Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis - Part 9 - A Study of Probability


Recommended Posts

Huntster
Very detailed listing of odds. I'd tend to say that the 1/20,000 number points TOWARDS it being a hoax. When you consider the odds of the other option.....

How so?

We know that bipedal apes have existed in the past, and we also know that apes as large as sasquatches have been described to be have also existed in the past.

The improbabilities that sasquatch presently exists are the unlikelihood that there has been no corpse delivered to science yet, and that the PG film is the only such film yet produced that is even remotely convincing.

.....What are the odds that Roger Patterson filmed a living, breathing, unclassified, bipedal, female, hairy creature?

I think Bill did a good job of outlining those odds above. There are only two possibilities with regard to the PG film: it is either a man in a suit, or it's a sasquatch.

Every bit of evidence that makes the man-in-the-suit possibility weaker makes the living, breathing, unclassified, bipedal, fenalie, hairy creature possibility more valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
That "suitnik" argument is of course, sometimes looks like a classical case of "begging the question" or "circular reasoning". Circular reasoning is used a lot, but seldom is it presented in such a straight forward fashion that you can see the circularity immediately.

***

Moe: Sasquatch does not exist.

Joe: Why do you feel that; there are sighting reports, extended sighting reports, multiple witness sighting reports, multiple trackways, and a least one video that probabilistically appears to be genuine.

Moe: All sightings, tracks and other evidence are either:

1 - hoaxing

2 - mis-apperception,

3 - delusion

4 - the result of other psychopathology

Joe: Have you demonstrated that all evidence brought forward falls into one of these categories?

Moe: It is not necessary, at least some alleged evidence has been shown to be such

Joe: How do you know that all evidence falls into the category of mistakes?

Moe: Because Sasquatch does not exist.

So, I may be accused of presenting a straw man here, but after reading internet chatter for months in various forums, I don't think that I am.....

You describe the above exchange as circular reasoning, but I think it does a good job of showing the denialist's position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OklahomaSquatch

I posted this in another thread, but after reading some of the discussions here, I felt it might have some significance.

Matt K.

Scientific skepticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (British English spelling: scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term is most commonly applied to the examination of claims and theories which appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than to the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our right to claim knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Scientific skepticism utilizes critical thinking and attempts to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis.

Characteristics

Like a scientist, a scientific skeptic attempts to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. This distinguishes the scientific skeptic from the professional scientist, who often concentrates their inquiry on verifying or falsifying hypotheses created by those within their particular field of science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favour before they could be accepted as having validity.

Pseudoskepticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term pseudoskepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) denotes thinking that appears to be skeptical but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularised by Marcello Truzzi, through his Journal of Scientific Exploration, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'"

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.[3]

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]

Double standards in the application of criticism [5]

The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]

Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]

Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]

Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'[9]

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]

Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]

Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]

Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]

Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]

Pseudo-skepticism and scientific method

It is normal scientific practice to posit alternate explanations (or theories) for observed phenomenon, to experiment, and to adopt the theory that best predicts the behaviour. Scientific evidence is often indicative rather than overwhelming, and many theories are based not on any single piece of evidence, but on accumulated weight of evidence, or simply on accumulated lack of evidence to the contrary.

For example, if a test is performed that shows apparent evidence for ESP, most scientists will suspect a flaw in the test. Scientific practice does not require every scientist to fully vet every experiment performed by every other scientist. Rather, scientific reports are reviewed by a number of peers, and where an experiment has produced interesting results, other scientists will try to reproduce it. If their results match, the evidence is accepted. If not, the original result is agreed to be an anomaly and it does not affect the acceptance of the dominant theory.

However, it is common for protoscientists to apply the label pseudoskeptic to anyone who is not prepared to either investigate the test or accept its conclusion. This is a misunderstanding of scientific method. To actually state that ESP does not exist and therefore there must be a flaw in the test is pseudoskepticism; taking a position on the validity on the test requires accepting a burden of proof. Simply choosing to ignore the test is not pseudoskepticism, however frustrating it can be to those who welcome the apparent result of a test.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron
Soundman:

"Permission granted. Now get started"

Yes, sir.

