Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[BobbyO]

4 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

And that reply is the reason that science(not your kind, apparently) doesn't study sasquatch or take you seriously.

No way to separate the signal from the noise, in fact. Not just my fancy.

 

At this point you think I'm trolling you, not realy.

 

Read above, very controversial on a forum like this but not in the real world where people will know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

I'm not going to convert you as you have your mind made up.

 

But as a professional in analysing data (a data scientist to all you non scientists) for statistical accuracy and error regression I can tell you what that type of data is worth on a factual level.

 

Like I say, you need two incontrovertible sources, such as a film, and a track associated with a film.

 

One reason you can do science on the patterson gimlin film, hard evidence.

 

If you have a report with a those two stand alone corroborations then you can keep it.

 

My guess is less than 2% are of that quality. Which is the same as a statistical fluke or outlier, within the realm of normal rounding error.

 

Now that's science! I just eliminated the BFRO in one analysis!

 

Do you find it useful?

 

That's not what I'm arguing about.

 

But about what can be used for science analysis that is mathematically relevant.

 

One reason it's hard to convict or prove anything on circumstantial evidence (no proof).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow you're a special one.

 

I think you're absolutely full of it personally as I've seen this "professional of data analysis" in action don't forget and have only just cleaned up the absolute train wreck you made of the data you added in the SSR.

 

And by the way, you haven't just elimated the BFRO in one analysis and you even thinking you have let alone saying that you have just shows an unhealthy self obsession of yourself and a probable fantasy land that's being lived in.

Edited July 22, 2016 by BobbyO

[hiflier]

6 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

Wow you're a special one.

 

I think you're absolutely full of it personally as I've seen this "professional of data analysis" in action don't forget and have only just cleaned up the absolute train wreck you made of the data you added in the SSR.

 

And by the way, you haven't just elimated the BFRO in one analysis and you even thinking you have let alone saying that you have just shows an unhealthy self obsession of yourself and a probable fantasy land that's being lived in.

 

Amazing- OUCH!

[WSA]

What is really scary to me is this kind of inability to follow evidence to a conclusion appears from time to time as a trait of otherwise  apparently perfectly rational people who are selected to sit on juries in the trials of civil cases I argue.  Every once in a while this kind of person can wrest control of his (almost always a male...sort of a failing of the gender. Women seem to be much more grounded in reality) fellow jurors and ricochet off into bizarre cul-de-sacs of "logic." It is startling how hard a wall of incomprehension can be if the proposed point assails something fundamentally believed by someone, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is likely to make a dent in it. (And no...this is not a point to be made about proponents because...lo and behold...they are looking at the evidence as one should look at evidence of "stuff" happening, by pursuing an answer as to what that "stuff" is, exactly)     

 

There is just no way around it...some can add 1 + 1 and get 2, and some have to be clubbed over the head and bludgeoned into comprehension by what is going on all around them. Some of the latter are even impersonating scientists. Well, many of them are, on this topic. Here we have another one. 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

7 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

Wow you're a special one.

 

I think you're absolutely full of it personally as I've seen this "professional of data analysis" in action don't forget and have only just cleaned up the absolute train wreck you made of the data you added in the SSR.

 

And by the way, you haven't just elimated the BFRO in one analysis and you even thinking you have let alone saying that you have just shows an unhealthy self obsession of yourself and a probable fantasy land that's being lived in.

I've seen the data that you seem so defensive about.

I'll do you one better and not go negative on you though as I see some button pushing going on.

 

I was doing a test run to see what I thought about learning to do it better.

So me it was a learning experience that I decided not to continue with.

 

I was happy to be able to learn more about the process.

 

It put me in a better position as to whether I would continue to use that type of reporting data in my own approach.

 

So I could say I learned what I needed and that that was helpful to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

Amazing- OUCH!

Ow ow ow 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest DWA]

14 hours ago, norseman said:

I think what is being said is that 1 sighting or a million sightings? Science places no value on any of it, unlike a judicial proceeding evidently.

