Misidentification

[JDL]

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.

 

The analysis you require hasn't yet been performed by an unaligned and impartial institution.  Proponents have done this, but, well, they're proponents, and the skeptical community, both its objective and subjective arms, view them as impugnable.  The investigation of the totality of the evidence requires objective scientific and statistical analysis by a multidisciplinary group using a protocol that is accepted, prior to analysis, by both noted skeptics and proponents.

 

Without this, we and thee can debate this all day long without resolution until evidence is provided that even a skeptic can embrace.

 

 

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. 

 

 

See above.

[dmaker]

"The analysis you require hasn't yet been performed by an unaligned and impartial institution.  Proponents have done this, but, well, they're proponents, and the skeptical community, both its objective and subjective arms, view them as impugnable.  The investigation of the totality of the evidence requires objective scientific and statistical analysis by a multidisciplinary group using a protocol that is accepted, prior to analysis, by both noted skeptics and proponents."

 

That is fair enough. I struggle to see what value could be gained from an analysis of a pile of anonymous reports. 

 

It is conceivable that someone could band together 1,000 people across the country to each report a flying dragon anonymously. ( Game of Thrones is popular, so why not?) Some intrepid programmer could easily write a bot program that would file anonymous reports on a web based reporting site if such a thing existed for flying dragons. Then we could crank them out tirelessly and for as long, and as many, as we wanted. We could have volume and consistency galore. It would be an awesome evidence source for people convinced that flying dragons exist. We could even start a forum and have a few shills present to convince people that they really saw such a thing and such a thing does exist. I mean, how can that many reports be wrong after all?  Soon enough, independent people would begin reporting flying dragon sightings. Build it and they will come. What, in reference to the existence of flying dragons, could be extracted from that body of reports?  

 

You don't, however, have on iota of evidence that flying dragons actually exist not matter how you examine the reports.

Edited May 1, 2014 by dmaker

[WSA]

We sure aren't in any court Bill, that is for dang sure a truth.  For one, court is a much, much more serious exercise and as much interest I have in this subject, I'm not invested to that extent, and I intend to keep it that way if I can!

 

But....to equate "anonymous" with "unreliable", I think, is a misstep.  What I've said about these reports many times is that you can engage with them on many levels, whether they be an in-person account, or just one you've pulled off the internet. (BTW, IMO,  the degree of commitment it takes to come to the BFF and share a consistent account of a sighting over and over? I don't care if you fly by the name of your avatar....you aren't exactly anonymous. And like a number of folks here, that is my real picture....although taken a couple of years ago) By "engagement", I mean looking for coherency and consistency. Don't forget plain ol' garden-variety common sense and experience either. If you're gag-point is only that they are anonymous, you've quit before you've even begun.     

[WSA]

dmaker...as for manufacturing reports. I have no doubt some of those happen. We were laughing at one of those, I'm sure, just last week. They get tossed. I've mentioned many times here that people are just not good at lying, or ginning up fiction either. You also bring your wordly knowledge to the analysis, as I've also said many times.

A nice case in point is a recent AL report, and footprint, that came from some folks who live just a mile or so from where DWA and I spent two nights on the ground early last month. You'd have to know the area, the terrain, the people, the history and about a billion other variables known or just intuited to be able to really read that report and have a compelling conclusion. This is not to say I'm some kind of walking almanac. I have no other or better insight than anyone who lives somewhere for a certain amount of time and who pays even a modicum of attention to the natural world. What I do have is the ability to recognize I have that, and to put it to use. When you stop at the door, scientist or not, you never get to bring any of that to bear, and your ability to even recognize something as inconclusive gets nipped.

[MIB]

 

It is conceivable that someone could band together 1,000 people across the country to each report a flying dragon anonymously.

 

 

Sure, but for bigfoot reports they had to start as much as a couple thousand years ago to "infect" Native American lore and no later than the 1830s to account for what is in published newspaper accounts for the time.   It seems your silly argument allows for time travel yet dismisses the possibility of an unknown biped.   Uh .. really? 

