Guest LarryP Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I could mention that you virtually quoted a scientist in your second-to-last sentence. But that would be lost on some here. That's funny, because my brother has a degree in Anthropology and that was almost verbatim what he said to me when he was in town visiting Easter week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I'd just suggest Bill that the reliability of eyewitness accounts are subject to analysis just the same as any other classification of evidence, although, admittedly, whatever the results are they will not be nearly as compelling as some other kinds of evidence. Still, there is not such a thing as evidence that doesn't have some value, at some level, for some purpose. For instance, it could be used equally by opponents, as it is proponents. If I were so invested in the point of discounting all this information as useless, I for one would be very keen to show there are no such patterns or consistent meaning in any of it. Seems like a rather simple and quick way to slam-dunk the hypothesis of BF, doesn't it? Why no appetite for that? That seems like an obvious point that invites a rebuttal, wouldn't you agree? I have done so. I have pointed out many times that the consistency is only there if you cherry pick out the stuff you don't care for, i.e. invisibility cloak, multiple languages, 3 toes, 4 toes, 14 ft tall, dimension hoping, etc, etc. Of course the response is always along the lines of separating wheat from chaff. Which sounds great but does nothing to explain why people are making those claims in the first place nor does it acknowledge that those claims wreak havoc on your consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 That's funny, because my brother has a degree in Anthropology and that was almost verbatim what he said to me when he was in town visiting Easter week. Yep, Henry Gee, the senior editor at Nature. This link was the quickest find of the quote: http://texascryptidhunter.blogspot.com/2009/01/hobbit-and-sasquatch.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Sasquatch Sightings: US and Canada http://flowingdata.com/2013/09/17/sasquatch-sightings/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Dmaker, you'd have to first know what percentage of the original reports contained that information deemed too extraordinary to be considered, and, by not knowing that, you're jumping to an conclusion that the number is statistically significant to wreak havoc with consistency. I go with the information I have, and not worry about information I don't have, or wish I had. If later information comes to light that changes that, then the theory, like any other theory, is subject to revision. But waiting for the perfect data set? Every heard the expression that perfect can be the enemy of good enough? It is not as if we are weighing the probabilities of nuclear war, or a global epidemic here. I think a little sense of proportion would go a long way. Don't you agree that is the best way to proceed if one is truly interested in seeing what this information might tell us? So, if you do, give me your theories on John Green's question regarding the duration of sightings, male witnesses v. female. Edited April 29, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 If I were so invested in the point of discounting all this information as useless, I for one would be very keen to show there are no such patterns or consistent meaning in any of it. Seems like a rather simple and quick way to slam-dunk the hypothesis of BF, doesn't it? Why no appetite for that? That seems like an obvious point that invites a rebuttal, wouldn't you agree? If one could rebut it. To insist that all of these accounts be tossed because they aren't proof, doing nothing with them, is farther from science than any witch doctor ever got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I'd just suggest Bill that the reliability of eyewitness accounts are subject to analysis just the same as any other classification of evidence, although, admittedly, whatever the results are they will not be nearly as compelling as some other kinds of evidence. Still, there is not such a thing as evidence that doesn't have some value, at some level, for some purpose. For instance, it could be used equally by opponents, as it is proponents. If I were so invested in the point of discounting all this information as useless, I for one would be very keen to show there are no such patterns or consistent meaning in any of it. Seems like a rather simple and quick way to slam-dunk the hypothesis of BF, doesn't it? Why no appetite for that? That seems like an obvious point that invites a rebuttal, wouldn't you agree? Actually, the burden is on you and your claimed evidence from a scientific standpoint. I've never been in a Canadian courtroom but I assume you examine the evidence and present it to the jury rather than ask the jury to prove it for you? You could simply use the accounts as the observations they are and utilize the data within to conduct an experiment. If the reports are as meaningful as you claim you will have no difficulty in defending your position by providing a DNA sample or high def video as actual evidence based solely off information gleaned from them. Honestly all I'm asking for is you to use your evidence like a local hunting or fishing guide and get us closer to actual proof. Either it's evidence and it's