It Will Not Make Any Difference

[Guest DWA]

Stan:  exactly.

 

Most people don't come to this with near the interest in the subject matter - wild animals in North America - to do what I have done, and read them all.  But I can tell you from that bootsole exposure - 

 

and I am saying it again for the millionth time, and no arguments against or serious disagreement yet - 

 

that there is no nuance of wildlife encounter, with any kind of animal, visual aural track or otherwise, that someone has not had with a sasquatch.  Authenticity marker, cubed.

 

The data can be racked stacked and plotted on a normal curve.  In fact, it has been.

 

Points to an animal, people, every way it's sliced, in a way that people who have put in the tread time outside and the book time inside - and thought about it, long and deep - can appreciate.

 

The rest of you should be asking your local scientist:  why won't you address this?  Aren't you supposed to be, you know, curious about stuff?

Edited August 26, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Stan Norton]

^Yep yep yep...but...

I can't say I've read hundreds of reports but the one thing that does bother me about them is the lack of any in depth verification, as much as that is possible. Not saying that is done deliberately...it is no mean feat to independently check each one of many thousands of reports. It's just that the apparent absence of any routine robust verification makes me nervous about the validity of undertaking meaningful analyses. Well worth a try though.

[WSA]

The point of my little exercise I proposed up-thread Stan, which was avoided like plutonium.

 

Just say you COULD ask anything of these witnesses, or ask anything you'd care to use to support your position they are myths, delusions, swamp gas.....whatever. What WOULD you ask? Nope. Too much effort I guess.

 

Must be easy to be a police officer in his town: "Sorry M'am.... the report you made of a masked intruder is merely your word. I can't even ask you any questions about that or I'd be admitting it might be remotely possible, and I know it can't be. Call me only after you've shot him, and we'll be there to celebrate with you."  

 

I mean, could it be any sadder? I say "not."

[Guest DWA]

^Yep yep yep...but...

I can't say I've read hundreds of reports but the one thing that does bother me about them is the lack of any in depth verification, as much as that is possible. Not saying that is done deliberately...it is no mean feat to independently check each one of many thousands of reports. It's just that the apparent absence of any routine robust verification makes me nervous about the validity of undertaking meaningful analyses. Well worth a try though.

What you're left with when amateurs are filling a field best left to professionals.  To me, were I a skeptic, that would be my tack:  prove these loonies wrong!  (Or right.)  

 

It is tough to get that in-depth with many of these.  I have heard much bellyaching about follow-up interview and analysis, as if that somehow invalidates the report.  Most of these people are not Shakespeare; and many of them I am sure are not going to put any more down than will get them a response that shows them these people are serious about their report.  The level of follow-up varies too.  If I had a nickel for every time I'm silently yelling:  why didn't you ask him...???  or I know the photos weren't great...but what did it look like they were showing?? or...

 

There seem to be many regular-Joe ways to say things like 'compliant gait;'  'mid-tarsal break;' and 'sagittal crest'.  But when somebody says "dome shaped"...well, what is that?  Particularly when the follow-up didn't elucidate?  So subjectivity does enter into the analysis.  (Some follow-up assumes it's a bigfoot ...and one can't even ascertain that the subject looked like a primate or was bipedal.)  But not to the extent that one throws up one's hands and yells 'well, nothing here!'  When they're taking the time so many of them are taking - sure, you call up somebody you know and have him drive four hours to your house so you can spend the day lying to him - to put up what I am reading...well, I don't see any other phenomenon that is doing this.  That, you know, isn't confirmed as real.

[Guest DWA]

Here is part of what we're dealing with:

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=43319

 

"This dark colored, large hairy animal on all 4 legs that resembled a bear. It kicked its back leg, turned to where it was looking at me and just stood there in the field on the passenger side of my car. It stood there and looked at me and was approximately 5 feet in height on all four feet. I went to my sister's house approximately 1/4 mile up the road and got her camera and we went back and took pictures of the footprints in the snow. About a week ago my mom and sister were talking about a loud hollering noise they heard in the timber behind their house."

 

OK, then.  Looked like a bear...five feet in height, on all fours.  (Black bear?  Um, no.  Cow or Percheron?  Probably not a BFRO report, eh?)  The leg-kicking is characteristic of primate threat displays but not of bears.  But they got photos of the footprints...and not too much in Illinois that isn't human "hollers."

 

And...she was ten feet away from the animal.  The follow-up?

