Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[kbhunter]

BFS....I do want to add this....I am a proponent of no kill for the BF or Sas. I definitley don't want a body on a slab, but the DNA as well as the other information that should become available soon should be the roof we need for the house. The interactions I have had with these beings have shown me they are extrmely intelligent and they have proved to me to be a very special gift to us all.

KB

[ohiobill]

What is the criteria for keeping/discarding sightings? What percentage of sightings are left AFTER the criteria is applied? Is there enough data left to provide an accurate representation?

[gigantor]

We are simply collecting data at this stage. Everything is classified and goes into the database, the analysis will come later, although for fun, there is a search engine for the most interesting fields. It's far from a finished product.

If you feel like you have better ideas or would like to contribute to improve the project, please join us.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Wouldn't it be simpler, more productive, and provide a more reasonable expectation of accuracy to use only good data and dismiss the rest prior to making your calculations?

What is the criteria for keeping/discarding sightings? What percentage of sightings are left AFTER the criteria is applied? Is there enough data left to provide an accurate representation?

I think your questions strike to the heart of what this thread is all about, determining what criteria to apply to the data to determine what to keep and what to throw out. You are correct to note the old "garbage in, garbage out" adage. I think with data mining concepts we are looking more for trends than for conclusions. The graphic I posted on the last page (showing the blogosphere representation) is a representation of trends. Even if you throw out the majority of data in that graphic, the shape (or trend) of the activity is still there.

I guess that's where I'm coming from in terms of how I personally view sighting reports and other "data points". In and of themselves each data point doesn't tell much of a story, it is looking at the overall trends that it becomes interesting to me. Finding repeating occurrences of certain behaviors, like rocking side to side, or tree peeking, or rock throwing, etc. add to the total picture. If many or most of those data points are thrown out based on an established criteria, then I think that the patterns will still be there, the same observed set of behaviors.

[gigantor]

True, in addition, we have the computing power to filter out the reports based on any criteria, we don't actually have to throw out anything. Let the computer do it on the fly based on the search criteria you desire to study.

Capture everything and write the code to filter the dataset based on your criteria, it's truly a no brainer.

Edited September 3, 2012 by gigantor

[ohiobill]

My most compelling report http://www.bfro.net/...rt.asp?id=22434

Thermalman, I read it and it is certainly a good story but there are a few problems with it. (1) It was reported 9 years after the fact, (2) in an unknown location, (3)with no other witnesses, (4) by a witness who admits she was asleep when it happened, (5) it contains confusing information, and most importantly (6) it isn't consistent.

1. Memories fade/blur over time.

2. It is impossible to get a real "feel" for the story w/o knowing exactly where it happened.

3. Single eyewitness account.

4. Being asleep obviously opens the door to nightmares, sleep paralysis, etc.

5. The creature had the visual acuity to freeclimb a sheer cliff at night but couldn't see her at a distance of 25' while she could clearly see it? She went by herself "frightened" and alone to an area she knew the creature frequented due to her hearing a "similar sound and call the year earlier, but the creature was in distress the year earlier and the call was only for a few minutes"? Her reaction to being "frightened" enough to **** herself and spend the rest of the night awake in her wet bag was to "enter a short entry in my journal" the next morning?

6. Her submitted account states " As it got closer, I pretty much urinated in my sleeping bag. But I just laid still; I was extremely frightened." In the investigators' account she "made her way to the edge of the outcropping and was able to see the animal breach the cliff".

The investigator doesn't give us any indication as to whether or not she ever provided him an exact location. If she did provide such a location did it "jibe" with the events? Did the investigator check her journal(s) to see if her account at least matched what she had written?

Do any of my concerns make the report less compelling to you? Do you feel that the investigator did a good job?

[ohiobill]

Gigantor & BFS - I certainly don't mean to give you the impression that my ideas are any better than yours...if you think I can help in some way just ask, I will be happy to try. My main concern with setting up such a database would be weighting the veracity of the reports. Without each report having a sorting weight I think your data will be skewed regardless of any search parameters.