The attached illustration is an airship, and the whitish cylinders are heluim filled.

The volume allows for an airship gross weight of 90,000 pounds. it can hover at treetop level, and navigate both day and night.

The six spherical structures on the hexagon corners are the research units, each housing people, cameras, focused audio, heat detection thermographic imaging, etc. (full array of visual and audio devices to locate and identify living species). And two adjacient spheres can focus on one location below, to triangulate the recording and determine distance, allowing the imaging to scale the size of the species sighted. Computers and new software record all the audio and visual data collected with GPS data and sensing device orientation for precise location determination of species sighted, and the imaging or audio from multiple sources, allowing the distance or scaling, is also layered into the data files.

The system is actually for doing wildlife census studies of wilderness areas, and it can be used to find both known existant and cryptid species alike.

Now, if I haven't got enough money for the helium, do you think people could chip in with some hot air?

:thumbsup:

Bill

I don't think you'd have to worry about the helium or the hot air once the mothership hovers over the sasquatch, the research area, the researchers, and the research platform and beams all of the above up :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Couldn't resist, thats a heck of an idea though Bill, except for density of tree canopy, one of those pinchpoints up near Easterville in Manitoba around the lakes might be

friendly to such an endeavor, maybe Wally Hersom would bite on the aerial approach or a Canadian benefactor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bipedalist:

Don't know the man you mention, and my capacity for finding investors for anything hasn't been too great, but I'd love to know more about the one you mentioned, or any other ideas, if you'd like to PM me directly/

I've got the ideas, and they will work, (and a patent to back it up, on one of my inventions) so the only thing missing from the equation is a backer.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron
Bipedalist:

Don't know the man you mention, and my capacity for finding investors for anything hasn't been too great, but I'd love to know more about the one you mentioned, or any other ideas, if you'd like to PM me directly/

I've got the ideas, and they will work, (and a patent to back it up, on one of my inventions) so the only thing missing from the equation is a backer.

Bill

Bill ----Wally Hersom is Matt Moneymaker's BFRO sponsor, he is in San Juan Capistrano or nearby that area close to Matt. He has bankrolled much

of their equipment and MM's salary apparently. LOOk up references to threads with Hersom in them and you';ll see what I'm talking about.

If nothing else, Hersom might be able to make contacts with other interested BF folks with backing.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/life/...cle_1936583.php

Edited by bipedalist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obiwan:

Thanks for your interest in the paleo stuff. I don't have it up on the net right now, and the old notes I have probably need refining a bit (they were rather freewheeling and occasionally a bit sarcastic), but they touched on many of the human origin theories (source of bipedalism, the aquatic ape hypothesis, the stand-up/cool off theory, human hair patterns, etc.) plus such dinosaur things as why T-Rex has short arms, the Stegosaur plates, why sauropods have long necks, the whole sillyness of the 80's and 90's attempts to link birds and dinosaurs (the link is correct, just the ideas then trying to prove the connection were junk), boneheads and head butting, explaining the Spinosaurus, etc.

It's definitely not the usual mainstreampaleo stuff.

:thumbsup:

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Bill, if the film subject is indeed a mime in a suit, it makes perfect sense that they would make several practice runs through the terrain. Would it be safe to assume then that Patterson filmed several takes of this practice run to familiarize himself with the film sequence? If this is the case, there should be more than one Patterson Gimlin film right?

If this were the case, wouldn't there also be a proportionately larger number of tracks at the film site?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack:

I certainly won't confess to being an expert on tracks. So this is just personal perception, what makes sense for me.

Two guys riding into a region on horseback, seeing a real creature walking by, would probably leave one set of tracks for each guy, each guy's horse, and the creature.

Any staging or practicing a hoax probably makes more footprints, and any people assisting behind the camera makes more footprints.

I don't know how well you can hide footprints after they are made, but I suppose it depends on the ground material.

So I personally would think that if the ground wasn't disturbed (and efforts to cover tracks do disturbe the ground in sometimes recognizable ways) and the tracks showed only two guys, two horse, and one creature, each going through one pattern of activity, it would be more likely a real encounter than a planned or practiced endeavor.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack:

I certainly won't confess to being an expert on tracks. So this is just personal perception, what makes sense for me.