repeatable and testable or it's not. Edited April 29, 2014 by ohiobill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 If the reports are as meaningful as you claim you will have no difficulty in defending your position by providing a DNA sample or high def video as actual evidence based solely off information gleaned from them. You just jumped the Shark with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) ^^^^That shark be jumped out. The utter absolute inability to separate evidence and proof. The utter absolute inability to understand how to use evidence to obtain proof. It's ...just wow, just wow. A failure of the educational system, to say the very least. Edited April 29, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Well, actually Bill, I'm not in this to conduct some kind of trial of the evidence. I'm not sure that kind of oppositional approach has much value. (Just from surveying the learned discourse here over many months, I'd be inclined to say it is about worthless for either holding my interest or furthering the entire field of inquiry...but so it goes) I AM interested in engaging with others on what the evidence might mean. If you'd rather demur, not a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted April 29, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 29, 2014 "So the discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until very recent times in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as BF are founded on truth." Why? Because, by happening, verifiably, discovery of a previously unknown human relative proves it is 100% possible. There's no room left to question the _possibility_, By happening verifiably ONCE, all that is left is determining whether it has happened TWICE. Once a thing happens once, twice is more likely. If it never happened, happening twice is a lot less likely. Things are weird like that. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 smh, eh, MIB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Well, actually Bill, I'm not in this to conduct some kind of trial of the evidence. I'm not sure that kind of oppositional approach has much value. (Just from surveying the learned discourse here over many months, I'd be inclined to say it is about worthless for either holding my interest or furthering the entire field of inquiry...but so it goes) I AM interested in engaging with others on what the evidence might mean. If you'd rather demur, not a problem. I don't think I ever asked for a trial of any kind but I can understand why you are unwilling to defend your position. In science it's called wasting your time when trying to prove something with unverifiable data. It's about as useless as using a lawyer who expects the jury to present the evidence for him and only slightly more palatable than basing your belief in mysteries like alien UFOs, nessie, champ, chupacabras or sassy on anonymous and anecdotal eyewitness reports rather than evidence. Maybe some evidence will emerge soon that will capture your attention and we can debate then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Dmaker, you'd have to first know what percentage of the original reports contained that information deemed too extraordinary to be considered, and, by not knowing that, you're jumping to an conclusion that the number is statistically significant to wreak havoc with consistency. I go with the information I have, and not worry about information I don't have, or wish I had. If later information comes to light that changes that, then the theory, like any other theory, is subject to revision. But waiting for the perfect data set? Every heard the expression that perfect can be the enemy of good enough? It is not as if we are weighing the probabilities of nuclear war, or a global epidemic here. I think a little sense of proportion would go a long way. Don't you agree that is the best way to proceed if one is truly interested in seeing what this information might tell us? So, if you do, give me your theories on John Green's question regarding the duration of sightings, male witnesses v. female. If I understand you correctly, you are asking me to give you a theory why alleged encounters with male bigfoot last longer than those with female bigfoots? Is that correct? I am surprised you would pose that question to me. I don't believe people are seeing a real animal. What difference does it make to me that some people see some patterns in these alleged sightings? None of them (imo) involve a bigfoot of either gender for any duration. Sorry, but I'm not interested in engaging in any hypothetical that pretends that bigfoot is real. Edited April 29, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, ^^^^That shark be jumped out. The utter absolute inability to separate evidence and proof. The utter absolute inability to understand how to use evidence to obtain proof. It's ...just wow, just wow. A failure of the educational system, to say the very least. That has got to be the most outrageous post I've ever read. "Inability to separate evidence from proof"???!!? Again, where do you get this stuff? No proof of existence is NO PROOF EXISTENCE. Pretty easy really. I find it truly increduluous that your struggling so hard with such a simple principle. And I love the fact that so many threads devolve into the same mode of discussion. What a waste of bandwidth. Edited April 29, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts