Consistency of Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony and Cryptid Primates

[Trogluddite]

Sure, although as I noted elsewhere I'll be off-the-grid next week, so I won't be able to answer things further for a while.

 

If you go to page 2 of the Bigfoot in Vermont thread in the Northeast sightings area, you'll find a 40-page+ analysis I did of the 600 or so sightings I had cataloged at that time (2 years ago).  On pages 20-21 I discuss the 1970s wandering Bigfoot.

 

On page 29, I have a map w/4 groupings of encounters which may be related - one of these four is not like the others.  

 

Not to be unduly cryptic, but I'm still recovering from an injury that limits my typing, so rather than re-type everything here, I'll invite you to download and skim/read my tome. 

[MikeZimmer]

6 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

Sure, although as I noted elsewhere I'll be off-the-grid next week, so I won't be able to answer things further for a while.

 

If you go to page 2 of the Bigfoot in Vermont thread in the Northeast sightings area, you'll find a 40-page+ analysis I did of the 600 or so sightings I had cataloged at that time (2 years ago).  On pages 20-21 I discuss the 1970s wandering Bigfoot.

 

On page 29, I have a map w/4 groupings of encounters which may be related - one of these four is not like the others.  

 

Not to be unduly cryptic, but I'm still recovering from an injury that limits my typing, so rather than re-type everything here, I'll invite you to download and skim/read my tome. 

Thanks,

I have not been following that thread, and must now find it and have a look.

 

[Guest DWA]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 10:44 AM, WSA said:

One of DWA's recurring points, one I agree with wholeheartedly, and which is always important to note: The animal has been observed doing things any other animal has been observed doing, lots and lots of times. There are very few outlier accounts of BF doing anything extraordinary. Walking, running, hunting, watching, eating, drinking, hiding, lurking, shadowing, calling, foraging, intimidating, sheltering...these are things an animal does, and the evidence says this is a typical animal, doing typical animal activities.  

 

We seem to overlook this completely ordinary story and get hung up on BUT IT IS LARGE, AND SCARY, AND IT WALKS ON TWO LEGS LIKE US!!!! 

I've called it the 'median primate':  there is not an extant primate more absolutely ORDINARY than this one.  Aye-aye; tarsier; hamadryas baboon, mandrill...US (we are beyond SF weird)...if I kept going I'd be here, well, way too long.  Lots of weird primates...and this one, which is kind of an amalgam of a lot of them but nothing truly stick-out (no, not even night vision).

 

It would be way too easy to 'go mythical' on this critter.  But the observers...don't.  Consistently...don't.   Critter.

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 0:52 PM, MikeZimmer said:

 

So, there seems to be lots of evidence. We may disagree over its interpretation, its reliability, its provenance, its worth, its implications, and so on, but evidence there is. What is more, I maintain that there is consistency in the evidence, and this is best explained by the existence of a real creature. This position is not a total slam dunk, since we can argue that the consistency is illusory, or that it can best be explained by other means, such as a common set of idea about Sasquatch percolating in the culture. This latter point loses its force when we start to consider the breadth of reports over the continent, the geographical dispersal, and the persistence over a few centuries.

It loses its force even further when one considers that the consistency isn't on things like:  it flies; it eats multiple people at a sitting; it shapeshifts to shop for groceries; it is 400 feet tall.  That's the kind of consistency one gets for MYTHICAL things.

 

The consistency is on *behaviors and physical features all of which are generally known only to primatologists to be characteristic of great apes.*

 

So to accept the "common set of ideas" canard, one has to accept one of two things:  (1) world-class primatologists, working the beat since before the dawn of the Republic, are at the bottom of this or (2) they are advising legions of people what to report.

 

Betting either?

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 7:33 PM, norseman said:

Track ways are not physical evidence.......unless there is a foot left in the track.

 

That is actually wrong.  Tracks have long been considered forensic evidence.  For only one example (there are, of course, legion), the return of the okapi to Virunga National Park was announced as scientifically confirmed when okapi tracks, with no feet in them, were found.

 

A body don't get more physical than that.

Edited September 27, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 11:32 PM, 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....

Jimmy could not.  No way.  But he did say to Jeff Meldrum:  you have an unconfirmed animal on your hands.  What are you going to do about it?  Species designation requires more.  But don't confuse the two.

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 0:37 AM, 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.

Proof has a relevance in scientific research; its relevance is limited to persuading the ignorant.

 

Before a scientist obtains proof, he has long been convinced he's right.  With only the barest number of exceptions in scientific history (see: coelacanth), that's how he got the proof.  He provides the proof to persuade those who either are in denial or were not there.  But that's it.  No one demonstrating a significant acquaintance with the evidence for sasquatch seriously doubts the animal's existence.

 

There is a reason for that.

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 1:15 PM, MIB said:

I would be cautious about taking a single piece of eyewitness testimony all by itself, but in the bigfoot context with the vast body of other evidence including a vast number of track casts, audio recordings, and upwards of 100,000 other consistent eyewitness reports ... people who harp on the notion that eyewitness testimony is unreliable are taking things out of context to deliberately set up a strawman argument.   It's dishonest and erroneous.   Their lack of integrity should be pointed out at every opportunity until they find some new lie to tell.

 

MIB

I consider it borderline trolling, it's been shown to be ridiculous so many times.  Including by every single human's direct everyday life experience.

Edited September 27, 2016 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:10 PM, MikeZimmer said:

 

 

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.

One of my favorites: in the years of my childhood, each hominin fossil find was slotted in with the others in a lineage leading directly to Homo sapiens.  That's what *the scientists* were doing, and there was no argument.

