Consistency of Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony and Cryptid Primates

[norseman]

On 9/4/2016 at 11:50 AM, 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. 

 

Worth in proving the species real.

 

I dont think I have ever denounced any evidence that put a person on the trail of one.

 

I agree with your statement.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I can vouch for Norse.   He does not dismiss evidence as readily as I do. He listens. He accepts it as what it is. 

He is also  intelligent enough to realize  only  a specimen will  convince the main stream  scientists  . 

[ShadowBorn]

16 hours ago, Twist said:

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.  

Twist

 it is not that man or us is a afraid but what we might find in these creatures that makes us afraid. It is this part of science that has been blocked when it comes to this creature. In all these years that these creatures have been around you cannot honestly believe that they do not have some part of this creature. Some part of this creature that has been found and just sitting in the basement of the Smithsonian. Those parts just being left there to be forgotten by us. People get scared of freaked out when you see some thing that resembles us and may even out think us.

 

You and I might not buy into this theory of thinking but we do need to look into every thing. That means turning every stone and looking under to find the truth. There is a consistent view of what we are seeing out in the wilderness and it all relates to a living creature. Witnesses cannot all be making this up and it is all very consistent with what is being seen , heard, and experienced. The emotions to the sightings are consistent as well. Our emotions can range from total fearful to a peaceful event to all knowing.

 

Now I am sure about you but knowing that there is a giant in our forest would put a damper on people visiting it. Could this be that cause of not pursuing advancement in BF science. I mean come on "knowing that there is this giant out there that can rip us apart is spooky" Camping will either go up or down and what about hunting and the money that is made of that. They might have to close parks, State Land and even Federal Land to provide room for these creatures so that we do not encroach on them. Knowing the truth about them may effect us all in different ways. If they are holding back then they have their reasons.

 

Who is to say that the next person to find evidence might not get discredited. It can happen because the power to be can make it happen and we cannot stop them. Maybe I am going over board with this but who knows.

[southernyahoo]

You know Krantz believed it would take up to three bodies to prove it. Depending on things like DNA, one body might be regarded as some one of a kind fluke. And with that, it brings us back to consistency of evidence. The same evidence and results repeating over and over again.

[norseman]

Run that by me one more time? How could it be considered a fluke?

[southernyahoo]

It might seem beyond all odds that a single specimen , one collected by a bigfoot hunter, would be a type of human with a unique set of mutations never before documented, but I do think it would be considered before an entire population of a new species is declared.

 

Like I said, the DNA has to be different in certain places in the genome, where divergence is typically measured within phylogenetics.

[wiiawiwb]

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

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.

 

I'm not in the kill club but have no problem with those who are. I recently started trying to capture audio for my own personal use. Listen to it and let it help to relive a particularly special moment when you finally "heard it". I would definitely share any audio or pictures with friends and family. It would never be seen or heard commercially on YouTube or other places like that.

 

I have no interest in proving it to anyone but consider it a game, a challenge, to have the blessing to finally see one and maybe even get it on audio or film. 

 

 

[gigantor]

There seems to be a common theme among researchers that any circumstantial evidence they present will be "torn to shreds" by skeptics and made fun of.

 

I think this is incorrect. It happens when people present their findings as a fact that it was BF related. I think the presentation has a lot to do with how it is received by the community.

 

For example. When people say: "We got a recording of BF howling and we've eliminated every other possibility" and take it personally when somebody objects, it won't go well. On the other hand, if one presents the same recording as "we recorded something interesting, it could be a BF, but we're not sure", it will get a much better reception and respect.

 

Objectivity in your own data is key. Frankly, you should be the harshest critic of your data, because you collected it and know more about it than anyone else. You should be looking to poke holes into it and look for holes other people identify instead of trying to defend it. You may end up dismissing the objections, but they are valuable feedback. You want the greatest number of eyeballs on it.

 

If you're straight up about it, people will recognize you are just presenting what you got. Instead of making claims about it, just lay it out there, it is what it is. Everyone benefits by learning from it.

 

It's certainly been the case in my experience.

 

[kitakaze]

This.

[ShadowBorn]

Yes that !

 

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 9:34 PM, southernyahoo said:

It might seem beyond all odds that a single specimen , one collected by a bigfoot hunter, would be a type of human with a unique set of mutations never before documented, but I do think it would be considered before an entire population of a new species is declared.

 

Like I said, the DNA has to be different in certain places in the genome, where divergence is typically measured within phylogenetics.

If specimens were to be collected they should be collected from different parts of the World or the States. I mean they are being seen in different parts of the country. One specimen from one state does not mean that it might not be the same in a different  or even different. I mean to say that they might be part man and part animal of some sort sounds way out there and to what I have experience  is even worst. But one specimen will not be enough for proof and that is a darn shame. Science will not be happy with one and still may not even publish the results. Just the fact that there are people hunting for one specimen shows that there are some people looking at the evidence.

 

By evidence I mean the reports that witnesses have made of the encounters they have had. Not all of them are attention getters , but are reports of some thing that bothered them. I have always had this thing with bigfoot footprints. Like west coast and east coast Bigfoots. Could these Bigfoots be the same bigfoots moving through out the United States? But there is no one that checks this.

If there was a divergence it would have to be in there movement as man moved through history I am sure they have some type of history. Yes, their DNA would prove from where they came from or even how they mutated the way they did. Sure we would learn a lot from one specimen. But then we would have to prove those results with a second specimen and a third. This would have to be done in different parts of the country after finding out that they truly exist. That's after they have been told by us witnesses that they exist. That the shame in science, that it will never be happy until it has the results it wants.

