Misidentification

[dmaker]

I would think so. Scientific evidence has to be falsifiable. It has to at least be something that can be proven wrong. For example, I give you a blood sample and say I got it from a bigfoot. It gets analyzed and is then proven to have come from a horse. So that piece of evidence has been tested and falsified. Same goes for hair, scat, etc.  Someone tells me they saw a bigfoot last night, but have nothing beyond the story, well that cannot be falsified or tested in any way.  The problem with bigfoot tracks is two fold: they never lead to a bigfoot or to biological evidence of a bigfoot, or they are simply too ambiguous to be confirmed just what they are.  Also, there is the whole fruit of a poisoned tree thing too, but that's not a very scientific reason to reject them simply because people have been known to hoax them I suppose. Casting artifacts have been demonstrated to resemble what some believe to be dermal ridges. So they remain rather inconclusive.  If there was a bigfoot specimen to compare foot prints against and thus be in a better position to confirm a track, then they would be a much stronger source of evidence in my opinion. Right now, some of them are hoaxes and, if bigfoot is a real creature, then some of them are examples of conditional evidence of bigfoot. Pretty hard to tell at this point. No single bigfoot track has ever lead to a discovery of bigfoot or the collection of bigfoot biological samples, so I'd say most alleged tracks are suspect. 

 

I just want to be clear, I'm not a scientist. I have learned more about the scientific method, and types of evidence and such through reading on my own, but I am not a trained scientist at all. My university years were spent studying history.

Edited May 1, 2014 by dmaker

[ohiobill]

I don't think you have to be a scientist to weigh in here or any thread for that matter nor do I feel anyone here should feel threatened because no scientist is ever going to classify sassy on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone. Use the discussion to critically examine what you are basing you claims on and consider how to proceed. A personal encounter may satisfy you or even many on this forum but it certainly isn't going to satisfy any serious scientist. Think about it - you don't truly accept personal encounters if they involve fairies, UFOs, Nessie, Champ, dogmen or chupacabras. Why would science or anyone accord a sassy experience any more weight?   

 

Your encounter may be all you need for you or close friends and family but to everyone else it's an anonymous anecdotal story. It doesn't rise to the level of courtroom testimony - we can't examine the evidence, the site, the background or state of mind of the witness and no way can the witness be even gently cross examined on here without 37 posts immediately coming to defend the witness and the "evidence".  You would never agree that an anonymous statement should be used against you or your family in court as "evidence" because you don't truly feel that an anonymous account is evidence.

 

Being mad or hurt about the situation isn't going to change anything. I'm certainly going to continue posting in any thread I feel like hoping that if I can change even one serious researchers perception about what it's going to take it will be well worth it. Pointing out the fact that anecdotal accounts aren't evidence doesn't equate to calling everyone with an encounter a liar, fool, druggie, or mentally ill. It's just the plain truth and until the sightings databases are verified (impossible for most) or given some sort of exam and rating they will essentially be worthless to any serious research. If you want to channel your passion into something productive start working on a database that you can trust and trust that it will bring an interesting day that much sooner. 

[hiflier]

Hello ohiobill

Is there such a database already compiled? One is led to think that there is. But none of us have access to it. At least no access to the persons making the claims that are being used to compile such a database. So here we sit; can't go forward, can't go back. Some have access to the information however as interviews are done on sight and witnesses are in some cases apparently vetted. What is called the seige at Honobia comes to mind. That is a place, with people rediding at it, with the BFRO going there etc. etc.

I could start a database of all the members here that have had encounters and collect personal information and do interviews but unless I release their personal information to the public then the public would be as syuck as they are now. I in fact would not give out personal information even if I had it so my database, being no better than any others, is worthless even before I get it started. There simply is no way to get beyond a Forum level experience unless one gets into the field and has a personal encounter.

Ah, yes, then there is that thing about securing a type specimen. If so? Then all this can go away and get replaced with some real stuff. eh? In fact, even if one isn't pro-kill, looking for a dead body should be job one. One would think this entire community would be out there scouring the woods just to reduce the odds and beat nature to the punch before a cadaver disappears by natural causes. Not pro-kill? Forget the guns and go into an active region and be a part of putting this thing to bed.

Edited May 1, 2014 by hiflier

[JDL]

My greatest disdain isn't for skeptics, but rather those that claim special knowledge but are conveniently bound not to reveal said secret knowledge.

