To The Skeptic: If They Can Find 10000 Chimps Then ...

[Cotter]

@MIB - Good post, plussed.

 

You described pretty much exactly the experiences I have had when interviewing witnesses (non-BFRO related) as well.

[WSA]

Very interesting and a valuable insight MIB. As a practicing trial lawyer, I can relate to much of what you are saying. Drawing out a witness to talk about anything difficult is either a question of establishing trust or fear of the cross-examiner's command of the real truth. (Trust works much better, but it not always is available to the questioner) I believe the investigators do a fair job of drawing out the details. On more than a couple of occasions I'll admit I've all but screamed at the f/u information something like, "Ask them about ____ dammit!!" But, everyone is an armchair QB, aren't they? 

 

I think you've touched also on something that comes through in a large number of these reports from first time witnesses. (And of course, most of them have never had an encounter before) These folks are rattled to their core. You can't disguise that, and it is hard to fabricate.  

Nobody said that they're not interesting and I agree that they would "entertain the idea of getting to something maybe bigger than the individual parts", but that doesn't equate into what they're being presented here as. These reports are only bits to motivate and maybe move towards something bigger.

 

A map to finding gold is only worth something to the guy looking for gold. It's not gold in itself and there is no way to know if it's even valid until after the gold is found.

 

Myself, as I said, I don't consider them anything more than a map that says loud and clear, "Look HERE!" Couldn't be more logical, to my mind. If you want to find gold, you have to look for it. It is merely axiomatic to say you don't know there is gold there if you don't look.  If you are not prepared to  find it, or to never find it, you won't consider the whole game worth the candle.  That leaves it to others who will, and thus it always has been. The crazy ones grab the ring, always. It happens so often, you could set it to music and waltz to it. Still, some of us sit back and consider it our due that the world will be tidily explained if we just want that bad enough. The beat goes on....  

[MIB]

Still, some of us sit back and consider it our due that the world will be tidily explained if we just want that bad enough. The beat goes on....  

 

In turn, you make a very valuable observation.  Thank you!  There are far too many people sitting on the sidelines (or internet) TALKING rather than getting to the field and DOING.  Too much sense of entitlement to the fruits of others' labors.  

 

In the context of edtiorial comment, I think it might be interesting to see what a forum that is open to the world for reading but to post, you have to pass some sort of screening might produce.   Without the "noise" of the scoffers and pot-stirrers acting like graphite rods dampening the reaction, we might have already reached critical mass and produced proof.

 

MIB

[WSA]

I do agree we might be too invested in the argue "yes"/argue "no" dialogue, maybe. I try not to give in to that impulse to joust too often, I hope,  but enlightened and debate does have its worth. We may just elevate the idea of debate serving to test the evidence a little too high though. How much really is going to be tested on a web forum anyway, when you come right down to it? Still, I am a guest here, so I mostly try to keep my observations about the process to myself.

 

I also don't think we really appreciate either how many of our resident naysayers are actually invested in this process, despite their protestations to the contrary. I'm a big believer in watching someone's hands, and not their mouths, to tell where they are, truly. You don't come back to post "I don't believe it" a few thousand times just because you are bored, and I'm not really interested in why they might SAY they do it. Fact is, there is something invested by that person in an outcome, and not an "outcome" such as, "If I die before Sasquatch is confirmed, I win." I believe our chorus of naysayers is much too shrewd and intelligent to be only shooting for that, and no other motivation really fills the bill.  They are fellow questers, whether they care to admit it or not.  They might protest that conclusion, and probably will, but I know what I know.

[roguefooter]

 

Myself, as I said, I don't consider them anything more than a map that says loud and clear, "Look HERE!" Couldn't be more logical, to my mind. If you want to find gold, you have to look for it. It is merely axiomatic to say you don't know there is gold there if you don't look.  If you are not prepared to  find it, or to never find it, you won't consider the whole game worth the candle.  That leaves it to others who will, and thus it always has been. The crazy ones grab the ring, always. It happens so often, you could set it to music and waltz to it. Still, some of us sit back and consider it our due that the world will be tidily explained if we just want that bad enough. The beat goes on....  

 

Well sure, but to claim that the gold must exist because a map exists is a false claim. Maps are easily falsified, even corroborating maps can be false since people can easily repeat what they hear or read.

 

You also have to consider that not everybody really cares to find the gold, it's the mystery that they like. That goes for people on both sides of the fence.

[WSA]

Oh yeah, Roguefooter, you sure got that right from my p.o.v....mysteries are what keep me getting up in the morning.  This weird world doesn't lack for them, we know.

 

The treasure map comparison to sighting reports is a good one, as far as it goes, but it is the complexity in the reports that give one pause. I believe in relying on expert advice when I can get it, in matters that are uncertain. If you expose somebody to that database who deals with professionally with transcribed testimony on a daily basis, especially one who has experience with the natural world, you'll get a fairly consistent reaction. At least my limited research, and my own experience, tells me this is the case.

 

So, to expand on your analogy: If you share your treasure map with an historian who confirms the background to the alleged horde of gold, and your cryptologist confirms the cyphers were typical of a code used by early 17th century buccaneers, and the parchment it is written on is assured to be correct to the period...what does that do to the probabilities?    As Con Ed would say: Dig we must. 

