Consistency of Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony and Cryptid Primates

[Yuchi1]

Physical evidence includes trackways...by default...as something/someone made them.

 

Evidence that passes forensic muster would furnish compelling proof of existence.

 

Hence, the effort to recover skeletal remains as that would provide the best analysis pathway as to whether killing one of these beings would be justifiable homicide or non-justifiable homicide.

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

Track ways are not physical evidence.......unless there is a foot left in the track. Or blood or hair. Anything that can have DNA lifted from the physical creature. Dental resin will not do that for us no matter how compelling the track.

 

I commend your group Yuchi for going out and looking for skeletal remains. I have no doubt that would provide us with the proof we need.

[Twist]

Bones would be a great find.  Best possible scenario in my mind of getting this creature officially recognized.  This is assuming of course the bones were truly studied and accepted in an open manner.  IE no tampering or prejudice.  

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

2 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

Physical evidence includes trackways...by default...as something/someone made them.

 

Evidence that passes forensic muster would furnish compelling proof of existence.

 

Hence, the effort to recover skeletal remains as that would provide the best analysis pathway as to whether killing one of these beings would be justifiable homicide or non-justifiable homicide.

 

 

 

 

My guess is that the current classification of human genus and species is somewhat off.

So what may be fair game today could be killing your daddy's mama tomorrow.

I doubt homicide law ever accounted for the fact that it relates to genus.

What if transitional Australopithecus are reclassified as early Homo?

Lines in the sand are somewhat arbitrary and boundaries are an artificial construct, nature has fairly permeable boundaries.

So killing for science and whether it is man or not or science or egotism is all a purely intellectual construct. The duality of consciousness is well known so meditating beyond the realm of thought might produce a heart centered answer.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

11 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

Here are some idea presented on the list from time to time. Some are useful and probably true, some are pernicious and probably false, and some of these are used as thought stoppers, bludgeoning folks so they can't think clearly. I will try to give my take on each of these in turn, in subsequent posts.

• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
• There is no evidence
• Evidence, yes, but there is no proof
• Eye witness testimony is unreliable
• Anecdotal evidence is not part of science
• Correlation does not imply causation
• Controlled experiment is the only approach to scientific knowledge
• Consensus gives truth
• Peer review is necessary and useful
• Only quantitative data is useful
• Data quality is so bad, we can not use it

Great thread. I am glad you did not have to talk to yourself. I actually agree with most of this list. Of course you knew I would 

[Yuchi1]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

Track ways are not physical evidence.......unless there is a foot left in the track. Or blood or hair. Anything that can have DNA lifted from the physical creature. Dental resin will not do that for us no matter how compelling the track.

 

I commend your group Yuchi for going out and looking for skeletal remains. I have no doubt that would provide us with the proof we need.

 

Then, fingerprints would also fall into the category of non-physical evidence?

 

Tell that one to the people convicted because their prints were on the murder weapon.

 

As CM stated, don't let constructs of your own paradigm that are based upon unverified assumptions result in a lifetime of heartache and regret.

[norseman]

As we have discussed over and over again? Biology is not a court room. Humans are a established species. And while fingerprints can convict a murderer? They cannot be physical evidence of a new species.

 

 

 

 

 

Dont believe me? Ask Jimmy Chilcutt if he was able to name a new species based on his dermal ridge work on Bigfoot prints....

[MikeZimmer]

11 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

• Evidence, yes, but there is no proof

 

I take a position that the search for "proof" is misconceived. Proof is a useful notion in mathematics, or a court of law, and I agree with those who feel it is not part of the scientists toolkit. I have given my reasons elsewhere on more than one ocassion, but I will restate the case here, ad nauseum, with redundancy.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/50338-was-bob-heironimus-patty-pt-2/&page=50#comment-967620

 

"Concept of "scientific proof

 

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,^[13] many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,".^[14]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#cite_note-14

 

" The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes.  Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists.  Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist. "  Satoshi Kanazawa The Scientific Fundamentalist

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/51945-area-x-presentation-bob-strain/&page=2#comment-920980

 

According to Popper, proof is not part of the scientific method. There is a lot of evidence, and to me, it demonstrates to beyond a reasonable doubt that they are interacting with Wood Apes. These researchers are neither frauds, nor delusional, as far as I can see, and there is no ambiguity in their reports. They have repeatedly seen wood apes.

 

Bindernagel has written of "premature discovery" in his second book. I recommend it to all.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/51528-a-few-words-concerning-bigfoot-at-the-half-century-mark/&do=findComment&comment=911932

 

In fact, according to philosopher Karl Popper, as I understand him, there is no "proof" in science, only confirming or disconfirming evidence, theory, hypothesis, ....

 

According to Michael Zimmer ;-), proof, even mathematical proof, is more about psychology and belief than it is about logic and evidence, although those both may be elements in proving something to some person.