 

Stick a fork in 'em, they're overdone.

 

Hope you don't feel I'm withholding anything.  The only thing I've kept to myself is the exact location of my encounters near Lake Tahoe.  Those were in the early 70's, but I think the area is relatively unchanged, and I'd like to lead any investigative team in there when the time comes.

[ohiobill]

Hiflier - To the best of my knowledge no such database is currently available. I think Nathanfooter is probably closest with his local database which only contains info he has vetted himself if I understand it correctly. There is a project ongoing here at BFF utilizing BFRO reports - BobbyO would be best suited to answer any questions.

 

I can understand your frustration - I've put some thought into it myself. Privacy concerns would be my priority as well but really no personal info would ever be needed. No sighting database will ever be evidence for "proving" sassy simply because a type specimen is what is required. The value comes from using a trusted database to allow a researcher to be in the right place and time to gather an actual sample whether it's taken or found dead.

 

Even if we had perfect data and compiled a flawless database it would still require field work just like it has for every other recognized animal and it could fail regardless. Even experienced guides and hunters aren't always successful with well known animals - they still call it hunting rather than finding. I totally agree with you about getting boots on the ground. Norseman and the NAWAC are using this strategy in group efforts already but there is only so much ground small groups can cover. I personally think camera traps are the "force multipliers" that will make a difference for small groups when covering large areas but so far they haven't been much help. 

 

I certainly don't have the answer but I know that failing to acknowledge the reality that sightings reports aren't evidence is hurting the credibility of the field. Scientists are engaging the evidence given to them but will never consider sightings reports as evidence. Continually pointing to sightings as evidence hasn't done anything to prove existence to this point - continuing to do so will yield no better results.

[Guest DWA]

Reports are evidence; if scientists refuse to acknowledge that, this isn't evidence but proof - see what I did there? - that they aren't paying attention...and anyone who knows anything about what you do with evidence knows that you do more than continually point to it.

Edited May 1, 2014 by DWA

[ohiobill]

DWA - In court eyewitness testimony is entered into evidence but the other side gets to examine the eyewitness, their motives, background, state of mind etc. We aren't in court and you aren't seeing any examination of anonymous anecdotal reports - to say otherwise is not being truthful. At best you are describing heresay which isn't normally entered into evidence but still wouldn't apply as WE STILL AREN'T IN COURT. 

 

Do you believe eyewitness accounts of fairies, elves, dogmen, chupacabras and sassy are equally truthful?

 

Would you be comfortable with being kicked off the forum due to an anonymous report by someone stating they saw you hoaxing sassy tracks? 

 

Would you appeal a suspension of your child from school due to a 3 year old anonymous report?

 

Can you honestly say you would be comfortable with having a loved tried for murder on the basis of anonymous reports vetted by someone on the phone whose criteria was "the witness sounded truthful"?

[JDL]

This is why rational people investigate to determine the degree of confidence such information has.  Standard practice in industry, military intelligence, etc.

 

It is true that an item of information is either true, false, or conditionally true or false.

 

Investigating the circumstances, context, and source of information is standard practice and usually one of the things considered is the consistency of the information; i.e the full body of reports on the matter, whatever it may be.  This is done all the time by major institutions.

 

The full body of reports cannot be summarily dismissed as 100% false, because they cannot all individually be proven to be false, the sheer volume of them is statistically significant, and the degree of confidence increases with each added report.

 

At best, logic, and intellectual integrity, demand that the only truly objective position a skeptic can take is that, without a body, the totality of reports remains inconclusive, despite a mounting degree of statistical confidence.

 

Any attempt to dismiss all reports as false, as opposed to inconclusive, is not an objective position, it is a subjective position, and based on no more than the subject's personal, or institutional belief that bigfoot do not exist.

[Guest DWA]

^^^That.

[Guest LarryP]

 

At best, logic, and intellectual integrity, demand that the only truly objective position a skeptic can take is that, without a body, the totality of reports remains inconclusive, despite a mounting degree of statistical confidence.

 

True Skeptic:

 

- Thinks in terms of possibilities rather than in preserving fixed views.

 

- Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides.

 

 

Any attempt to dismiss all reports as false, as opposed to inconclusive, is not an objective position, it is a subjective position, and based on no more than the subject's personal, or institutional belief that bigfoot do not exist.