 

[MIB]

I disagree.   While I remain staunchly no-kill, the fact is a body on a slab is proof of existence.   It does not take 2, or 3.   One proves existence of a species.   DNA being what it is, and mutation working the way it does, the arguments to the contrary are arguments from abject ignorance of the subject matter.   The number of mutations necessary in one individual without a single fatal mutation to jump from known species to bigfoot, while numerically non-zero, is functionally impossible.   The suggestion is akin to expecting to walk into a room of 10 people and find 4 with absolutely identical fingerprints when no 2 with identical prints are known to exist among the billions of us on earth.  

 

The only purpose for more than one specimen would be to attempt to determine whether there is only one species present or multiple species present.   Since the point has been to prove existence of one, looking at the other question amounts to either taking your eye off the ball or moving the goalposts, one or the other.

 

Remain focused, whatever your question is, remain focused.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

I do see a point being made here though. GENERALLY reports say there are Sasquatch creatures out there. From that it breaks down to things like color, size, and location. From there it breaks down to gender, elevation, and season and just keeps going. Branco and others have suggested there are at least three kinds or species out there. In a general sense we discuss Sasquatch and reports and some mannerisms and characteristics. But the real clues are in the details. There are LOTS of details. More than most realize. It takes time to first read the details and then from there jumble them back up to form a stronger picture. I'm not what someone would call an expert Bigfooter or Bigfoot investigator. That implies field work and maybe an encounter or two along the way. That's not me by a long shot. But I'm well on my way to becoming a detail expert. That to me will give the clearest picture of how these creatures operate and their preferences in a given are. Sure one can generalize but it's going to be the specifics that get us closer to an answer.

 

I'll give you a hypothetical: One night a grey Sasquatch is seen fishing through a dumpster. Now depending on the details of the area such as terrain, other animals in that terrain, weather trending, time of year, and frequency of reports it may be determined as cole as allowed with the data to say that there hasn't been much rain for two years, there are lots of bears around, the berry picking is practically non existent, or it's th wrong time of yearthe terrain is mostly scrub grassland and other factors that might suggest keeping an eye on the dumpster for several months. Because the visitor might be too old to hold it's own over the bears for such a low food supply.

 

A leap yes but this is only an example to show how small details matter. It take time and work to understand or come close to understanding situations that result in sightings. A road crossing, at a creek bed, on a trail, and other encounters have a reason and details can probably help a lot in sussing out those reasons. If on is going to be a field researcher and up one's chances then one simply has to know details for a certain area, and the details in the reports for the area as much as are publicly available. Species determination is valuable knowledge. Get one on a slab, or a skeleton/carcass for proof of existence and everything else can be done with blood samples and observation after a creature wherever it is has been tranquilized , tested, tagged maybe,and let go- like any other wild animal science studies.

 

SB, I certainly hope that more than one specimen will never be needed. One should do it- after that the gates open up and field study begins.

[MikeZimmer]

18 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

If you're straight up about it, people will recognize you are just presenting what you got. Instead of making claims about it, just lay it out there, it is what it is. Everyone benefits by learning from it.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I strongly agree with this.

 

[Trogluddite]

I would like to examine what this claim of report consistency entails, and where it might lead us. My initial thoughts are to look at the following:

 

• Types of evidence
• When eye-witness evidence is useful, and its limitations
• The pervasive nature of anecdotal evidence in life
• The real meaning of proof and its (limited) role in science
• The role of controlled studies in wildlife field research
• What it means to be consistent
• To what extent the evidence is consistent
• What mechanisms might account for any observed consistency
• What patterns are evident in the reports
• Evaluation of odds derived from thinking about the evidence
• What does the evidence and consistency imply for the existence of the creature

 

This could be a big project, and although I have ideas on this, I imagine others have better ones.

 

++++ End quote ++++

 

It is a huge project, and it is interesting what patterns can emerge, such as:

 

* Four reports from four separate sources, none of which reference or appear to have knowledge of the other, link together in time and space in a pattern consistent w/a single bigfoot moving from one area, around a large water obstacle, to a new area.

 

* The geographic patterns created by likely fraudulent reports (one common investigator, all witnesses are relatives, increasing "wow" factor in reports) are distinctly different from more neutral report groups (multiple investigative groups, witnesses are unrelated to each other, consistency in creatures and behavior reported).  

 

The biggest challenge, addressed in another thread, is that there is not any Uniform Bigfoot Encounter Report Form that all groups use in the same way that all LEOs in one state will use one Uniform Accident Report Form to ensure that information is consistently recorded.

 

As someone else said above, this is a cipher for each to puzzle out on their own (unless you've seen one).  Enjoy the ride.

[MikeZimmer]

17 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

 

It is a huge project, and it is interesting what patterns can emerge, such as:

 

* Four reports from four separate sources, none of which reference or appear to have knowledge of the other, link together in time and space in a pattern consistent w/a single bigfoot moving from one area, around a large water obstacle, to a new area.

 

* The geographic patterns created by likely fraudulent reports (one common investigator, all witnesses are relatives, increasing "wow" factor in reports) are distinctly different from more neutral report groups (multiple investigative groups, witnesses are unrelated to each other, consistency in creatures and behavior reported).  

 

The biggest challenge, addressed in another thread, is that there is not any Uniform Bigfoot Encounter Report Form that all groups use in the same way that all LEOs in one state will use one Uniform Accident Report Form to ensure that information is consistently recorded.

 

As someone else said above, this is a cipher for each to puzzle out on their own (unless you've seen one).  Enjoy the ride.

 

 

Do you have time to expand more on these interesting observations - more specifics, more detail? I like what you have said so far.