 

Its mind boogling but its easier to convict and execute a person. Than it is to establish a new species.

7 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

More fool science then if that is its stance. Science loses there.

 

Well, it's not even science.

 

People tend to use "science" to mean "the frequently damfool pronunciations of scientists."  SCIENCE IS A PROCESS, that is not being followed when damfool denialism is being practiced.

 

What continues to smack my gob is that "scientists" (when it comes to this THEY ARE NOT) have examples right in front of them of how to deal with the data!  And they continue to act as if it doesn't even exist.  That's not science.  It's autism.

[WSA]

Here's a handy tip for those who might be confused regarding the nature of the BRRO database: It is only the very first glimmer of  a starting point, and it ain't proof of squat. 

 

You can extrapolate all kinds of data points and build graphs and bar charts as much as you want, but it won't bring you much closer to appreciating the essential questions needing answers....in point of fact, those kinds of analyses probably obfuscate more than they help.  Those questions (and probably the answers too) lay outside of the data points, and that is what makes coming to terms with this information so difficult.  

 

That, and the fact the information is as large as a continent and the range of experiences needed to make sense of it are not held by all who look at it.  Very few, in my experience.

[Guest DWA]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

What is really scary to me is this kind of inability to follow evidence to a conclusion appears from time to time as a trait of otherwise  apparently perfectly rational people who are selected to sit on juries in the trials of civil cases I argue.  Every once in a while this kind of person can wrest control of his (almost always a male...sort of a failing of the gender. Women seem to be much more grounded in reality) fellow jurors and ricochet off into bizarre cul-de-sacs of "logic." It is startling how hard a wall of incomprehension can be if the proposed point assails something fundamentally believed by someone, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is likely to make a dent in it. (And no...this is not a point to be made about proponents because...lo and behold...they are looking at the evidence as one should look at evidence of "stuff" happening, by pursuing an answer as to what that "stuff" is, exactly)     

 

There is just no way around it...some can add 1 + 1 and get 2, and some have to be clubbed over the head and bludgeoned into comprehension by what is going on all around them. Some of the latter are even impersonating scientists. Well, many of them are, on this topic. Here we have another one. 

 

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, scoftics are the typical sasquatch sighters.  (If you don't know this, you haven't spent much time on this.)   It can mentally ruin them (if you don't know this, you haven't spent much time on this).  Reason:  they have been directly confronted with a fact they denied, in some cases a fact against which they have constructed a veritable Wall of Anti-Occam, and their minds have extraordinary trouble undenying it. Some of them actually start locking everything in their house, and other security measures they never did before, and leaving every light on.  (Some, if they can be believed, go straight from scoftic to woo-woo proponent.  The pitfalls of the closed mind, I tell you.)

 

"Mansplaining" is being talked about here; and it tends to be an insult to thinking people.  Of which, yes, give me a woman every time.  Other than me, of course.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2016 by DWA

[Incorrigible1]

[hiflier]

Inc1 , for petesakes it 's because he was staring at........well you know

[BigTreeWalker]

4 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

I've seen the data that you seem so defensive about.

I'll do you one better and not go negative on you though as I see some button pushing going on.

 

I was doing a test run to see what I thought about learning to do it better.

So me it was a learning experience that I decided not to continue with.

 

I was happy to be able to learn more about the process.

 

It put me in a better position as to whether I would continue to use that type of reporting data in my own approach.

 

So I could say I learned what I needed and that that was helpful to me.

 

 

Wow! You admit to making a mess of what others have worked hard on. But that's OK because you learned something. Wow! 

 

Just wow! 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

5 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

 

Wow! You admit to making a mess of what others have worked hard on. But that's OK because you learned something. Wow! 

 

Just wow! 

Seeing work I provided for free during a testing phase of learning mischaracterized in such a way makes me appreciate not continuing.

 

Hopefully other volunteers won't be subjected to unjustified insinuations after providing the effort.