As an example, 15 reports in XYZ State Forest over the last 15 years include reports from 3 different people w/one reporter/group of researchers making 13 of the reports in the last 3 years (multiple encounters). If the group has been implicated in dirty "bigfootery" or outright hoaxing the results are going to be worthless for real research in that area w/o some sort of weighting to balance the stats. Or as another example, the same 13 witnesses report a rock thrown behind them as they sit around a campfire - no one actually saw it and they can't find the rock but it sounded like a rock hitting the ground shortly after they heard a loud screech. If it's fall (walnut dropping time) do you end up with 13 "strong" reports of rock throwing due to having multiple witnesses or is it 13 "weak" reports due to lack of evidence/probability of natural explanation?

What say you?

[Guest]

OhioBill, I won't touch most of your list of concerns but I can offer this up on #2. Go to google maps, select map and check terrain on it and do a search for " 41.563059,-123.133049 ". If it displays identically to my screen, the green arrow is Little Elk Lake and the Wooley Creek drainage she referenced would be just to the southwest of the Pacific Crest Trail pushpin. It won't tell you exactly where she was but it will give you a feel for the terrain.

[Guest Transformer]

I think your questions strike to the heart of what this thread is all about, determining what criteria to apply to the data to determine what to keep and what to throw out. You are correct to note the old "garbage in, garbage out" adage. I think with data mining concepts we are looking more for trends than for conclusions. The graphic I posted on the last page (showing the blogosphere representation) is a representation of trends. Even if you throw out the majority of data in that graphic, the shape (or trend) of the activity is still there.

I guess that's where I'm coming from in terms of how I personally view sighting reports and other "data points". In and of themselves each data point doesn't tell much of a story, it is looking at the overall trends that it becomes interesting to me. Finding repeating occurrences of certain behaviors, like rocking side to side, or tree peeking, or rock throwing, etc. add to the total picture. If many or most of those data points are thrown out based on an established criteria, then I think that the patterns will still be there, the same observed set of behaviors.

Looking for "matching behaviours" in reports is a very poor way of assessing veracity in this day and age of instant and available communication. Story tellers will most often see what you are buying and then give it to you. Not understanding this is a huge flaw in how one ascertains the veracity of a second hand report. The only way of truly assessing the veracity of a report is a background check of the person who made the report along with at least a couple of in-person interviews on-site to check the actual story. Full documentation of the investigation must be made public with only enough with-held to not identify the witness (if necessary). Anything less than this is just pretending to investigate a report. I know that there are valid reasons why proper investigations are not done (time, money, travel, lack of knowledge and/or training/and/or experience are all valid reasons) but that doesn't negate the need for proper investigations. That is like an aircraft mechanic saying that he doesn't have the time or knowledge or training to properly check over the aircraft but it's OK because he gave it the good-old-college-try. It just doesn't fly.

[Guest Transformer]

kb, another way to put what you are saying is that evidence is to proof...

... as bricks are to a house.

I agree that we have a lot of evidence of BF (bricks), but don't yet have proof (a house). I speak of proof in the irrefutable body on a slab, slam dunk video and DNA, or similar.

Perhaps a better way to put it is: Sasquatch evidence is like bubbles...easily popped.

One can build a house made of bricks of good circumstantial evidence but since almost nothing in sasquatch "evidence" meets the criterion of good circumstantial evidence one has nothing substantial at all.

Good circumstantial evidence requires a FACT to be presented that when considered by itself or with other evidence (circumstantial or direct) points to a likely conclusion. For example a fingerprint proven to be that of the defendent at the scene is good circumstantial evidence that the defendent was at the scence at some time. A fingerprint that may or may not belong to the defendent that is found at the scene is NOT circumstantial evidence that puts the defendent at the scene because a proven FACT is not available to ascertain anything about where the defendent was.

Since it is impossible to ascertain whether any footprints, hair, smell, sounds, tree-breaks, stick formations, rock piles, are, in fact and without a doubt, from a unrecognized by science legendary creature called sasquatch or Bigfoot; it is then erroneous to offer any of it as good circumstantial evidence.

[Guest thermalman]

Thermalman, I read it and it is certainly a good story but there are a few problems with it. (1) It was reported 9 years after the fact, (2) in an unknown location, (3)with no other witnesses, (4) by a witness who admits she was asleep when it happened, (5) it contains confusing information, and most importantly (6) it isn't consistent.

