Observations, Cumulative Arguments, Lines of Evidence and Sasquatch

[MikeZimmer]

Observations

Some of my armchair views based on decades of kibitzing on this site and reading far too many books. Field researcher? Heck no:

 

1. If Sasquatch does not exist, we have a real problem explaining all the evidence. It would mean untold numbers of people over centuries, across continents, are all wrong. How is that possible or credible?

2. Not all evidence in various lines of evidence is of the same strength. Some is undoubtedly incorrect, but determining correctness is an empirical task. The argument relies on human judgment, interpretation, subjective probability, and intuition. It cannot be shown rigorously in most cases, though some lines of evidence are so strong that only a moron could doubt them.

3. The Patterson-Gimlin film is the most compelling single piece of evidence. Bill Munns and others have systematically analyzed it, demonstrating biomechanical and anatomical features inconsistent with a human in a costume.

4. Reported Sasquatch vocalizations and threat behavior are highly compelling. Sonographic analysis confirms their uniqueness, making recorded sound evidence impossible to dismiss without rigorous scrutiny.

5. Tracks, trackways, and footprint casts are among the strongest evidence. As René Dahinden stated, “Something was making those tracks.” The anatomical details, midtarsal break, and consistency across time and geography point to a real biological entity.

6. The sheer number of reported sightings and encounters indicates a real creature exists. Many reports go unreported due to fear of ridicule. This is a tip-of-the-iceberg phenomenon.

7. Sasquatch sightings are unfairly equated with lunacy. This stems from media mockery, scientific resistance, social conformity, pseudo-skepticism, and false assumptions that science would have already confirmed it if real.

8. Most people do not understand the vastness of wilderness. They rarely venture into it and, when they do, stick to trails and roads. True wilderness remains largely unexplored, making the assumption that Sasquatch "would have been found by now" uninformed.

9. Sasquatch has already been discovered, but it is a "premature discovery." As John Bindernagel noted, the evidence is already sufficient, but institutional resistance prevents formal recognition.

10. Animal researcher Gareth Patterson in South Africa has documented Sasquatch-like beings. He is highly experienced with African wildlife, lending credibility to reports of similar creatures outside North America.

11. Sasquatch-like creatures are reported across all continents. Though names vary, reports from North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia describe similar creatures, supporting the hypothesis of a real, globally distributed phenomenon.

12. The cumulative case is very strong, yet skepticism persists. Skeptics have no substantive counterargument beyond outright dismissal and mockery, often branding all evidence as "woo-woo" without engagement.

13. If Sasquatch does not exist, the lines of evidence need explaining. The idea that all reports—across time, geography, and demographics—are hoaxes, mistakes, or psychological illusions is far harder to believe than the conclusion that Sasquatch is real.

14. Few people have the ability to think systematically. Most rely on intuition rather than method, making their reasoning ad hoc and biased. True systematic thinking is a personality trait as much as an intellectual skill, but it can be taught. David Ray Griffin introduced the concept of cumulative argument, which most people do not naturally apply. Their bias against Sasquatch stems from disconfirmation bias.

Various Lines of Evidence for Sasquatch

This list covers various lines of evidence that support the cumulative case for Sasquatch as a real, undiscovered primate species:

 

1. Historical Accounts Worldwide – Reports of large, unknown primates in old records across multiple cultures.

2. Indigenous Stories Worldwide – Consistent oral traditions describing large, intelligent, hairy bipeds.

3. Recorded Sounds, Footsteps, and Vocalizations – Documented unknown calls, howls, and wood knocks analyzed sonographically.

4. Photographic and Visual Reports – Thousands of sightings, some captured on camera, varying in clarity.

5. Aggressive Behaviors and Intimidation – Reports of stalking, tree-breaking, rock-throwing, and territorial displays.

6. Stealth, Speed, and Locomotion – Observed silent movement, great speed, climbing ability, and occasional quadrupedal motion.