Two guys riding into a region on horseback, seeing a real creature walking by, would probably leave one set of tracks for each guy, each guy's horse, and the creature.

Any staging or practicing a hoax probably makes more footprints, and any people assisting behind the camera makes more footprints.

I don't know how well you can hide footprints after they are made, but I suppose it depends on the ground material.

So I personally would think that if the ground wasn't disturbed (and efforts to cover tracks do disturbe the ground in sometimes recognizable ways) and the tracks showed only two guys, two horse, and one creature, each going through one pattern of activity, it would be more likely a real encounter than a planned or practiced endeavor.

Bill

Having been a hunter most of my adult life, I've tracked my share of animals, although I've never tried to hide any tracks. I'd be willing to bet the Hollywood method is useless, however (cutting a branch and sweeping it across the tracks). That would leave scratches in the dirt, mud or whatever and probably be obvious. If the tracks were in soft earth (mud, sand, etc.) then the effort would have to be vigorous enough to scratch down to the bottom of the track. The tracks were deep enough to get castings, so the branch/sweep method wouldn't work very well. I suppose you could hide them by driving a truck over them, but that would leave another kind of track.......perhaps a pavement roller?????? Nope....In all likelyhood it was a one time event. No practice runs (IMO).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack:

After answering you above, I tried to think of all the old Hollywood tricks for covering tracks, and they usually create a new surface character that doesn't make new tracks well. So if you had a lot of tracks, sweeped or otherwise smoothed then, then the resulting ground would not take one new set of tracks well, unless you tilled the soil like a farmer getting ready to plant. And that tilled soil would be conspicuous if you didn't do the whole area, and tilled soil isn't exactly "nature made".

So every method I can think of to cover a lot of tracks and leave the ground appearing natural and condusive to making one new set of tracks is either very time consuming, or very mechanically complex, or very expensive (maybe all three).

So I'd tend to assume whatever tracks were found were as much as there were, not extra people, activity or other feet.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack:

After answering you above, I tried to think of all the old Hollywood tricks for covering tracks, and they usually create a new surface character that doesn't make new tracks well. So if you had a lot of tracks, sweeped or otherwise smoothed then, then the resulting ground would not take one new set of tracks well, unless you tilled the soil like a farmer getting ready to plant. And that tilled soil would be conspicuous if you didn't do the whole area, and tilled soil isn't exactly "nature made".

So every method I can think of to cover a lot of tracks and leave the ground appearing natural and condusive to making one new set of tracks is either very time consuming, or very mechanically complex, or very expensive (maybe all three).

So I'd tend to assume whatever tracks were found were as much as there were, not extra people, activity or other feet.

Bill

Bill,

We know there were, at least, two horses and riders and one critter of some kind. If I understand the scene correctly, Roger and Bob supposedly are startled by the critter on the opposite side of a creek. they film the critter without crossing the creek themselves and the critter stays on the opposite side of the creek.

In the hoax theory, I see two 'minimum' scenarios, leaving out any "supporting" cast;

1. Roger, Bob and mime arrive at the creek, Roger and Bob help the mime into the costume, then somehow get the mime across the creek, without making any telltale tracks. In this scenario there should be three sets of horse tracks (unless the mime arrived via some other conveyance) and three sets of people tracks and one set of BF tracks...all in the same place in the staging area. Then the mime needs to walk across the creek, without making or, somehow, hiding any tracks before filming starts.

2. Roger, Bob and mime arrive at the creek, dismount and carry all the gear to the opposite side of the creek, where they help the mime into the costume. Then Roger and Bob again cross back over the creek to the horses and begin the filming sequence.....again without making or, somehow, hiding any telltale tracks.

I don't know what 'evidence' was collected or witnessed at the scene. I've not heard of any 'stray' footprints that were unaccounted for, but it seems to me that, in order to hoax this scene, there would have been far too many tracks to make it believable and it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to hide those extra tracks without without disturbing the scene and making it obvious.

The only thing that makes any sense and seems supported by the facts as I understand them, is the story told by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...