1. Memories fade/blur over time.

2. It is impossible to get a real "feel" for the story w/o knowing exactly where it happened.

3. Single eyewitness account.

4. Being asleep obviously opens the door to nightmares, sleep paralysis, etc.

5. The creature had the visual acuity to freeclimb a sheer cliff at night but couldn't see her at a distance of 25' while she could clearly see it? She went by herself "frightened" and alone to an area she knew the creature frequented due to her hearing a "similar sound and call the year earlier, but the creature was in distress the year earlier and the call was only for a few minutes"? Her reaction to being "frightened" enough to **** herself and spend the rest of the night awake in her wet bag was to "enter a short entry in my journal" the next morning?

6. Her submitted account states " As it got closer, I pretty much urinated in my sleeping bag. But I just laid still; I was extremely frightened." In the investigators' account she "made her way to the edge of the outcropping and was able to see the animal breach the cliff".

The investigator doesn't give us any indication as to whether or not she ever provided him an exact location. If she did provide such a location did it "jibe" with the events? Did the investigator check her journal(s) to see if her account at least matched what she had written?

Do any of my concerns make the report less compelling to you? Do you feel that the investigator did a good job?

I feel that the woman involved, expressed her most intimate details all the while risking personal embarrassment for her unambiguous account. She would be one that I would love to further interview myself.

To answer your questions:

1. I highly doubt it. Events like this tend to remain with people forever.

2. irrelevant at this point in time, but would be needed if you chose to investigate the scene.

3. not her fault BF chose to reveal himself at this point in time

4. she seems rational and intelligent enough to decipher the difference.

5 + 6. It's called fright and she was in no position to do much else.

If you feel confident enough, go ahead and tell us an intimate story event of your own, not leaving out any details, and let us respond to it with YOUR train of investigative thinking? It would be fun.

Edited September 3, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

I could then say "you have provided no proof that the chair is actually your's, OR that it's even real. Maybe, might even be photoshopped?".

You know a lot a lot of other people named "Saskeptic" who label and photograph their chairs?

If you'd like to know if the photos were Photoshopped you could have them analyzed. That's pretty easy to do.

You've only provided a picture and nothing else. No evidence whatsoever that the chair belongs to you or even exists. And if your anecdotal story about the chair is to be believed, you'd have to come up with more than just a picture.

Pretty cheeky, considering that within minutes of your request I posted two crystal clear photographs of the thing you requested. I started following the bigfoot phenomenon around 1975, and I still haven't seen a decent photo. Yet if you felt you were being hoaxed, you could come to my office and sit in my chair for yourself. It's right here.

So if I ask, "where is the proof of bigfoot?", you could tell me a bunch of stories. I can't evaluate the veracity of those stories, so I ask for a photograph. You show me some grainy blobs - maybe even some thermal images - and that's unsatisfying because you can't really tell what you're seeing. You might show me some photos that are clear, but the image is of dubious origin and very likely hoaxed (e.g, Sylvanic, Myakka ape) or still on some level ambiguous (e.g., Jacobs photos that are quite clearly a bear though still touted as something squatchy).

Note, that I am capable of accepting photographic evidence for something, e.g., this photograph of a goral. I have many times challenged bigfooters to provide some kind of game cam photo, unambiguous in its interpretation, and let that get me pretty well convinced. I'm convinced that a goral is a real animal based on the photo I just linked - show me a bigfoot photo like that and we're in business. But if I was still skeptical of even that photographic evidence, I can always track the animal to its source: a specimen in a museum. In this case, it took just a few Google clicks to find this description of the goral, including Figure 1, a photograph of a specimen for Nemorhaedus goral. I can go to the American Museum of Natural History and see specimen number 39329. It's right there, just like my chair.

[Guest]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this.

I reviewed the three reports in Ray's challenge. Nothing in those reports says to me "hoax" or "hallucination" or other. 33257 in particular is filed by a person of excellent character, according to the followup investigation.

Are any of these reports dispositive proof?

