Bigfoot Police / Wildlife Reports.

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

SWWASQUATCHPROJECT

 

Our group Project Grendel is in Washington state, but we don't compile reports for the sake of public knowledge. But we will certainly take a hot tip and run with it hoping to collect a type specimen.

 

www.projectgrendel.com

An anecdote can never be truly tested in the scientific method. For example, you claim you saw a bigfoot in your backyard last night.  Without a time machine that can never be tested. And even further some might argue that it still cannot be tested because you and I do not share the same brain and what you perceive may not be what I perceive. So the anecdote itself can never be tested, nor can it be repeatable. Two primary requirements for scientific evidence. It also cannot be falsified without a time machine. How can I prove that claim wrong? It's impossible. Again, another reason why anecdotes are not scientific evidence. You cannot apply the scientific method to them.  You may be able to investigate them, sure, but you can never falsify or test any of them.

 

I will never understand why our resident Self Proclaimed Super Scientist refuses to acknowledge this basic concept.

 

Sure. 

 

But if the report involves foot prints and a photo? Then there is data to be mined there. And many of these reports do have trace evidence involved.

 

In the BFRO report I followed up on, it had two photos associated with it. One with a unknown entity in it and the other was a follow up without the entity. I cannot get in there and verify there isn't a stump there, or measure height, or distances from the creek, whatever UNLESS I can find the dang location.

Edited June 4, 2014 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

^^Why is Dmaker posting here a problem?  I think it's important to have as many points of view as possible.  We should all be skeptical, of everything we read, see, hear, or experience. 

Well, sure.  I agree.  I'm a skeptic.  So are the folks at NAWAC.  We don't accept toss-off assumptions.  We demand to see the evidence.

 

Not sure it's truly skeptical to adopt a position in one's head and not address - in that many posts - all the many ways we've shown the stance isn't exactly skeptical nor scientific.  When one just keeps repeating stuff one has been told is wrong, and offers no counterargument ...well...not sure how 'important' that 'viewpoint' is.

[WSA]

.   

Looks like there is some disagreement as to what "testable" means in the context of the sighting reports. Let me just offer this comparison:

 

 

If I want to prove that you saw a specific thing, at a specific time, in a specific place, when all I have is your description of it? You are right, such is not likely to be testable in a practical sense, when you are talking about a wild animal. I could stand in that same spot, at the same time each day from now to doomsday and still run the risk of it never happening again, ever. It might, but it also might require an effort of such duration so as to make it quite unlikely that me or anyone else could mount it. Lightning does indeed strike multiple times at the same location(and it also leaves hard evidence when it does). Even so, you're not likely to be standing there waiting for it to happen again, when it does recur. In this sense, I should add, it doesn't really matter if you know the identity of the witness, with any specificity. Nothing you can learn about the witness really changes your ability to confirm the sighting by witnessing a repetition of it.

 

 

 

The sighting data is testable in a much greater sense, and I think it is this point that opponents get in the weeds about. Ignore the first definition, and think of it this way:

 

 

 

Any widely reported phenomena, if it occurs over a long enough period (and BF reports do) show indicators of credibility that do emerge. The more these data points repeat themselves, the greater the indicators of credibility. With wildlife observations too, behaviors that confirm parallels between known animals, and crypto-species, the greater the probability of truthfulness credibility. Yes, a small number of people in collusion (knowingly or unknowingly) can create common narratives. Experience has shown investigators of all kinds of phenomena that this degree of consistency is likely not possible for pure fabrications across such large spans of time and distance, or across such disparate categories of race, age, ethnicity, occupation and experience. To the extent these data points ARE hoaxed, the results are stilted, rote, contrived and without other supporting indicators of credibility.

 

In this very real and scientific sense, sighting reports are testable. To say such is beyond human ability underestimates both human acumen and history, profoundly.

Edited June 4, 2014 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

Let's see if that one sinks in.

 

The problem with most discussing this topic is that they latch onto every new piece of evidence as an individual data point that can only be considered in isolation on its very own merits, not in conjunction with the other evidence.  It is either proof or trash.  In that sense, it can't be tested. 

 

But the body of evidence can.  Following evidence where it leads is testing, in the strictest scientific sense.

Edited June 4, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

.   

Looks like there is some disagreement as to what "testable" means in the context of the sighting reports. Let me just offer this comparison:

 

 

If I want to prove that you saw a specific thing, at a specific time, in a specific place, when all I have is your description of it? You are right, such is not likely to be testable in a practical sense, when you are talking about a wild animal. I could stand in that same spot, at the same time each day from now to doomsday and still run the risk of it never happening again, ever. It might, but it also might require an effort of such duration so as to make it quite unlikely that me or anyone else could mount it. Lightning does indeed strike multiple times at the same location(and it also leaves hard evidence when it does). Even so, you're not likely to be standing there waiting for it to happen again, when it does recur. In this sense, I should add, it doesn't really matter if you know the identity of the witness, with any specificity. Nothing you can learn about the witness really changes your ability to confirm the sighting by witnessing a repetition of it.