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

^^^The eternal problem of the bigfoot skeptic:  thinking "conceivable, but you gotta be kidding me" is the same thing as "biology, and history, say this is the horse to bet on."

[dmaker]

Sure, but for bigfoot reports they had to start as much as a couple thousand years ago to "infect" Native American lore and no later than the 1830s to account for what is in published newspaper accounts for the time.   It seems your silly argument allows for time travel yet dismisses the possibility of an unknown biped.   Uh .. really? 

 

MIB

I'm not sure how my example ( a trifle silly, I agree) requires time travel though? I never made any claim to Native lore. I, also, do not believe that NA Native lore does support sasquatch actually. But that is an issue for a different thread. 

[JDL]

Given that there are those who publicly deride bigfoot witnesses, the prevalence of anonymous reports is understandable.  This is an example of how skeptics and denialists actually skew the quality of reports.  In essence, they are part of the problem.

 

That said, an anonymous report will have a lower degree of confidence than the exact same report with information regarding the witness.

[Guest DWA]

^^^There are so many smh factors on this topic that it's hard to single one out.  But your first paragraph is spot on.

[ohiobill]

See above.

I have several times and I even agree with most of it. The points I don't agree with are the ones you are unwilling to consider objectively. Acknowledge the fact that your subjective bias towards belief in sassy allows you to treat sighting reports of elves, fairies, chupacabras, dogmen, UFOs, alien abductions, or Elvis differently even though you have no way to determine if the reports are coming from the same people. In fact, you could report multiple sightings of Elvis tomorrow without anyone here knowing and defend both your Elvis and sassy on different forums with your argument which would continue to be flawed in both instances. You understand that the reports aren't evidence and you understand that there is no reliable statistical data you can derive from them at this time. Why blame skeptics for lack of evidence when you won't even acknowledge the actual problem?

[JDL]

My subjective bias?  Opens me up to other stuff?

 

You are mistaken. 

 

With regard to the other stuff, I maintain objective skepticism as I've described above.  I've never seen any of that other stuff.

 

If you take the time to review my postings on bigfoot, you will find that there are plenty of reported factors regarding bigfoot on which I remain objectively skeptical as well.  I was originally skeptical regarding their use of low frequency sound.  It was only after I saw persistent reports regarding this capability and statements from those I had come to respect regarding it that I took up analysis as an engineer to determine if such capability was both possible and feasible.  I determined that it is both possible and feasible and does explain some things, but I am not ready to conclusively say that it is something they can do.  I am only prepared to say that it is within the realm of possibility.

 

Now, if you walked through a Coca Cola bottling plant and were handed a Coke in a fluorescent blue can, then asked to return it without taking a picture of it there would be those who would laugh at you when you stated that such a thing existed.  And in any future debate regarding its existence someone could accuse you of subjective bias regarding the matter.

 

The fact that I have encountered bigfoot did not create what I would call a subjective bias.  As an engineer, it created what I would professionally call a boundary condition.  Since I have had an unmistakeable encounter, I know that the number of bigfoot in existence cannot be zero. 

 

But I can see how you would consider this subjective given that I saw it and you didn't.  Still, your rejection of the information I offer is, in itself, subjective based on your own personal beliefs.  You may feel most comfortable believing that I was mistaken, but you have to acknowledge that, from your own subjective perspective, you could be mistaken that I was mistaken.

[Guest DWA]

dmaker...as for manufacturing reports. I have no doubt some of those happen. We were laughing at one of those, I'm sure, just last week. They get tossed. I've mentioned many times here that people are just not good at lying, or ginning up fiction either. You also bring your wordly knowledge to the analysis, as I've also said many times.

A nice case in point is a recent AL report, and footprint, that came from some folks who live just a mile or so from where DWA and I spent two nights on the ground early last month. You'd have to know the area, the terrain, the people, the history and about a billion other variables known or just intuited to be able to really read that report and have a compelling conclusion. This is not to say I'm some kind of walking almanac. I have no other or better insight than anyone who lives somewhere for a certain amount of time and who pays even a modicum of attention to the natural world. What I do have is the ability to recognize I have that, and to put it to use. When you stop at the door, scientist or not, you never get to bring any of that to bear, and your ability to even recognize something as inconclusive gets nipped.