[WSA]

And as luck would have it, here's a report just posted, one I'd classify as "not so much."  All I can tell you is I know them when I see 'em. You too,I'm sure. When they read like a recited checklist of BF behaviors like this does, you tend to scan and toss in the "other" pile. No worries though, because there are plenty to put on the "save" pile.  That one can be fabricated, possibly,  doesn't exclude all the others. This is a crucial, crucial distinction that so many can't seem to make. As John Michael Greer is fond of saying about energy issues, that type of process only serves as a "thought stopper." 

 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=43162

[Cotter]

What??  Must be a regular occurrence.  I agree with your assessment WSA.

 

"and we seen red demon eyes, then we did not think nothing of it"

[dmaker]

And as luck would have it, here's a report just posted, one I'd classify as "not so much."  All I can tell you is I know them when I see 'em. You too,I'm sure. When they read like a recited checklist of BF behaviors like this does, you tend to scan and toss in the "other" pile. No worries though, because there are plenty to put on the "save" pile.  That one can be fabricated, possibly,  doesn't exclude all the others. This is a crucial, crucial distinction that so many can't seem to make. As John Michael Greer is fond of saying about energy issues, that type of process only serves as a "thought stopper." 

 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=43162

Yes, but the very fact that they exist in the database ( imo) calls into question the veracity with which all reports are vetted and also stands an excellent example of the simple fact that people love to weave yarns. 

[Guest DWA]

No.  It doesn't.  And it's been pointed out here, abundantly, why it doesn't.

[Guest DWA]

It is utterly contrary to any conception of scientific method to say "look, here's one.  One must presume all the others are like this one."

 

Multiple factors, evident to folks who have thought long and hard about this, and who have relevant scientific chops, say that the database is worth betting on.

[Drew]

If you included the sightings that are considered 'Fake' by the BFRO and other researchers , in the sighting database, it would be hilarious.

 

As it is, we only have sightings that investigators conclude might be a Bigfoot sighting.  

 

As a rule, how does a Bigfoot organization determine if a sighting should be included in it's database?

 

Is there an industry standard?  

[dmaker]

No.  It doesn't.  And it's been pointed out here, abundantly, why it doesn't.

I seem to recall you mentioning that once or twice...

[Guest LarryP]

 

As a rule, how does a Bigfoot organization determine if a sighting should be included in it's database?

 

Is there an industry standard?  

 

BFRO Database History and Report Classification System

 

 

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/classify.asp

 

The BFRO's more educated researchers and investigators collectively spend a great deal of time and effort sorting through and investigating sighting reports to determine which are credible enough to display to the public. The BFRO has a large network of experienced volunteer investigators across the U.S. and Canada who use various methods to determine the credibility of reports.

None of the modern reports in the BFRO's online database are made public without some kind of investigation. The nature of these investigations vary. The most complex investigations involve field searches with experienced trackers and wildlife biologists, surveillance projects, and lab analysis of forensic evidence. The less complex investigations involve phone interviews and other steps to verify the relevant information. If a witness cannot be contacted and interviewed, etc., the report is not considered credible. Credible witnesses are usually eager to have their sightings investigated, even if they don't want the information posted online.

 

Sighting reports sent to the BFRO are analyzed, evaluated and investigated with techniques and approaches derived from the legal profession, law enforcement, and investigative journalism. The legal profession often relies exclusively on witness testimony to determine facts. In a court of law conclusions are determined under various standards, such the "more likely than not" standard, and the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Every day in court rooms across America, legal conclusions are handed down based solely upon witness testimony, and often upon the testimony of a single witness, and often under the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. In these situations the evaluation of a witness is almost entirely subjective.

The use of subjective evaluation is what separates the legal perspective of witness testimony from the scientific perspective. Witness reports are considered "anecdotal evidence" by science, mainly because they are not testable. Yet many scientists are wise enough to understand that anecdotal evidence always precedes and leads to the collection of scientific evidence. In the history of science, scientific evidence has never been collected or even pursued until there has been enough anecdotal or indirect evidence at hand to merit an effort to collect the testable evidence. Thus without the collection and evaluation of anecdotal evidence or indirect evidence, there would be no scientific discoveries at all. This is the intrinsic relationship between the two types of evidence. Sighting reports by themselves are not scientific evidence, but they are what leads us to the scientific evidence. With respect to the pursuit of an unclassified species, the collecting of credible sighting reports is an essential part of the scientific process.

Edited April 25, 2014 by LarryP

[WSA]

Very good question Drew. We don't know, of course. We are only able to judge them from the ones that do make the cut. From what I've been able to gather, the BFRO routinely excludes some of the more obvious attempts to hoax.  Still, I'm guessing, they err on the side of disclosure on ones that are more borderline.

 

My conclusions about the report above, after all, is just a spitball lobbed from my armchair. The investigator may have had very good reasons for including it, which we are not privvy to. We all have our own  gag reflex settings, after all. I can only say I wouldn't give a report of this kind much weight, but some others may have the background and context to consider it. That is just the really the neat thing about published information. If somebody later provides me with solid reasons why a report like this should be given more weight, I'll reconsider. 

 

I agree with DWA, dmaker, on your point.  Critical thinking is why. We either have the capabilities to do that, or we don't, but all are capable of learning it. Otherwise, to quote the Archdruid again, we are just employing a thought-stopper. My point of entry view on Sasquatch evidence is that people are mistaken, people misidentify, people hallucinate, people lie and people tell the truth.  Well, that overlays ALL my interactions with humans. Learning to know which is more likely, based on all information available, is the chore.