individual may be lying. Third-Party Hoax: Someone else may have created the hoax. Mistaken Claims: Mental Health Issues: Psychological factors affecting perception. Mistaken Perception: Errors in sensory input. Mistaken Interpretation: Misinterpretation of what is seen or experienced. Assessing Credibility of Claims Characteristics of Witnesses: Reputation: Credibility increases with the reliability of the witness. Number of Witnesses: Multiple independent witnesses add to credibility. Characteristics of Evidence: Clarity and Conditions: Clear lighting and viewing conditions. Proximity and duration of the sighting. Trace Evidence: Tracks, trackways, scat, sounds, and smells. Must be consistent and withstand alternative explanations. Criteria for Unambiguous Sightings Clear Lighting: Ensures visibility. Proximity: Close enough to see details. Sufficient Duration: Long enough to make a reliable observation. Clear Viewing Conditions: No obstructions or distortions. Indications of Existence Multiple Independent Sightings: Geographic Distribution: Reports from various locations and times that suggest a widespread presence. Consistent Descriptions: Similar physical descriptions and behaviors reported across different sightings. High-Quality Physical Evidence: Detailed Tracks: Tracks that show anatomical correctness, such as natural gait, foot structure, and depth that correspond to the weight and movement of a large, living creature. Biological Samples: Hair, tissue, or scat samples that are analyzed and found to be from an unknown or unclassified species, ruling out known animals. Expert Validation: Professional Analysis: Involvement of wildlife biologists, forensic experts, and other professionals who can provide objective assessments of the evidence. Video and Photographic Scrutiny: Evidence that has been validated by multiple experts, with analyses ruling out common hoax methods. Historical Records and Indigenous Knowledge: Cultural References: Long-standing cultural or historical references to the cryptid in indigenous stories, folklore, and art. Consistency with Modern Sightings: Alignment of historical records with modern reports, suggesting a long-term presence of the cryptid. Indications of a Hoax Lack of Supporting Evidence: Absence of Physical Evidence: No physical evidence (tracks, hair, scat) found at the sighting location despite claims. Inconsistent Details: Inconsistencies in the account details that cannot be reconciled with a genuine sighting. History of Hoaxes: Known Hoaxers: Individuals involved have a known history of fabrications or involvement in previous hoaxes. Evidence of Human Creation: Physical evidence, such as costumes or props, linked to known hoaxers. Technical Analysis: Digital Manipulation: Detection of digital artifacts in videos or photos that suggest manipulation or editing. Artificial Tracks: Tracks or physical evidence showing signs of human creation, such as identical footprints or marks made by tools. Motivations for Hoaxing: Financial Gain: Motivations such as selling stories, books, or footage for profit. Desire for Fame: Attempts to gain fame or media attention through sensational claims. Personal Amusement: Pranks or efforts to deceive others for personal amusement. Indications of Mistakes Environmental Factors: Poor Lighting Conditions: Sightings made under low light or at night, where visibility is poor. Visual Obstructions: Obstructions such as foliage, fog, or other visual disturbances that obscure clear observation. Human Factors: Witness Fatigue or Stress: Witnesses experiencing fatigue, stress, or panic, which can affect their judgment and perception. Influence of Substances: Effects of alcohol, drugs, or other substances that can impair sensory input and cognitive processing. Cognitive Biases: Psychological tendencies like pareidolia, where the brain sees patterns or familiar shapes where none exist. Misidentification of Known Animals: Unusual Animal Behavior: Known wildlife behaving in unusual ways or appearing in unexpected contexts, leading to misidentification. Animal Tracks and Sounds: Misinterpretation of animal tracks, sounds, or scat as those of a cryptid. Inaccurate Memory Recall: Memory Distortions: Over time, memory distortions can alter or exaggerate the details of the original sighting. Suggestive Questioning: Influence of suggestive questioning or leading narratives by others that can shape or distort witness testimony. Case Study: Sasquatch Evidence Multiple Observers: High-Reputation Witnesses: Sightings reported by law enforcement officers, scientists, or experienced outdoorsmen, who are considered reliable and knowledgeable. Independent Reports: Multiple independent sightings in the same area over time, adding to the body of credible evidence. Physical Evidence: Detailed Tracks and Casts: Tracks and trackway casts showing features like dermal ridges, consistent depth and stride, and anatomical correctness that are difficult to fake. Biological Samples: Hair or tissue samples subjected to DNA analysis and found to be from an unknown or unclassified species, ruling out known animals. Video and Photo Evidence: Patterson-Gimlin Footage: The Patterson-Gimlin film, analyzed by experts such as Bill Munns, highlighting the implausibility of a suit due to natural muscle movements and other anatomical details. Other Videos: Additional videos showing natural movements, muscle flexing, and other characteristics difficult to replicate with costumes or CGI, validated by multiple experts. Expert Analysis: Forensic Scrutiny: Detailed forensic analysis of tracks, scat, and other physical evidence by experts. Professional Validation: Involvement of costume experts, digital forensics experts, and wildlife biologists in validating the evidence, ruling out common hoax methods and misidentifications. Conclusion To evaluate the credibility of cryptid sightings and evidence, one must: Assess the reliability and number of witnesses: Prioritize accounts from reputable witnesses and multiple independent sources. Examine the clarity and conditions of the sighting: Ensure clear lighting, proximity, sufficient duration, and unobstructed viewing conditions. Scrutinize physical evidence and expert analyses: Look for detailed, anatomically correct physical evidence validated by experts. Consider alternative explanations rigorously: Differentiate between genuine evidence, hoaxes, and mistakes by considering environmental, human, and technical factors. Through this comprehensive evaluation, credible claims can be separated from mistaken or fabricated ones, contributing to a more accurate understanding of cryptid phen 4o

Good day today. 4x4 trails and ground squirrel hunting. Stopped by the snowmobile warming hut.

I think there is a subjective component such an approach will miss. The evaluation of evidence is .. relative to personal experience. A field observation either is, or is not, like what the person doing the evaluation believes is correct or incorrect based on possibly flawed assumption. I think the approach is interesting but it has built-in shortcomings I see no way to address with accuracy. Suppose, for example, Patterson-Gimlin, Sasfooty, and I are walking through the forest and find a track. Imagine the various evaluations of that track and the perspectives we each hold leading to that evaluation. Figure out what ChatGPT is going to do to somehow find a more correct answer than our individual, and each in our own context, expert, evaluations.