Consistency of Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony and Cryptid Primates

[Yuchi1]

To Thy Own Self, Be True.

[norseman]

[Yuchi1]

https://www.google.com/search?q=grendel&biw=1920&bih=963&tbm=isch&imgil=ehSJPDyx_aAzOM%3A%3BfwECqXgFC-IPTM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FGrendel&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ehSJPDyx_aAzOM%3A%2CfwECqXgFC-IPTM%2C_&usg=__qMgVQqT3Qmm1qkmDyYHxa2hTpGo%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiq3uSz6OzOAhWCVh4KHUyJDV8QyjcIWg&ei=TGnHV6qIFYKtecyStvgF#imgrc=ehSJPDyx_aAzOM%3A

 

Preach it! Brutha!

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:15 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

• Correlation does not imply causation

 

One of the common mistakes we see in reasoning is that we see a correlation between factors, and assume that one causes. the other. In medical research, I think this is a frequent mistake. Researchers are warned about it, but still stuff seems to get published where the common sense rule is ignored. We all make this mistake, and it can mislead us to make mistakes in inference in research and in life. In analyzing data, we might find that factor x and factor y seem to go together. We could leap to the assumption that x caused y. Maybe, or perhaps it was that there was an underlying factor, z, which actually provided the causal explanation.

 

This idea is illustrated humorously here:  the per capita consumption of cheese correlates with the number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets. There may be a caution here for cryptid researchers as well, beyond reducing your cheese consumption but I am still working on that one.

 

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:15 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

• Controlled experiment is the only approach to scientific knowledge

 

After years of reading posts on this site and its predecessor, it appears to me that some posters regard controlled scientific experiment is the only path to knowledge. I don't think this can be true, and I would argue that experimentation can only play a secondary role in many areas that are usually considered scientific. When dealing with what have been called historical sciences by some, it is not possible, unless perhaps one is a god, to do set up and run the experiment. For instance, is there any way one could prove the overall idea of continental drift experimentally? Field biology is another. How about the existence of the coelacanth? This not to say that systematic research methods are not extremely useful. It helps to have a plan, and it helps especially in avoiding making some avoidable mistakes.however, a lot of discoveries come to us serendipitously. I would argue that the Patterson-Gimlin film, if not the result of fraud, was serendipity meeting the prepared mind. Other opinions exist on this of course.

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:15 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

• Consensus gives truth

 

 

Learned folks can agree that the truth lies in one area, yet a generation later, the youngsters agree that the truth lies somewhere else. This is common in any field, and science is particularly noted for this. Thomas Kuhn, as many of you know, made this an essential feature of his philosophy of science. So, I am no longer all that impressed by what laypersons, or any learned folks agree on with respect to truths of the world. Chances are pretty good that they are wrong, to some unknown degree, and the chances are still pretty good that the next generation will fare no better in their grasp of the keys to the universe. Seems to me this is the essence of the skeptical position. Show me your evidence, you can give me your interpretation, and I will perhaps accept it provisionally.

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:15 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

• Peer review is necessary and useful

 

Peer review has long been touted as the gold standard for vetting scientific research results. Unfortunately, it turns out the the gold standard is perhaps only pyrites. In any case, peer review has come under attack recently, from the scientific academy itself. The end result is that I personally am less impressed by peer review than I was in the not too distant past. Of course, as a superannuated crypto-hippie, I am a tad anti-establishment. See this link for one of the numerous articles on the problems with peer review: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by MikeZimmer

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:15 AM, MikeZimmer said:

Cleaning the Rust from Old Saws and Sharpening the Toolkit

• Only quantitative data is useful
• Data quality is so bad, we can not use it

 

We have had some discussions around data quality in the recent past on this list. These posts pertained to the quality of the report data that is collected. Numerous individuals and groups have done this collection over the years, with varying degrees of professionalism. The SSR on this forum is one of the more recent efforts, and the folks behind it are to be commended.

 

I won't go into the discussion about data quality, but some good points were made by several on the process of getting and using good data. One of the points that I think should be emphasized is that although things being captured may not be precise enough for some purposes, we can make use of the data anyway. If a sighting report says Seattle, because the exact location is not available, it is clearly enough information to assign a general geographic location. We know it wasn't Bend Oregon, and we know that Seattle or 50 miles away are all temperate rain forest. If we don't know the elevation, we are going to be able to say less than we would if that figure were available. So, although data errors can cascade in certain circumstances, particularly if we want to do computations, sometimes they don't really invalidate the findings. Also, sometimes the most important data is binary, the witness saw a creature, or did not. A rock was thrown or was not. Perhaps quanititative information would aid in our understanding, but we can get the picture without it.

