On Seeing Cryptid Animals: Evaluating Credibility of Claims

[MikeZimmer]

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

1. 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.

2. 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

1. Fabrication:

   • By Claimant: The individual may be lying.
   • Third-Party Hoax: Someone else may have created the hoax.

2. 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

1. Characteristics of Witnesses:

   • Reputation: Credibility increases with the reliability of the witness.
   • Number of Witnesses: Multiple independent witnesses add to credibility.

2. 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

1. Clear Lighting: Ensures visibility.
2. Proximity: Close enough to see details.
3. Sufficient Duration: Long enough to make a reliable observation.
4. Clear Viewing Conditions: No obstructions or distortions.

Indications of Existence

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Very interesting and thanks for sharing. 

[hvhart]

Good work.  Why not publish in RHI with Jeff Meldrum?

[Catmandoo]

8 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

So sue me if you don't like it. ;-)

 

Full legal name and address please............just kidding.

Nice outline.

Your post should remain as a stand alone and not tagged onto other work.

[MIB]

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.

[MikeZimmer]

 

 

 

On 6/26/2024 at 4:16 PM, MIB said:

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.

 

I may agree MIB, if I understand you. Tangential ramblings follow:

 

I have written extensively on understanding the world in its various aspects in another forum. I jokingly refer to myself as a guerrilla epistemologist.  I am probably not bright enough to be a real epistemologist.

 

We interpret evidence based on our existing beliefs and values. So, we can do OK with the concrete, but even there as soon as we get into even moderately complex issues, opinions differ. These differing views logically can not all be correct (we disagree an awful lot, maybe we are just disagreeable?). It does not follow that any opinions are correct.

 

I am pretty sure that these sorts of observations hold true for any sort of situation, any field. It ain't just cryptids.

 

However, we do well enough on discovering truth in myriad ways that allows individual and species survival.

 

Still, Sasquatch and cryptids in general seem to fall into a class of harder problems I guess. 

 

I have formed the opinion that a number of folks are not BSing me on their sightings, and much trace evidence I find compelling; casts and track-ways come to mind.. I find the Patterson-Gimlin film more than compelling. I find Bill's analysis extremely convincing. Others on this forum do not. Some are obvious trolls and should not be fed; some seem to be well-intentioned and we should engage them in dialogue.

 

Subjectivity? So, some evidence, some sightings, seems unambiguous to me; to others, not so much, although I do not find many alternative explanations convincing myself.

 

Not sure I trust ChatGPT or any other large language model AI (LLM AI), although I use ChatGPT daily as ghostwriter and research assistant. If you do not already know your topic area, you can let well-articulated nonsense from the AI get by you.

 

LLM AI They are subject to using curated/selected material from same body of information that the rest of must use, full of contradictory views and errors. Moreover, individuals with their own limitations and biases driven by corporate directives select the data, and shape the AI responses during the curation and training phases.

 

It does not matter how good the algorithm is, or how bright the person, it is still garbage In gives garbage out (GIGO). There is of necessity a lot of garbage floating information around. I am scarcely the first person to make these sorts of observations.

 

I try to remind myself daily that it is not a good idea to believe everything I think. It is an uphill struggle of course.

 

[xspider1]

Great OP, MikeZimmer.  Your input to the AI machines, coupled with the geniuses and others who design and implement those machines are the only things that make them "think".  (That is barring of course an electrical surge or other anomaly that could make a Bot spew something completely random.  lol)     And, MIB makes an excellent point (as usual) about the subjectivity of analyzing evidence.  Some folks may not like the expression but, at the end of the day, everything is what it is.  Thank-you!

[Backdoc]

Great list and thoughts.   What about educational mindset as a factor?

 

I watched a presentation with Jeff Meldrum on YouTube.  

