Misidentification

[Incorrigible1]

And for decades most of the scientific community dismissed the stories from the native peoples about small people the size of Hobbits as nothing more than folklore and myth.

 

 

But now we have Homo floresiensis.

 

In the western world, there are thousands of reports of "little people" from Ireland, yet no remains. Should science place great store in tales of leprechauns? Maybe our resident report reader could read hundreds or thousands of those reports and declare the creature scientifically proven, too.

[Guest]

Bob shoots mark and kills him.

David sees bob shoot mark.

Bob removes all physical traces that he was there.

Would what David saw be considered evidence that investigators would want to follow up on or just a fanciful anecdote to be tossed aside?

[WSA]

Dmaker, no, not that. Green made the observation that sightings by male witnesses were of longer duration than female witnesses. So that was what caught my attention. Do we have a theory as to why that would be true, especially as it might intersect with your theory of BF as striclty a social construct?  Seems a legitimate question to ask, don't you think? 

 

Bill, well, sorry. I did take you for somebody who might go a little deeper than that.  'nough said.   

[Incorrigible1]

Corpus delicti is one of the most important concepts in a murder investigation. When a person disappears and cannot be contacted, many police agencies initiate a missing person case. If, during the course of the investigation, detectives believe that he/she has been murdered, then a "body" of evidentiary items, including physical, demonstrative, and testimonial evidence, must be obtained to establish that the missing individual has indeed been murdered before a suspect can be charged with homicide.^[2] The best and easiest evidence establishment in these cases is the physical body of the deceased. However, in the event that a physical body is not present or has not yet been discovered, it is possible to prove a crime took place if sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.^[3]

[Guest]

evidence[ ev-i-duhns ]

noun

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

I think #3 says it all.

[ohiobill]

Bob shoots mark and kills him.

David sees bob shoot mark.

Bob removes all physical traces that he was there.

Would what David saw be considered evidence that investigators would want to follow up on or just a fanciful anecdote to be tossed aside?

X sees creature through thick brush but doesn't report anything until three years later to a website.

Y calls X on phone three years later finds X's account truthful

Y places X's account on internet database

Should X's account be considered evidence or an eyewitness account too unreliable to base your belief of a fairie, chupacabra, champ, nessie or sassy on?

[WSA]

Everyone here wants to talk about everything but what information they have at hand, which always confounds the crap out of me. Sorry to ask. 

 

Dmaker....PM me and we can discuss John Green's question, if you want. Thanks.

[dmaker]

Dmaker, no, not that. Green made the observation that sightings by male witnesses were of longer duration than female witnesses. So that was what caught my attention. Do we have a theory as to why that would be true, especially as it might intersect with your theory of BF as striclty a social construct?  Seems a legitimate question to ask, don't you think? 

 

Bill, well, sorry. I did take you for somebody who might go a little deeper than that.  'nough said.   

Thanks for the clarification. I have to make dinner right now, but I'll ponder it and give you a response.

 

Maybe men want to appear bolder or more adventurous, so their reports include longer contact? 

Edited April 29, 2014 by dmaker

[ohiobill]

evidence[ ev-i-duhns ]

noun

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

I think #3 says it all.

I agree with you that eyewitness accounts are a form of anonymous and anecdotal testimony in this field. In some cases it's even known as perjury. For proving the existence of sassy you need to forget testimony and focus on taxonomy.

 

Taxonomy trumps testimony!

Edited April 29, 2014 by ohiobill

[Guest]

X sees creature through thick brush but doesn't report anything until three years later to a website.

Y calls X on phone three years later finds X's account truthful

Y places X's account on internet database

Should X's account be considered evidence or an eyewitness account too unreliable to base your belief of a fairie, chupacabra, champ, nessie or sassy on?

I didn't think you would answer the question Bill. You can't. Because you know the answer does not help your theory. So instead you need to distract our attention. I went through this just last night with my 14 year old.

By the way, I personally don't follow fairies, chupacabra or nessie. But I dont **** on people who do. That's their thing not mine.

[JDL]

Yet again, proof that skeptics on this forum are more interested in psycho analyzing the members than the interest they have in the subject.

That's extremely unhealthy for the benefit of the forum.

 

True.  And one should ask, yet again, what pathology drives such people to a forum about a subject for which they have no interest in studying objectively.

 

On the bright side, I suppose it prevents them from being arrested for attempting to club misidentified seals.

[ohiobill]

I didn't think you would answer the question Bill. You can't. Because you know the answer does not help your theory. So instead you need to distract our attention. I went through this just last night with my 14 year old.

By the way, I personally don't follow fairies, chupacabra or nessie. But I dont **** on people who do. That's their thing not mine.

Of course I can answer and did - what do you object to? If you base your belief in sassy or any creature solely on eyewitness accounts the analogy is sound. I don't understand why it matters which creature we are discussing? Unless there is some reason you feel eyewitness accounts of sassy are somehow better than those for fairies, champ, nessie or chupacabra? This isn't court where you can question the witness or check out their story, timeline or character. In most instances these are anonymous anecdotal reports reported long after they happened - the onsite investigation can at best determine "it's possible" if an onsite investigation is done at all

 

Ask your 14 year old if he would think it was fair if he got suspended tomorrow for something he is alleged to have done three years ago by an anonymous witness? How would you like it? Still think anonymous anecdotes are evidence if you are on trial for murder and are being tried solely on the basis of anonymous testimony? 

 

Don't fall for the fallacy that sassy reports equal evidence.

True.  And one should ask, yet again, what pathology drives such people to a forum about a subject for which they have no interest in studying objectively.

 

On the bright side, I suppose it prevents them from being arrested for attempting to club misidentified seals.

Do you think the pathology is similar to sassy hoaxers or the folks who follow them? Obviously any hoaxer or the folks who follow them can't take the subject too seriously.

Edited April 29, 2014 by ohiobill

[JDL]

There's a special hell for hoaxers.

[ohiobill]

I assume you would include all deliberately false reports as hoaxes? How about reports of recognized wildlife that have been massaged to be sassy by a biased investigator? How do you know which ones are false? That's the crux of this - I've been talking about it since I joined. It's the elephant in the sassy den - you can't use eyewitness accounts as "evidence" if you don't know if they are true or not. You can't even use them as data points in any true sense of the word. 

[dmaker]

True.  And one should ask, yet again, what pathology drives such people to a forum about a subject for which they have no interest in studying objectively.

 

On the bright side, I suppose it prevents them from being arrested for attempting to club misidentified seals.

I have looked at it objectively. There is not enough hard evidence to support the bigfoot hypothesis. If bigfoot were real and people were honestly considering what that meant, objectively, then my opinion is that they would arrive at the same conclusion as I have--bigfoot is a social construct, not a real animal. Obviously many will disagree with me, and that is totally fine. I can accept that people will not arrive at the same conclusion given the same information. 

 

I refuse, however, to pretend that bigfoot may be real and running around North America just so that people of your opinion will consider me "objective".

Edited April 30, 2014 by dmaker