Sasquatch Class "A" Encounter Questionaire

[Incorrigible1]

MIB, you are high speed / low drag. Worthy posting. A likeable rogue, at this stretch. Yer makin' me look bad.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

21 hours ago, MIB said:

Yeah, that's not likely to happen if you're relying on volunteer enthusiasts.   Might if you had paid professionals.  

 

The data I see is good enough.   Line of best fit rather than all exactly on the curve.   That's about as good as it gets in field biology.   If you ever get data so perfectly predictable there is no variation, you're being hoaxed.  

 

MIB

OK now lets take my three sightings, if date or location where accurate you could filter out the duplicates and false positives.

Now imagine you are studying habitat and population.

 

The difference is between a collection of "facts" and data as used in scientific calculations.

 

Unfiltered data leads two the two biggest drivers being social media and bears.

One is exponential and the other is an exact correlation.

 

The database is now being filled by enthusiasts outside the PNW who are seeing bears or have overactive imaginations, wishful thinking, self fulfilling prophecies, delusions, and are reporting what they hope they are seeing as a fact. Driven by media sites such as this, Youtube, Television and the like. It's a well known social phenomenon and the subject matter involved is the perfect case studies of mass delusion along with UFOs.

 

I studies the data, saw how it was being made and realized that it wasn't worth an investment of energy. I did in fact provide a normalized data for the PNW of class A sightings but pretty generic. I could have proceeded but on seeing what was being put into class A I found even that to be highly suspicious. Depends on how you want to use the data, but for calculations that use more than a couple of data inputs for the algorithm data inaccuracy and regression will quickly go over 50%.

 

If that's O.K. for your purposes then so be it.

 

If I continue it will not be with the BFRO stuff, I can see why people use it, though.

Good enough for their purposes. Not for science data processing.

 

I'm not talking datasets at any rate, databases are another animal.

Datasets are poorly formatted excel sheets with lots of text field.

 

Databases are better on Unix Orion, or etc, with lots of mathematical fields, time and date fields, and an SQL toolbox with geographic functionality. Or you could go with a postgresql lamp stack with pooling and statistics, ratings, classifications, distributions, graticules, points, polys, and linear edges, cells, networks, zones, heat maps, quantification, patterns, series, features and standards. The data is integrated and can be updated with integrity over time.

 

But for large scale processing it will be mostly noise and actually increases in error as you abstract results.

 

If I could get my hands on the exact locations, time and date with photos of footprint casts I would start there.

 

If I had only 10 data points it would be enough if I could be 98% sure I was dealing with a highly detailed report with physical evidence of a hominid track.

 

It's about quality, not quantity.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Explorer]

 

This discussion reminds me of Rumsfeld's quote:

 

“You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time”

 

Likewise, whining about the flaws of current databases or wishing for the perfect database won't help.  Flawed databases is what we have and folks are making the best with what they have, knowing full well its limitations, strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

[BigTreeWalker]

I have to wonder if a person knew they had to go through some of the above mentioned interrogations whether they would even come forward with their sightings. 

[MIB]

The tone of the followup varies from organization to organization and investigator to investigator, however, there are trends of style within organizations that are somewhat predictive.   I probably would not file another report with BFRO based on the interrogation, rather than interview, my last report triggered.   It was apparently deemed credible since it's been published for quite a few years now.   (Nope, I won't say which, so don't ask. :))  If I got to pick who did the followup, I might, but I don't, so I won't.   There are other research groups, some better, some worse, in how they treat witnesses.  

 

MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 8/16/2016 at 9:39 PM, Explorer said:

This discussion reminds me of Rumsfeld's quote:

 

“You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time”

 

Likewise, whining about the flaws of current databases or wishing for the perfect database won't help.  Flawed databases is what we have and folks are making the best with what they have, knowing full well its limitations, strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

Whining about flaws is all you have.

But you're not really going anywhere.

The data ensures that.

 

To discuss databases VS reports you need a background to understand the discussion which is sort of where I was headed.

 

As with most things internet that probably ain't gonna work either.

It is because you are presupposing the audience actually wants to learn something as opposed to proving they are smarter than you.

 

Which involves invoking terms like whining because from their standpoint attacking your personality is easier than responding to your logic where they might have to read, learn, debate, think.

 

So no winning of ideas but whining, realy? 

 

Tell me how you are using a database because if you're not and do not have a procedural understanding are you sure you even know what are we talking about?

 

That was a rhetorical question, BTW.