 

Faux Skeptic:

 

- Are not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending their views.

 

- Cannot think in terms of possibilities, but sees their paradigms as fixed and constant.

[Guest LarryP]

My greatest disdain isn't for skeptics, but rather those that claim special knowledge but are conveniently bound not to reveal said secret knowledge.

 

 

Your use of the word "conveniently" clearly shows that you're projecting your personal opinion that it is convenient, onto others.

 

The truth of the matter is that you have no idea if that is the case, because you haven't experienced what they've experienced.

[dmaker]

This is why rational people investigate to determine the degree of confidence such information has.  Standard practice in industry, military intelligence, etc.

 

It is true that an item of information is either true, false, or conditionally true or false.

 

Investigating the circumstances, context, and source of information is standard practice and usually one of the things considered is the consistency of the information; i.e the full body of reports on the matter, whatever it may be.  This is done all the time by major institutions.

 

The full body of reports cannot be summarily dismissed as 100% false, because they cannot all individually be proven to be false, the sheer volume of them is statistically significant, and the degree of confidence increases with each added report.

 

At best, logic, and intellectual integrity, demand that the only truly objective position a skeptic can take is that, without a body, the totality of reports remains inconclusive, despite a mounting degree of statistical confidence.

 

Any attempt to dismiss all reports as false, as opposed to inconclusive, is not an objective position, it is a subjective position, and based on no more than the subject's personal, or institutional belief that bigfoot do not exist.

And at what point does that crumble in upon itself?  With each added report, and still zero confrimable evidence, the sheer numbers appear ridiculous. Bigfoot simply cannot be reported everywhere yet leave nothing behind other than stories. It's ridiculous and naive to think otherwise. And pointing to the number of reports makes that argument look silly the higher the number of reports.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Read his post again, because you didn't.  (Pattern.)

 

At what point does saying the same thing, over and over - when one has been told, times beyond counting, with copious evidence submitted against none with which one can counter, that what one is saying does not even reflect reality - crumble in upon itself?

 

In one's own mind:  apparently never!

[dmaker]

^^ Seriously. Don't tell me what I have read and have not read. And I will kindly ask you to stop lecturing like we're all a bunch of children. You can get your point across without the tone if you try.

 

 

One cannot "counter" an anonymous anecdote. 

Edited May 1, 2014 by dmaker

[ohiobill]

This is why rational people investigate to determine the degree of confidence such information has.  Standard practice in industry, military intelligence, etc.

 

It is true that an item of information is either true, false, or conditionally true or false.

 

Investigating the circumstances, context, and source of information is standard practice and usually one of the things considered is the consistency of the information; i.e the full body of reports on the matter, whatever it may be.  This is done all the time by major institutions.

 

The full body of reports cannot be summarily dismissed as 100% false, because they cannot all individually be proven to be false, the sheer volume of them is statistically significant, and the degree of confidence increases with each added report.

 

At best, logic, and intellectual integrity, demand that the only truly objective position a skeptic can take is that, without a body, the totality of reports remains inconclusive, despite a mounting degree of statistical confidence.

 

Any attempt to dismiss all reports as false, as opposed to inconclusive, is not an objective position, it is a subjective position, and based on no more than the subject's personal, or institutional belief that bigfoot do not exist.

I agree that the data contained in sightings reports could be true, false, or conditionally true or false and that data is often investigated by major institutions, industry and the military. I don't agree that any statistically significant conclusions can be drawn or that you can achieve any degree of confidence when the investigation has no standard to compare the data against. What conclusion can be drawn from the fact that a majority of Icelanders believe in fairies or that there are numerous eyewitness accounts of dogmen, chupacabras, alien UFOs, alien abductions and sassy?  Logic and intellectual integrity applied to any sighting reports would compel any objective researcher to assign the same weight to reports where the veracity can't be determined and there are no norms - the data becomes the starting point for the investigation or experiment and isn't treated as evidence as I've repeatedly suggested needs to happen in regard to sassy sightings. 

 

I am not stating or even suggesting that 100% of sightings should be considered false. In fact, I have repeatedly argued precisely for treating them as inconclusive data that needs to be investigated in the hope that evidence can be gathered. 

Edited May 1, 2014 by ohiobill