 

In either case, we should banish the word "proof" from our vocabulary in discussions of science.

 

For the record, I think that the available evidence - and there is a ton of it, of varying quality - make the Sasquatch as cryptic primate the better fit, by far.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/54018-persistence-pgf-subsequent-failure/&do=findComment&comment=970475

 

Well, some of us don't think that "proof" is relevant in scientific research. This is not a fringe position by the way, and less than an hour of Internet exploration should demonstrate that point. Proof is fine for mathematics, and is used formally in jurisprudence. It is also used daily in argument, but the essence should not be "proof" but "persuasion." Proof is psychological, it is another way of saying that someone was convinced and accepted an argument. Your proof may be someone else's delusional rantings, and vice versa of course.

 

There is probability though - competing probabilities and competing hypothesis and lines of evidence. There are no facts, only interpretations - an idea attributed to F. Nietzsche

 

 

 

[norseman]

 

Well, some of us don't think that "proof" is relevant in scientific research. This is not a fringe position by the way, and less than an hour of Internet exploration should demonstrate that point. Proof is fine for mathematics, and is used formally in jurisprudence. It is also used daily in argument, but the essence should not be "proof" but "persuasion." Proof is psychological, it is another way of saying that someone was convinced and accepted an argument. Your proof may be someone else's delusional rantings, and vice versa of course.

 

There is probability though - competing probabilities and competing hypothesis and lines of evidence. There are no facts, only interpretations - an idea attributed to F. Nietzsche

=======================================

 

Nonsense. This may apply to quantum physics or many other sciences based on competing hypothesis that may change over time. But it certainly does not apply to biology's acceptance of new species.

Edited August 31, 2016 by norseman

[norseman]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Zoological_Nomenclature

 

We are never going to "undiscovered" a Chimpanzee. We may learn new things about its behavior or capabilities by studying it.

 

But a Chimp is not a competing hypothesis based upon emperical evidence. It's a proven species....it's existence is not up for debate.

[gigantor]

Talking reports only:

 

I think one has to look at the data as a whole and see if there is any useful information to be gained from it. The data is what it is. There are certainly hoaxes, misidentifications and maybe real sightings being reported. Over a sufficiently large dataset, if the animal is real, patterns should emerge.

 

For example, if the animal migrates a pattern should emerge.

 

• Hoaxers cannot account for a migration pattern. Unless you want to claim a vast anti-BF conspiracy.
• MisID's won't account for this either.

How to detect such patterns?  collect the data and plot it. We have such a project (the SSR), but it takes time to classify the reports and we're a long way from having a large enough dataset to demonstrate migration. Yet, committed volunteers continue to slowly plow through it. The SSR has about 4500+ human classified reports in it and it's interesting. It just needs more data...  we need help classifying.

 

The strange thing for me is that many members spend countless hours arguing and speculating, but will not commit to contributing just an hour per week to help the project. it's very frustrating. We could reach a plausible answer (one way or another) much faster if just 20 people committed one hour per week to help.

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

4 hours ago, norseman said:

As we have discussed over and over again? Biology is not a court room. Humans are a established species. And while fingerprints can convict a murderer? They cannot be physical evidence of a new species.

 

 

 

 

 

Dont believe me? Ask Jimmy Chilcutt if he was able to name a new species based on his dermal ridge work on Bigfoot prints....

Thank you. I have been saying that for quite sometime now . Some just don't get it.

[Yuchi1]

I did not say trackways constitute proof rather, are a form of evidence. Confusing the two is likely where Norseman got off base in using the Chilicutt reference.

 

BTW, DNA involves biology and I suspect such has been used in a courtroom.

 

 

 

 

[guyzonthropus]

This may apply to quantum physics or many other sciences based on competing hypothesis that may change over time. But it certainly does not apply to biology's acceptance of new species.

 

if you look at the competing schools of thought found in physical/evolutionary anthropology you will find a good deal of controversy and opposing positions when it comes to finds of undetermined species.  Some will claim it a new species while others may call it a transitional form, and  others still will group it into a previously known species.

 

 And as time goes by, and wider access to the specimen(s) is granted, different aspects will be used to further any of those paths for while the cranial curvature may indicate one species, the tooth structure clearly places it in a different one, while the limb ratios may indicate something altogether new, each as seen by the researchers, all with their own sets of bias and specializations.  So to say that competing theories that change over time is not an element of biology, is, well, not quite entirely right......after all, isn't that the basis and reality of science itself? To better refine the paradigm?

[norseman]

51 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said:

I did not say trackways constitute proof rather, are a form of evidence. Confusing the two is likely where Norseman got off base in using the Chilicutt reference.

 

BTW, DNA involves biology and I suspect such has been used in a courtroom.

 

 

 

 

 

I originally stated trackways were trace evidence and not physical evidence. So I agree that trackways ARE a form of evidence.