 

 

 

The sighting data is testable in a much greater sense, and I think it is this point that opponents get in the weeds about. Ignore the first definition, and think of it this way:

 

 

 

Any widely reported phenomena, if it occurs over a long enough period (and BF reports do) show indicators of credibility that do emerge. The more these data points repeat themselves, the greater the indicators of credibility. With wildlife observations too, behaviors that confirm parallels between known animals, and crypto-species, the greater the probability of truthfulness credibility. Yes, a small number of people in collusion (knowingly or unknowingly) can create common narratives. Experience has shown investigators of all kinds of phenomena that this degree of consistency is likely not possible for pure fabrications across such large spans of time and distance, or across such disparate categories of race, age, ethnicity, occupation and experience. To the extent these data points ARE hoaxed, the results are stilted, rote, contrived and without other supporting indicators of credibility.

 

In this very real and scientific sense, sighting reports are testable. To say such is beyond human ability underestimates both human acumen and history, profoundly.

Do you understand the concept of falsifiability?  You must understand this if you wish to claim that sighting reports can be considered scientific evidence. If you do understand this basic concept then must concede that anecdotes can never be considered as scientific evidence. 

 

From wiki:

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. 

"... that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. "

 

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. 

 

In all forms of anecdotal evidence, its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.

 

In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

• "information that is not based on facts or careful study"^[9]
• "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"^[10]
• "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"^[11]
• "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically

Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation

 

That is my point. 

Edited June 4, 2014 by dmaker

[SWWASAS]

I find it interesting that two times I have asked what government agency a frequent poster skeptic works for, they stop posting for a while.   Remains to be seen if that is true in this case, but it did before.    There is nothing wrong with skepticism in science, it is called peer review.    But the agenda of someone that does not seem to be interested in looking at evidence needs to be questioned, especially if they do work for a government agency.    My other point is if someone is on the public payroll,  what are they doing on this website during work hours?     If they are doing work, then do they have an official agenda?   If so it is hardly a benign activity.       If not here because of their work,  they are goofing off when they should be working.   As a tax payer I am interested in that sort of thing.  But hey, that is just me.    Randy

Edited June 4, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

Well, one thing to watch about peer review is that it's a double-edged sword.

 

Certain topics just don't get peer-reviewed because it's not hip to take them seriously.

 

(And 'hip' reflects just what a serious decision that is, and the solidity of what motivates it.)

[Guest]

^^^

I honestly have no idea if you're serious

Dmaker has given very clear and reasonable explanations of why he posts here in the past. You might not agree with them, but that's pretty irrelevant.

[SWWASAS]

If you are asking if I am serious, I am.      I worked for the government for 20 years and know how things work.   Especially with things they do not want the public to know.     Randy

[southernyahoo]

 

Well, sure.  I agree.  I'm a skeptic.  So are the folks at NAWAC.  We don't accept toss-off assumptions.  We demand to see the evidence.

Dmaker's point is that none of the evidence is evidence, because it is falsifiable (with exception of anecdotes) and therefore not proof.

I find it circular, because proof is a cogency of evidence that compells acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact. With all evidence assigned a zero value, some people will never get there until they are told by a panel of scientists to accept they are real.

[Guest]

If you are asking if I am serious, I am. I worked for the government for 20 years and know how things work. Especially with things they do not want the public to know. Randy

I wonder what scenario is more likely...

The government is spending our tax dollars to pay dmaker to troll a Bigfoot forum in hopes of covering up giant north American wood apes.

or

Dmaker is just a normal guy interested in the phenomenon of sasquatch and enjoys engaging in discussions/arguments to waste a bit of time.

Edited June 4, 2014 by mbh

[dmaker]

I find it interesting that two times I have asked what government agency a frequent poster skeptic works for, they stop posting for a while.   Remains to be seen if that is true in this case, but it did before.    There is nothing wrong with skepticism in science, it is called peer review.    But the agenda of someone that does not seem to be interested in looking at evidence needs to be questioned, especially if they do work for a government agency.    My other point is if someone is on the public payroll,  what are they doing on this website during work hours?     If they are doing work, then do they have an official agenda?   If so it is hardly a benign activity.       If not here because of their work,  they are goofing off when they should be working.   As a tax payer I am interested in that sort of thing.  But hey, that is just me.    Randy

That is pretty funny. I stop posting for awhile often because my lunch break has ended, or I have work to attend to, or I just lose interest. 

 

Let me assure you, if you will accept my assurance, that I am not a government employee engaged in a bigfoot cover-up disguised as participant skepticism on the BFF. 

[Guest]

come on

That's exactly what a government agent would say when busted on their subversive forum activity.

[indiefoot]

I would be more inclined to believe that private/commercial concerns would place participants in the discussion.

[dmaker]

 

come on

That's exactly what a government agent would say when busted on their subversive forum activity.

^^ And I would have gotten away with it too if not for that meddling Randy!

Meldrum tells about a case where a footprint find was laughed at by the USFS office.  The couple got a call a few minutes later from that office.  The guy was whispering.  He wanted to add it to their informal case file.

Of course this is documented somewhere? Probably not. Much better to just ooh and ah and say yeah, that sounds cool!

 

The informal case file must exist covertly, so that it can never be confirmed. Just like the ridiculous story that accompanies it.

Edited June 4, 2014 by dmaker