 

Recent discussions are on the thread below:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/54316-sasquatch-class-a-encounter-questionaire/

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by MikeZimmer

[MikeZimmer]

On 8/30/2016 at 9:37 PM, norseman said:

 

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.

 

It is certainly true that a body should provide incontrovertible evidence, and if recognized zoologists look at it and pronounce it good, it will demonstrate the truth of the issue to the satisfaction of most biological scientists, after a while anyway. I am not sure the process will be completely straightforward.

 

I know that your interest is in demonstrating to science that a real creature exists. I am not so sure that is part of what I am looking to do. I am more interested in the quest for its own sake, and am not convinced that scientific acknowledgement would be a good thing. Perhaps, I don't know. I think that I also have a base motive here; I want to have the last laugh on a few folks so a body would be good.

 

I haven't read John Bindernagle recently, but I thought he had made the case that there had been some species accepted by the scientific community based on artifacts other than bones or a body. I may have got it wrong, and I have not been able to find his first book for a few years.

 

If you stick within the Popperian framework, I'm not so sure it matters what field of science it is for the general point about evidence versus proof to be true. My interpretation of him may be wrong, but I share that mistake with others.

 

So, my arguments are to the proposition that we have current evidence which should be convincing. A body is a different animal entirely (pun intended). I get tired of folks saying "There is some evidence, but no proof." What I like to say is "There is a lot of evidence, and the most reasonable interpretation of this evidence is that there is a real species giving rise to these things." So, for me, it is mostly proven to my satisfaction. The body proportions analysis alone make me think Patty is almost certainly not a man in a suit. So, if not a man in a suit, then what?
 

I can live with the ambiguity of not having absolutely incontrovertible evidence, since I see the odds as saying 'Almost certainly a real creature.'

Edited September 1, 2016 by MikeZimmer

[norseman]

I'm going to boil it down to brass tacks which may piss some people off but oh well. And this is not directed at any one poster on this forum.

 

People say all the time that there is enough evidence to consider this creature real. But then they turn around and bash science for looking at the evidence and scoffing at it. Sound familiar?

 

So then they will say that they are not interested in proving the existence of the creature to anyone. Which to me is like saying..."Well...since you won't agree to shorten the playing field and stretch the rules in this instance? I'm taking the ball and going home!"

 

Rules are rules, and they especially do not bend them for a 800 lbs North American unknown to the fossil record primates.

 

We don't have solid physical evidence this creature exists and that is the problem. If you walked into the Smithsonian tomorrow with a Sasquatch toe bone you dug up on the N American continent? Completely new ballgame!

 

If someone is proclaiming that proving the existence of this creature to anyone does not interest them? Then why pack dental resin around in your trunk? Why pack around audio equipment? Why shoot video with your GoPro? And why on EARTH would you post it on YouTube or a forum only to get eviscerated by skeptics??? In which the whole disgruntled science cycle begins anew........ It hurts my head.

 

If your out there to enjoy your time in the forest and possibly interact with a unknown primate? Good for you. Do not concern yourself with foot casts or blobsquatch photos.....just enjoy.

 

But if your interest is to provide good evidence to science of this creatures existence. We all have to UP our game! I really hate hearing sniveling about how far the goal posts are away from us. And about how no one is helping us. We are on our own! No one is coming to our rescue! This needs to be said! Don't stop until you have the physical evidence to go to science with and say "Alright.....you asked for it? You got it!"

 

Claiming that science is going to somehow cheat us in the end so why bother? Is a cop out! 

 

Dont give all of your evidence to one institution, guard some of it in your own possession. Things get lost, people make mistakes, people are crazy, tests destroy samples.

 

Lastly, it's never going to be some sort of Bindernagel ratcheting up of reports and foot cast numbers that tips the scales in our favor. It's going to have to be the find of the century. A tooth, a bone, a skull...a bloody corpse.

[MikeZimmer]

7 hours ago, norseman said:

 

 

Dont give all of your evidence to one institution, guard some of it in your own possession. Things get lost, people make mistakes, people are crazy, tests destroy samples.

 

Lastly, it's never going to be some sort of Bindernagel ratcheting up of reports and foot cast numbers that tips the scales in our favor. It's going to have to be the find of the century. A tooth, a bone, a skull...a bloody corpse.

 

Norseman,

 

I don't think I ever said that such evidence would not be a game changer. It would pretty hard to dispute if you could get the right folks to look at it. I wonder if that would be a slam dunk? You may be right that it is the only way that the broader scientific community may be brought on board with the evidence. Opinions will differ on this.