7. Distinct, Overwhelming Odor – Witnesses describe a foul, musky smell, stronger than any known animal.

8. Attacks on Structures and Vehicles – Reports of cabins, trailers, and trucks being hit, shaken, or attempted break-ins.

9. Habitat Preferences – Strong correlation between sightings and heavily forested, high-rainfall, or riverine environments.

10. Abduction and Predation Reports – Rare but persistent stories of people being taken or attacked.

11. Observed Food Gathering and Hunting – Reports of Sasquatch eating berries, hunting deer, and scavenging.

12. Ecological Niche Similar to Black Bears – Sightings align with known bear ranges and food sources.

13. High Number of Sightings and Encounters – Thousands of reports, likely a fraction of actual encounters.

14. Hair and Biological Samples – Some DNA tests return “unknown primate,” but findings remain contested.

15. Tree Structures and Nests – Large, manipulated tree formations and bedding sites found in remote areas.

16. Vocal Mimicry – Reports of Sasquatch imitating human voices and animal calls.

17. Gifting and Object Exchanges – Some witnesses claim repeated interactions involving item exchanges.

18. Scientific Research and Footprint Analysis – Work by Krantz, Meldrum, and others showing unique foot anatomy.

19. Reports of High Strangeness (Excluded from Biological Hypothesis) – Shape-shifting, portal travel, etc. (unverifiable).

20. Historical Accounts of Human-Sasquatch Conflict – Reports of past violent encounters with early settlers and indigenous people.

21. Old Newspaper and Journal Accounts – 19th and early 20th-century articles documenting sightings and encounters.

22. Reports of Sasquatch Bodies – Stories of dead Sasquatch from shootings, roadkill, fires, and Mount St. Helens.

23. 911 Calls and Law Enforcement Reports – Emergency calls and police accounts describing encounters.

24. Scientific Journal Articles and Cryptozoological Research – Published studies analyzing footprint evidence, vocalizations, and anatomy.

25. Global Distribution of Sasquatch-Like Beings – Reports exist on all continents except Antarctica.

 

Appendix A - Some principles for common-sense reasoning and abductive reasoning follow:

Guidelines for Reasoning (Abductive Thinking)

1. Collecting and examining evidence for plausibility.

2. Looking at various 'lines' or 'threads' of evidence.

3. Using these lines of evidence to build a plausible hypothesis.

4. Examining competing hypotheses.

5. Looking for where and how evidence supports a hypothesis.

6. Looking for where and how evidence conflicts with a hypothesis.

7. Resolving contradictions (not just deductive logical contradictions but broader contradictions in reasoning).

8. Detecting formal and informal problems with reasoning.

9. Seeing where the lines of evidence take us to plausible, if tentative, conclusions.

These principles establish abductive reasoning as a structured yet flexible process, integrating evidence, competing hypotheses, and plausibility assessments to reach reasonable but tentative conclusions.

Appendix B - Observations on Reasoning Itself

1. Reasoning depends upon intuition or the subconscious. – The underlying cognitive processes guiding reasoning remain largely mysterious.

2. Some reasoning is accomplished with language. – Language structures and communicates thought, but reasoning is not confined to linguistic expression.

3. Emotions and biases disturb reasoning. – Subjective influences can distort logical analysis and judgment.

4. Reasoning involves innumerable cognitive operations. – These include abstraction, analogy, classification, categorization, generalization, pattern recognition, pattern manipulation, memory, and other cognitive processes.

5. The dimensions of human reasoning exceed our full understanding. – The complexity of thought processes goes beyond what can be completely grasped or formalized.

Appendix C - Observations on Subjective Probabilities

1. We use probabilistic reasoning routinely. – This is an integral part of intuition.

2. Probabilistic reasoning is not mathematical. – It is informal and subjective rather than strictly numerical.

3. It is based on human flawed judgment. – Errors, biases, and limitations shape probabilistic reasoning.

4. It is based upon past experiences. – Prior knowledge and experiences heavily influence reasoning.

5. It is not mathematically computable. – While mathematicians attempt to formalize it, human probabilistic reasoning remains beyond strict computation.