 

Essentially, he said the school of thought in the 1960's was man and apes development would be linear.  That is, science followed the idea mankind went from A-Z under one linear path to get from primitive man to now.  Nearly everyone adopted this until post 1960's (Lucy) discoveries re-wrote the theory.  After that, science was more open to multiple paths toward mankind.  (this is my take on what Meldrum said but it is not my area). 

 

Meldrum emphasized science in the 1960's era essentially required the complete rejection there could even be something like Patty.    Science view was essentially this (my paraphrasing):  "if today there was some primitive ape to appear it would have to mean it was a hoax" based on the accepted parameters of the A-Z thinking.    He mentioned this explained why those who looked at the PGF in the 1967 era  were- as a group- largely still in the A-Z camp.  This required they rejected ahead of time the even the possibility the PGF and Patty could be real.

 

As you outline the steps in determine credibility, we need to take into consideration pre-emptive Educational Mindset.   In the case of the 1960's, this led to a near certainty the PGF would be rejected.  

 

Great videos, witnesses, and so on might not be a match to the closed mind.   

[MikeZimmer]

I think you are correct Backdoc.

 

Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ It deals with science changing  entrenched ideas, and I think he was the first to popularize the phrase "paradigm shift".

The late Dr. John Bindernagel also provided great insights into this, as documented in both of his books.

 

On 7/1/2024 at 10:12 AM, Backdoc said:

Great list and thoughts.   What about educational mindset as a factor?

 

I watched a presentation with Jeff Meldrum on YouTube.  

 

Essentially, he said the school of thought in the 1960's was man and apes development would be linear.  That is, science followed the idea mankind went from A-Z under one linear path to get from primitive man to now.  Nearly everyone adopted this until post 1960's (Lucy) discoveries re-wrote the theory.  After that, science was more open to multiple paths toward mankind.  (this is my take on what Meldrum said but it is not my area). 

 

Meldrum emphasized science in the 1960's era essentially required the complete rejection there could even be something like Patty.    Science view was essentially this (my paraphrasing):  "if today there was some primitive ape to appear it would have to mean it was a hoax" based on the accepted parameters of the A-Z thinking.    He mentioned this explained why those who looked at the PGF in the 1967 era  were- as a group- largely still in the A-Z camp.  This required they rejected ahead of time the even the possibility the PGF and Patty could be real.

 

As you outline the steps in determine credibility, we need to take into consideration pre-emptive Educational Mindset.   In the case of the 1960's, this led to a near certainty the PGF would be rejected.  

 

Great videos, witnesses, and so on might not be a match to the closed mind.   

 

[Backdoc]

 

 

^^

 

That sounds up my alley   I will look for it.  Thanks for the tip.

 

Dr. B in the documentary Bigfoot's Reflection said words to this effect:   Science isn't ignoring the bigfoot evidence they are running away or looking the other way.   

[guyzonthropus]

  Yeah, the birthing pains of paradigm shift are amongst the main impedements keeping science from "working as it should" when new more inclusive models arise. When people have their entire careers dedicated to theories within a single paradigm they  are bound to resist radical change that renders their lives work essentially irrelevant. And the longer a model has been the working model within a field, the greater the number and the greater the percentage of those in that field who will be  locked into the old model, a situation that can result In a resistance nearly impossible to overcome(think of the guy who first came up with plate tectonics and the ridicule he faced for decades!)

 

The unilinear evolutionary line of mankind is an awfully optimistic perspective to take in light of just how incomplete the fossil record really is, and just how fast any given evolutionary leap might take place, and to whom of those related species present such leaps/traits might pass on to, to find the next most effective combination which allows a localized population to flourish and thereby, at least momemtarily, flood the local gene pool with this latest trait combo. Its more than likely that at least a few times, these new trait combinations were passed on to other populations/species/members of the hybrid pool, only to be out competed a few generations later, thus going extinct(with no addition to the fossil record) with their contribution to gene flow, their role as intermediary link, never "logged" much less suspected by modern sapiens looking back trying to assign linear causality to a mazework of genetic interactions.