This.

 

I read a report of wood knocks in Shenandoah National Park a year or two back.  I know that park probably better than the rangers; the guy wanted to keep the location under wraps, but I quickly figured out the only two possible locations in the Park that matched the information submitted.  On my next drive through I stopped at both.  Wood knocks don't happen in nature unless something with hands whacks wood with either wood, or axe.  No, not woodpeckers, not branches falling, not trees falling, or even hitting other trees as they fall.  This is something that requires reflection and basic knowledge to understand.  So anyway, I go to the two spots.  The guy says where the knocks came from.  Well.  If he heard what he says he did, and if it came from where he says it came from, all of the knocks were inside the Park, and none anywhere near trail or the road.

 

Only possible conclusions regarding that report:  

 

1) Guy was lying (and no particular reason, reading the report, to suspect that).

2) Guy was mistaken about each or one at least of the locations (and no one has any evidence to prove that; and no reason from my looksee to think it likely he was).

3) Guy was mistaken about the nature of the noise (something he described, in detail sufficient for me to think that was unlikely).

4) Guy was hoaxed by several people waiting in the woods for him to drive up; in communication with one another; so they could hit a tree, once or twice, and ...get exactly what thrill out of this?

5) Illegal woodcutters who fell one tree with one whack, or whack once and are either arrested, or leave.

6) Something else, of which the real-world most likely thing is something with hands, far from road or trail, whacking a tree and getting a response.

 

There are so many dials sensors springs and motors operating here, based on so much life experience, that to go into further detail would be fruitless.  

 

But it comes down to ...well, what WSA said.  To just go "naaah, I got this" from an armchair is to...well, here.  Just put "please don't take me seriously" down as your signature and we're good..

[Guest]

You missed a possibility, DWA. The wood knocks were performed by Bigfooters looking to elicit a response in the same area that the report originated.

[Guest DWA]

Not a possibility.  I am talking about the report itself, and what the guy himself reported.

 

Unless, of course, somebody else reported something like this that wasn't on public file, and people privy to that report were out there, doing that, from significantly disparate directions, just as that guy was getting ready to pack up and go home for the day.

 

Which, with all those springs rotors gears etc. that one brings to this operating, one can handily chalk up to:

 

Conceivable.  But I'd bet precisely a dime on it and no more, and it would be a dime I could easily spare.

 

Now, off to the things which are far more likely.

 

Of which, given the evidence, bigfoot is certainly one.

I honestly think that "Since bigfoot is not real...." is a totally submerged unconscious assumption of every 'skeptical' take on this, so deeply psychologically buried that the skeptic can't consciously access it.

Edited May 1, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

Context is everything, as DWA notes. His knowledge of that location is essential to the conlusion as well. Just...sometimes...expert counsel must be queried and listened to. What I hear him to say is, not so much he's saying BF walks in SNP, but that it poses a question that bears investigation, and until we run that out to its conclusion, you'll not be able to say it is fantasy. What goes with that is the ability to keep that question in front of you for a long, long time if necessary, and the sense to know you may not get an answer during your lifetime either.

We live in an age where one person's opinion is equal to another, and everyone rates an equal forum. Very democratic, and dissensus can be sometimes useful, but it is largely useless for getting to the bottom of complex problems quickly and efficiently. That is what we have here. This is just a quirk of our times, which I hope and trust will pass. We should avoid that like grim death when we see it, I think. Somebody who has lived in a certain location, and has spent considerable time getting intimate with that landscape is, de facto, an expert. If one doesn't have the calories or will to go toe-to-toe with that expertise, fine, I get that, but at least have the courtesty to admit you don't and acknowledge you don't really know, absent that.

I doubt any one of our local anti-foots has ever looked an eyewitness in the eye and had them tell them what they saw,heard or smelled. That is just the kind of effort you need to make if you want to have any bona fides for objectivity, I think.