 

The animal was 5 feet tall while on "all fours" standing on the edge of the road. 
- The animal was dark colored. 
- The animal was less than 10 feet from the witness.
- Although unable to estimate a weight the witness described the animal as being huge. 
- The witness was unable to see the face. 
- The witness provided photos of the footprints but melting snow did not provide good enough conditions for decent photos. 

 

That's IT?  TEN feet away...???  And can't even come close to genus on the footprints, photos are that bad?  But if you're telling me she just didn't see this,    

 

"Yes my niece and friend have seen it twice, once on all four legs and once running and standing up on back legs."  

 

So much for bear, cow or Percheron.

 

When one is reading hundreds of these, many with significantly more detail than this...the frustrating moments are many.  But something else is coming through that keeps me reading them, and it says:  I've seen wild animals, and I know something about the great apes.  This reads like an encounter with a wild great ape...by someone who has no idea what that would be like.

 

Except...they reported one.

 

[Guest Stan Norton]

^ Well said. There are inherent issues with any database of anecdotal reports and, unfortunately, there is too much of a tendency for a certain organization to reach the sasquatch answer too quickly. That should by no means prevent those with the requisite skills from carrying out any necessary analyses of the data. I just wish I had the skills and time myself!

[Guest DWA]

HAHA!  Don't think I haven't thought of it, Stan!

 

"So, thanks, Mabel.  Sounds like you saw a ....."  "Shut up, Clarence!  Mabel.  Describe the subject's face.  I mean, you were five feet away..."

[WSA]

I'm acutely annoyed by the quailty of f/u too, but I'm much more used to it, being in the line of work I am. The quality of insurance investigation has always been a pet peeve of those in civil defense practices. The problem always is, they work from scripts and checklists. It is usually the classic case of hearing without listening.  Fact is... and I try to be charitable about this... it takes years of training and practice to do an examination of a witness effecitvely. Instead of wondering about your next question on your list, you should be thinking about what the witness just told you, and forming a f/u to that, if it suggests an additional question. Your point exactly DWA. These are unpaid amateurs, but doing a pretty fair job of it, all things considered...but it could be much, much better.

 

My pet theory?  Scientific inquiry is hard and expensive, and goes where the fruit is low, and pickin' is easy. If a team of qualified experts were to descend en masse on a sighting location and do a full CSI treatment and a Perry Mason on all witnesses, the most probable outcome is they still would not be able to draw any firm conclusions. Maybe they would, but probably not the first time.  I mean, who likes to tilt at evidentiary windmills with no pay-offs, right? But here is the point, always has been the point, and always will be the point to those with the acumen to grasp it...the lack of an "oh yeah, it was THAT over there"  explanation IS THE POINT!!!  It doesn't mean you throw up your hands and go home, it means you keep coming back, and keep coming back, and keep coming back, as long as these reports keep hitting all the markers, like they do. If you lack the acumen to keep that ball in the air in front of you, you don't deserve to be considered a player, or serious about it at all. You might as well go lay bricks...and I've been a mason, so I know there is nothing at all wrong with that. It just is not this, is all.

Edited August 26, 2014 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

Now here's the conversation.  I'm enjoying this.

 

One could amost imagine somebody in A High Land Management Place in OK going:  

 

OK, we know what is going to happen when somebody like these NAWAC people brings out a specimen.  That won't resolve anything.  It'll only start the brickbats...and we are talking people who will suddenly find out - you see all these reports from backyards? - that the boogeyman is REAL, and their kids are out there and their kids are food potentially, and ...look right now we have the whole society sleeping on this; nobody's upset; everybody's laughing at Finding Bigfoot, and...

 

Look at the problem people have with reintroducing cute li'l ol' red wolves, ferpetesake.  You don't think somebody might consider an interdict to cut off that NAWAC specimen at the pass because the last thing we need is 360 million ignoramuses finding out an apex predator that runs 40 mph could check out their porch once in a great while...?

 

Such is the power of denial and ignorance.  Education got wolves back into Yellowstone and New Mexico.  Might work here too.  But not at the rate things are going.  It might be easier for the bureaucracy to do just what the bureaucracy is good at.  And they're getting help here; NAWAC has made it public that they're working on this, and the Ouachitas are not exactly infinite in size.  Government isn't good enough at this game to put a continent-wide blanket on sasquatch; but shoot, given what they see people thinking, why not see if you can keep the lid on the pot should the boilover happen right right here?  And yes, they would be dumb enough to try it were the inclination strong enough.  Bay of Pigs mean anything to you?