 

The same individual who now grouses seemed happy enough at that time.

 

But now I see the truth.

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

Gee.  So our astrophysicists making observations do not constitute science.  I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that take on things. I could be wrong, but observations allow them to subsequently make some very thorough calculations, enabling spacecraft to traverse space for months and years and then arrive to target planets and even get them into a desired orbit.  Sounds like science to me, but I'm not a scientist.

 

Our microbiologists, dealing with nanometer-sized organisms, try different things and rely on their observations for further manipulation.  Of course, microbiologists are not real scientists.

 

Different peoples and different cultures, with different language developments, separated by millennia, continents, regions, geographically varied regions - temperate to tundra - to alpine, to rainforests, jungles, and lowlands, have all recorded the same, identical creatures, with drawings showing the same, basic characteristics, and similar narratives - thousands of times.  But that's no evidence?

 

With no possible way to collude, it would take a peanut head with a particular agenda to deny that the rather significant body of evidence certainly indicates that not all bipedal species that walk this earth have yet been identified.

 

Denial can only be accomplished through a false sense of intellectual superiority - someone with one or more personal agendas, too lazy or incapable of doing a bit of field work for themselves to see what's out there.

 

Same folks in our early days as a nation, when farmers and common people reported rocks falling from the sky, commented they were crazy, and that rocks falling out of the sky was impossible.  When the whole time, the pseudo-elite were the idiots. 

 

I learned as a young man that life held few certainties.  I also learned that all evidence from both sides of an argument should be held to the same standards of proof.  Then I see time and again, how science doesn't work that way.  Only evidence that supports THEIR preconceived notions are provided, and the other counter-indicative evidence gets its own special term, "anomalous artifact."

 

That's archaeology, anthropology, and geology.

[BobbyO]

15 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

I've seen the data that you seem so defensive about.

I'll do you one better and not go negative on you though as I see some button pushing going on.

 

I was doing a test run to see what I thought about learning to do it better.

So me it was a learning experience that I decided not to continue with.

 

I was happy to be able to learn more about the process.

 

It put me in a better position as to whether I would continue to use that type of reporting data in my own approach.

 

So I could say I learned what I needed and that that was helpful to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ow ow ow 

 

Thanks for doing a test run on a database that multiple people have spent years working on and adding data resembling the accuracy of what I'd suspect a 10 year old child would put, seriously, thanks for that, really appreciate it.

 

But I'll just clear a couple of things up, you didn't decide to not to continue. At first glance of the data you added and how incredibly inaccurate it was, that decision was made for you.

 

You didn't even have the courtesey to correspond with us and if my memory serves me right, you immediately deleted the PM's between us or "left conversation".

 

Apart from that however, you're still wonderful and the greatest person on this planet.

 

I don't want to take this thread any further off topic now.

[BobbyO]

5 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Seeing work I provided for free during a testing phase of learning mischaracterized in such a way makes me appreciate not continuing.

 

Hopefully other volunteers won't be subjected to unjustified insinuations after providing the effort.

 

The same individual who now grouses seemed happy enough at that time.

 

But now I see the truth.

 

 

 

 

They wont if they don't add August as a winter month twice, add longitude/latitude points that are over a hundred miles away from the actual location and add that a description of brown hair is to be added as black hair.

 

These little potential inaccuracies were the reason I asked you add an initial low number of reports that I gave you the ID's for, you went ahead of course, ignored that completely and just continued to add whatever reports you wanted until I assume you got bored.

 

Of course this meant I had a tonne more mess to clear up as the data submission remained as inaccurate as I've ever seen.

 

Be thankful I'm not accusing you of sabotage as yes, it was that bad.

[norseman]

On July 22, 2016 at 0:41 AM, BobbyO said:

 

More fool science then if that is its stance. Science loses there.

 

Biology likes bodies soaking in jars.

 

BTW, Thanks to our SSR team and all the hard work you guys do.

Edited July 23, 2016 by norseman