Appendix D - Essentials of Reasoning

1. Understanding the world. – Making sense of reality through structured thought.

2. Describing the world. – Formulating explanations and representations.

3. Recognizing patterns. – Identifying recurring structures and relationships.

4. Examining causality. – Determining cause-and-effect relationships.

5. Making inferences. – Drawing conclusions from available information.

6. Assessing correlations. – Identifying connections between variables.

7. Aiming for prediction and control. – Using reasoning to anticipate outcomes and influence events.

Appendix E - Lines of Evidence and Cumulative Arguments

• Lines of evidence can be hierarchically ordered and used to build a cumulative argument.

• This approach lacks the strict rigor of deductive logic but is far more broadly applicable in reasoning.

• It allows for flexible yet structured inference based on multiple supporting factors.

These principles outline how common-sense reasoning functions, integrating evidence, pattern recognition, probabilistic intuition, and structured abductive inference to form rational conclusions based on incomplete but interpretable data.

[bipedalist]

There is something to take home here for everyone.  Nicely composed. 

 

One suggestion, the word "compelling" is the most overused word in Sasquatchery and could or can be easily

used in limited contexts but not every context or multiple times in one production. 

 

Words such as convincing or illustrative and many other thesaurus derived examples suit most contexts and comes across as more communicative to the general reader. 

 

If you can't tell, "compelling" is one of my pet peeves.  I see it as a buzzword such as "inclusion".  Also view it as a verbal arm-twisting device.  Off soapbox. 

Edited February 6 by bipedalist

[Trogluddite]

^^^

Your argument on the proper language to use is compelling!  

[NorCalWitness]

what AI did you use to write this?

[MikeZimmer]

ChatGPT but all of the ideas were mine. It is my ghostwriter is the way I frame it.

[joebeelart]

I think that MikeZ's outline is most excellent, especially if he only used AI as a resource, not as a essayist.  Depending on permissions, outline twists, and expansion, a  very good, thorough, entry level Sasquatch book could come of MikeZ's outline.  It could become an important book if "we" produce evidence to prove.  So, someone should get on the tasks at  hand.  

 

Also, while Bipedalist's note on "compelling" is polite and instructive, I would like to mention that the text of MikeZ's little essay is, by Word count, 1394 words.  He uses "compelling" twice in Heading 1 Subheads 3 & 4.  

Edited February 12 by joebeelart

[MikeZimmer]

Thanks Joel,

 

Sometimes I let the AI do more of the research, this time it is just ghostwriting my considered thoughts. This is a condensation of a much more extensive document, but a book is too much work. Been there, done that. Bindernagel covered a lot of this in any case, as have numerous others as you know. I think you have done a book have you not?  I thought it was a good summary of some of the main themes though. 

 

I used to spend many times more - an order  of magnitude at least - in getting the wording right. Now, I am getting old and do not want to invest the time.  You have to know how to prompt AI, but that is an art, not a science.

 

I think that as more and more people use AI, they will come to regard it as just another tool, a productivity device. Of course, it is a very mysterious tool. 

 

You have to know your topic to use it effectively. On the whole though,is it any more or less likely to be correct than most folks? People (I include myself here) self-assuredly assert a whole lot of things that just ain't so.

 

It has taken me decades, 1000s of hours of reading and viewing, to form my opinions on the phenomena, not having had the privilege of an encounter.

 

I have written a  whole lot about the benefits and pitfalls of AI use in another forum, so am not a stranger to the topic. People are being forced to reconsider the whole basis of scholarship. Many are being dragged kicking and screaming. I had a discussion of this with a professor of economics  and a high school teacher on this yesterday.  Neo-luddites both.

 

I do not accept the opinions of others without due consideration (theoretically at least). Ditto for AI output (theoretically at least).