 

I'm not seeing Big Brother.  I'm seeing Inspector Clouseau.  And you bet I'd be rooting hard for the big fail and the ensuing brouhaha.  People can be the funniest sometimes.  But the big fail would be even bigger were people actually obtaining the occasional clue, which for the most part, about this specific topic, they are not.

Edited August 26, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

I'm acutely annoyed by the quailty of f/u too, but I'm much more used to it, being in the line of work I am. The quality of insurance investigation has always been a pet peeve of those in civil defense practices. The problem always is, they work from scripts and checklists. It is usually the classic case of hearing without listening.  Fact is... and I try to be charitable about this... it takes years of training and practice to do an examination of a witness effecitvely. Instead of wondering about your next question on your list, you should be thinking about what the witness just told you, and forming a f/u to that, if it suggests an additional question. Your point exactly DWA. These are unpaid amateurs, but doing a pretty fair job of it, all things considered...but it could be much, much better.

 

My pet theory?  Scientific inquiry is hard and expensive, and goes where the fruit is low, and pickin' is easy. If a team of qualified experts were to descend en masse on a sighting location and do a full CSI treatment and a Perry Mason on all witnesses, the most probable outcome is they still would not be able to draw any firm conclusions. Maybe they would, but probably not the first time.  I mean, who likes to tilt at evidentiary windmills with no pay-offs, right? But here is the point, always has been the point, and always will be the point to those with the acumen to grasp it...the lack of an "oh yeah, it was THAT over there"  explanation IS THE POINT!!!  It doesn't mean you throw up your hands and go home, it means you keep coming back, and keep coming back, and keep coming back, as long as these reports keep hitting all the markers, like they do. If you lack the acumen to keep that ball in the air in front of you, you don't deserve to be considered a player, or serious about it at all. You might as well go lay bricks...and I've been a mason, so I know there is nothing at all wrong with that. It just is not this, is all.

The problem is that your "markers" are not all that hard to hit. Neither of you have presented any examples of behavior in the reports that only trained primatologists could be capable of dreaming up. In fact, WSA, today you presented something that looked like it was written by a 12 yr old boy. Replace bigfoot with godzilla and it would make very little difference.  

 

As fascinating as this is, you will have to proceed without me for awhile. I'm off for a week. Ironically enough, I'm headed to a sasquatch hot spot. I'll be camping for a week in the North Vancouver island area. Two hour boat ride from Quadra island to get there and then no electricity, no phone signal, just a week of camping, hiking, salmon fishing and kayaking with the whales. Looking forward to it. If I see any bigfeets, I'll be sure to take lots of photos.

 

Cheers

Edited August 26, 2014 by dmaker

[hiflier]

Hello dmaker,

 

....Ironically enough, I'm headed to a sasquatch hot spot. I'll be camping for a week in the North Vancouver island area. Two hour boat ride from Quadra island to get there and then no electricity, no phone signal, just a week of camping, hiking, salmon fishing and kayaking with the whales. Looking forward to it. If I see any bigfeets, I'll be sure to take lots of photos.

 

Cheers

Nice. I hope the weather holds for you. If you sport an SLR don't forget to remove the lens entirely to get the best possible blobSquatch photos. Then upload them here and we'll all have a ball for the next two months, 5,000 posts across 96 pages, and more...never shutting our computers off ever again lest we miss anything. Don't disappoint now And have a great time in a beautiful area.

Edited August 27, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

Well, WSA, all I have to tell you is that we have a lot of masons shooting bricks up here.

 

Note how when dmaker says that anecdotal evidence cannot be verified by the scientific method, he doesn't mean anything that's really relevant to the discussion.  All he is concerned about:  IS DOTTIE LYING?  I thought - I thought - that it was one of the more obvious facts on this board, or in life, that we will never be able to figure out the answer to the question IS DOTTIE LYING? unless the sasquatch in question shows up; says, yes, that is Dottie and yes, she saw me; and Dottie confirms that, yes, that is the sasquatch she saw.

 

But.

 

IS DOTTIE OR THE SASQUATCH LYING????????????????????

 

Such is the obsession of the clubhouse lawyer or urban objector, unconcerned about answering anything of substance.  All this person wants to do is ensure that nothing gets looked at.  If we cannot be sure of the answer to the question IS DOTTIE LYING?, then, according to this person, we cannot use that piece of evidence, because it cannot be verified as fact, i.e., proof.