No, and I've never claimed such.

Are they good supporting evidence for the case?

Absolutely. There is nothing about the reports that sends up any red flags (a chorus line of BF dancing Swan Lake in pink tutus or any such). At least one of the reporting witnesses has (as stated above) an excellent reputation.

My challenge to Ray (which he utterly failed to meet) was: show me POSITIVE evidence that those reports are the result of the reporter not being smart enough to know what they are looking at, hallucinating, or not telling the truth. Until such time as Ray (or any other Skeptic) can produce said documentation (convictions for perjury, mental health records, etc), then the reports are entirely admissible as evidence, and MUST be considered a valid part of the case for BF.

"Not proven true must be considered false" is a logic fallacy, not evidence for rebutting the reports.

So if I ask, "where is the proof of bigfoot?", you could tell me a bunch of stories. I can't evaluate the veracity of those stories, so I ask for a photograph. You show me some grainy blobs - maybe even some thermal images - and that's unsatisfying because you can't really tell what you're seeing. You might show me some photos that are clear, but the image is of dubious origin and very likely hoaxed (e.g, Sylvanic, Myakka ape) or still on some level ambiguous (e.g., Jacobs photos that are quite clearly a bear though still touted as something squatchy).

It is entirely self-serving to piously request "proof" when you make it quite clear with the rest of this paragraph that you are going to dismiss every proffered bit of evidence out of hand ("unsatisfying", "likely hoaxed", etc).

Classic Skepticism 101:

1) Make claim of "no proof", call for evidence.

2) Dismiss all proffered evidence.

3) Repeat claim of "no proof", call for evidence.

ad infinitum

[Guest MikeG]

Ad infinitum?

........or just until someone produces something irrefutable, maybe?

Mike

[Guest thermalman]

You know a lot a lot of other people named "Saskeptic" who label and photograph their chairs?

If you'd like to know if the photos were Photoshopped you could have them analyzed. That's pretty easy to do.

Pretty cheeky, considering that within minutes of your request I posted two crystal clear photographs of the thing you requested. I started following the bigfoot phenomenon around 1975, and I still haven't seen a decent photo. Yet if you felt you were being hoaxed, you could come to my office and sit in my chair for yourself. It's right here.

So if I ask, "where is the proof of bigfoot?", you could tell me a bunch of stories. I can't evaluate the veracity of those stories, so I ask for a photograph. You show me some grainy blobs - maybe even some thermal images - and that's unsatisfying because you can't really tell what you're seeing. You might show me some photos that are clear, but the image is of dubious origin and very likely hoaxed (e.g, Sylvanic, Myakka ape) or still on some level ambiguous (e.g., Jacobs photos that are quite clearly a bear though still touted as something squatchy).

Note, that I am capable of accepting photographic evidence for something, e.g., this photograph of a goral. I have many times challenged bigfooters to provide some kind of game cam photo, unambiguous in its interpretation, and let that get me pretty well convinced. I'm convinced that a goral is a real animal based on the photo I just linked - show me a bigfoot photo like that and we're in business. But if I was still skeptical of even that photographic evidence, I can always track the animal to its source: a specimen in a museum. In this case, it took just a few Google clicks to find this description of the goral, including Figure 1, a photograph of a specimen for Nemorhaedus goral. I can go to the American Museum of Natural History and see specimen number 39329. It's right there, just like my chair.

LOL ...too funny. Pretty hard to produce evidence of a transient, biological, biodegradable subject as opposed to a plastic/metal chair, and not that the chair is your's and real anyhow? Your claim holds no more validity than those claiming to have witnessed BF.

If your integrity feels like it's being attacked, then how do you think those that have witnessed BF feel by the relentless onslaughts by skeptics? Especially, when considering the state of mind of those people when they happened across a unforeseen, incomprehensible subject in the woods, that, according to some, is not supposed to exist. I would think the last thing on their minds are photos, DNA, samples, etc. Fright or flight would be first on their minds, AFTER the initial shock of trying to decipher what they witnessed. In your case, you're fortunate to have the production of millions of chairs to back your claim of might having the one you produced a photo of.

Edited September 3, 2012 by thermalman