 

I was somewhat surprised to find that the various DNA and blood analysis work lead nowhere, since initial indications were that there could be some game changing result in several instances.

 

I imagine you have thought of the following, and probably more, but if you had a tooth or other sample, how would you approach the scientific community? There would have to be a paper written, and it would have to be accepted for publication. Even if the tooth were obviously not from a known classified species, would that be sufficient? What sorts of things would you see being discussed in such a paper? There would have to be an examination of the find by some relevant specialists I suspect, and also there would have to be a discussion of when and where the find was discovered. Is it possible to verify the age of the tooth through modern techniques? How do you show that it is not some modern Piltdown-man fabrication? Maybe that is easy now. Who does this sort of work? Do you know scientists that you would approach for collaboration? Please consider these honest questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

And I'm giving honest answers. But I'm no Bigfoot expert, but I do think there is a barrier between what science is asking for and what most researchers are willing to give them. Which is why many want to lower the bar for acceptance by science.

 

Piltdown man was the mating of a human skull with a non human Ape jaw bone..... I do not remember which species. Which would be easily tested and found out with today's DNA testing.

 

The game changing DNA samples I'm aware of where given to Melba Ketchum. And as far as my opinion goes of her, you might as well flushed your sample down the toilet. My heart goes out to members here that sent her anything.

 

If you want to give your sample the best possible chance? Find the best people to test it. I'd start with the people who are still finding new primates on the planet. And I wouldn't put all of my eggs in one basket if I had enough sample material.

 

But the best sure fire shot at this is a body. You no longer have to rely on DNA, with a complete specimen. 

 

Either way Jeff Meldrum at ISU would be a great place to start at getting your foot in the door with the academics. Your going to find a sympathetic ear at that campus. His contact info in on the roster. 

 

And our very own Kathy Strain aka Hairy Man would also be a great person to contact. She is herself a researcher as well as a Anthropologist.

[southernyahoo]

It is good reliable evidence that will eventually lead you to any remote chance of seeing one, if you're ever going to get close enough to take one Norseman. Knowing real tracks from fake, and the real and unmistakable sounds they make is part of the process. You spend a lot of time denouncing the worth of the other evidence when in fact it may educate those witnesses you want to hear from when they aren't sure what they experienced. 

[ShadowBorn]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 5:22 PM, norseman said:

We don't have solid physical evidence this creature exists and that is the problem. If you walked into the Smithsonian tomorrow with a Sasquatch toe bone you dug up on the N American continent? Completely new ballgame!

If we were to walk in the Smithsonian with a Sasquatch part of body it will be shut down and never see the light of day. That is the ball game that will change in our world of what these creatures might be. It might really scare the crap out of us knowing what they are? We do not know what they are now and who knows maybe a body has been presented but has been kept in silence of the impact that it has.

 

19 hours ago, southernyahoo said:

It is good reliable evidence that will eventually lead you to any remote chance of seeing one, if you're ever going to get close enough to take one Norseman. Knowing real tracks from fake, and the real and unmistakable sounds they make is part of the process. You spend a lot of time denouncing the worth of the other evidence when in fact it may educate those witnesses you want to hear from when they aren't sure what they experienced

 It is knowing how reliable that evidence is that will lead to that remote chance of a encounter in that given area. We can find tracks and all but with out a encounter it is just tracks and all. It is the evidence of the event that took place in that given area that we need to determine if it is from a real or not animal. Witnesses stories are just stories unless they have been investigated and have been found to be true and not false. Some things need to be done with out the witnesses knowing in order to understand the truth. Maybe that is sneaky but are not these creatures the same as we may be.

 

Norseman has gone a long way to get this far with these creatures. So who knows what this next year may bring, from you Norseman? I am hoping that body but if not what ever other evidence you find that you are willing to share. Like some of these stick figures most of us find.  I found them before encounters.

[Twist]

11 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

If we were to walk in the Smithsonian with a Sasquatch part of body it will be shut down and never see the light of day. That is the ball game that will change in our world of what these creatures might be. It might really scare the crap out of us knowing what they are? We do not know what they are now and who knows maybe a body has been presented but has been kept in silence of the impact that it has.

 

 

I have never bought into this theory of thinking. Why do you believe that man is so afraid of knowing where they came from?  We get updates yearly about the lineage of man.  Was homolforiensis held back?   We consistently see updates to mankind and their lineage and non of it is held back by "science"  What we have not seen is an advancement in BF science.