 

As we have conclusively demonstrated here, this is simply intellectually way off the mark.  We have long since conceded that the absolute truth of any anecdote cannot be confirmed barring absolute access to all facts of the case.  Irrelevant.  Let's say that every single report I have from an area is a flat out lie.  I decide to go to that area to find the sasquatch that certainly must be there...and I find it.  Were the anecdotes useless?  Not to the question I wanted answered they weren't.  (Who the hell is Dottie?)

 

Dmaker - and we have gone over this time and time and time again - simply doesn't understand how anecdotes are tested, which they certainly can be and constantly are, by the scientific method.  A set of anecdotes meeting the tests of frequency and coherence establishes a testable proposition:  go here, and you will find this when you do.  It is actually irrelevant whether any of the individual anecdotes is true or not; indeed, if one continually tried to prove the inconclusive evidence with which one is presented proof or trash (heard that phrase here before?  yes you have), one would never get anywhere.  ("Dottie:  we are going to grill you until we know the truth.  ARE YOU LYING?????"  "I'll never talk!"  One year later...)  But, go where the anecdotes tell you to go; do what you know you need to do to test that proposition; and the history of science tells you that you are going to find what you are looking for.

 

Who cares about Dottie?  The individual stories mean nothing.  It is a consistent pattern over a large number of anecdotes that points the scientist where the treasure is.

[Incorrigible1]

Is there a butterfly net hanging over this conversation?

[hiflier]

Hello Incorigible1,
 

Is there a butterfly net hanging over this conversation?

 

Yes indeedy there is! It's called "hiflier".
 
 

...I thought - I thought - that it was one of the more obvious facts on this board, or in life, that we will never be able to figure out the answer to the question IS DOTTIE LYING? unless the sasquatch in question shows up; says, yes, that is Dottie and yes, she saw me; and Dottie confirms that, yes, that is the sasquatch she saw.

This is true.
 

If we cannot be sure of the answer to the question IS DOTTIE LYING?, then, according to this person, we cannot use that piece of evidence, because it cannot be verified as fact, i.e., proof.

This is also true. See? You're getting better at this.
 
As we have conclusively demonstrated here, this is simply intellectually way off the mark. We have long since conceded that the absolute truth of any anecdote cannot be confirmed barring absolute access to all facts of the case.  Irrelevant.

It's VERY relevant and your dismissing that relevance is only to justify the flaw in your argument. That being trying to now DISMISS the anecdotal evidence, the very evidence your entire position is based on (reports, remember?), as being irrelevant. Ironically though only when the veracity of dmakers side of the coin starts looking good.

 

Let's say that every single report I have from an area is a flat out lie.  I decide to go to that area to find the sasquatch that certainly must be there...and I find it.  Were the anecdotes useless?  Not to the question I wanted answered they weren't.

Strawman argument even as a hypothetical. Basically a contradiction to everything you'be been saying for the last year.
 
Dmaker - and we have gone over this time and time and time again - simply doesn't understand how anecdotes are tested, which they certainly can be and constantly are, by the scientific method.  A set of anecdotes meeting the tests of frequency and coherence establishes a testable proposition:  go here, and you will find this when you do.  It is actually irrelevant whether any of the individual anecdotes is true or not; indeed, if one continually tried to prove the inconclusive evidence with which one is presented proof or trash (heard that phrase here before?  yes you have), one would never get anywhere......But, go where the anecdotes tell you to go; do what you know you need to do to test that proposition; and the history of science tells you that you are going to find what you are looking for.
Ummm.......nevermind. Illogic will never listen to logic. 
 

The individual stories mean nothing.  It is a consistent pattern over a large number of anecdotes that points the scientist where the treasure is.

It may point the way for some of US, DWA, but the scientists not interested,. There simply isn't enough there for them.

 

I'm not a "dmaker" in that I am NOT inclined to consider BF as mythical. But I'm also aware of the weak nature of anecdotal evidence and the problem with vetting it. And that there's no solid proof of the Creature. And all the posturing and pontifficating whilst one is standing atop a pile of reports will not assure that proof. Welcome to that funny little area known to many that lays between the rock and the hard place. You can't prove BF exists and dmaker can't prove it doesn't. And anecdotal sources will not alleviate that loggerhead. You both simply need to walk away.   

Edited August 27, 2014 by hiflier

[WSA]

Glad to hear you are getting out there dmaker. I am jealous. Watch where you step and be sure to give us a full report on your return...whatever you encounter, or more likely don't.