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 3:18 PM, MikeZimmer said:

 

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

 

Peer review can be handy in vetting a researcher's technique, sources, notes, etc.  When it becomes problematical is when it starts restricting inquiry or rejecting things because, "just, nah."  There is clearly a problem when one insists upon peer review of something that most of the community rejects out of hand.

BTW, MZ, cool topic, and seems to be garnering the kind of discussion you were looking for.  Kudos.

[norseman]

DWA wrote:

That is actually wrong.  Tracks have long been considered forensic evidence.  For only one example (there are, of course, legion), the return of the okapi to Virunga National Park was announced as scientifically confirmed when okapi tracks, with no feet in them, were found.

 

A body don't get more physical than that.

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

 

Its not wrong.

 

Confirming by tracks that a scientifically catalogued species has returned to its native range is NOT the same thing!!!!!

 

Science has the foot that made the track way!! The physical specimen is the KEY!

 

No Okapi physical specimen? No Okapi trackway....no Okapi species.....no Okapi study......... and no Okapi game preserve.

 

Its a skinny lost Kudu looking for water.....or a Hoax. Natives looking for tourism dollars with carved wooden hooves.

 

Your kidding me right!? LOOK AROUND......You have been drinking the Bindernagel kool aid for so long? Your no longer grounded in reality. Some how your confused to think we proponents have the upper hand....it's a joke.

 

Listen closely.....we will be laughing stock along with Bigfoot track casts until we have the physical FOOT that made them.

 

If we have that!? Nobody is laughing anymore.

[Guest DWA]

This is not looking at it right.  First:  I'm right.  Catalog schmatalog:  they didn't need feet.  They saw tracks, boom! okapi.  Tracks are forensic evidence.  You said they aren't.  They are, and that is a case in point. That is all I was responding to.

 

You're making false equivalencies between arguments.  That's the problem.  Sasquatch tracks have consistencies combined with a geographic and temporal spread that makes comprehensive fakery an inconceivable conclusion to arrive at without proof. To look at them as anything other than putative forensic evidence of an uncatalogued primate...just ain't scientific.  And remember:  most scientists' expressed attitude on this topic...just ain't scientific neither.

 

I am not concerned about "upper hand." Never mind that no one who believes what ain't so has the upper hand over those who know.

Edited September 28, 2016 by DWA

[norseman]

I said they are not PHYSICAL evidence. Hair, scat, skin.....a foot.

 

The Okapi is a species that has been proven to exist......which is light years apart from an unproven one. It's not even comparable.

 

And scientists are not scientific......sure. John Bindernagel? Is that you? 

 

 

[hiflier]

Here's the way I see it. The Okapi used to exist. The tracks said it still does and guess what it does. Sasquatch has no pre-existing physical proof that it once existed and tracks say that it still does. It's simply not the same thing as the Okapi caper. Okapi had PROVED physical history- Sasquatch does not. So........ya need a foot in those BF tracks regardless of the pile of reports and regardless of their consistency. Not saying they don't exist mind you, just saying thinking so won't cut it.

[norseman]

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Here's the way I see it. The Okapi used to exist. The tracks said it still does and guess what it does. Sasquatch has no pre-existing physical proof that it once existed and tracks say that it still does. It's simply not the same thing as the Okapi caper. Okapi had PROVED physical history- Sasquatch does not. So........ya need a foot in those BF tracks regardless of the pile of reports and regardless of their consistency. Not saying they don't exist mind you, just saying thinking so won't cut it.

 

QFT

[hiflier]

@ Norseman

[Guest DWA]

51 minutes ago, norseman said:

I said they are not PHYSICAL evidence. Hair, scat, skin.....a foot.

 

The Okapi is a species that has been proven to exist......which is light years apart from an unproven one. It's not even comparable.

 

And scientists are not scientific......sure. John Bindernagel? Is that you? 

 

 

How is a track any less physical evidence?  I don't know why I'm arguing what is a FACT, not an opinion, but a track is there; it can be seen and touched; and something physical made it.  Argue with the people whose technical expertise in just this area has them agreeing with me! 

 

FALLACY: we-must-prove-it-for-it-to-be-real.  It doesn't matter, not one jot, whether something has been confirmed prior, or not.  What matters is:  explain this.  That's all. The only reason this site exists is...the best explanation.

 

Calling oneself a scientist does not = thinking like one.  Once again!  THE MAINSTREAM'S OPINION ON THIS DOES NOT REFLECT THINKING BECOMING A SCIENTIST.  There is zero surprise here; the public, generally speaking, understands science not a whit (amply demonstrated here on the BFF); and as to scientists, I don't know how many times I and the scientists agreeing with me need to say this, but:  most scientists, if you get them away from their narrow specialty, are Joe the Garbageman when it comes to science.  Every time I read a mainstreamer's opinion, I laugh.  Dummy!  It's that obvious.

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Here's the way I see it. The Okapi used to exist. The tracks said it still does and guess what it does. Sasquatch has no pre-existing physical proof that it once existed and tracks say that it still does. It's simply not the same thing as the Okapi caper. Okapi had PROVED physical history- Sasquatch does not. So........ya need a foot in those BF tracks regardless of the pile of reports and regardless of their consistency. Not saying they don't exist mind you, just saying thinking so won't cut it.

 

FALLACY:  we-must-prove-it-for-it-to-be-real. Etc.

 

Sasquatch has the largest body of consistent evidence in human history for anything yet unconfirmed.  That's reason enough to think it exists, says science (not Joe the Garbageman; science is a process, not a person).

 

Evidence is all that cuts it.  Evidence says:  sasquatch track evidence is all science needs to presume there is an unconfirmed animal out there.

 

Done.

[Twist]

38 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Here's the way I see it. The Okapi used to exist. The tracks said it still does and guess what it does. Sasquatch has no pre-existing physical proof that it once existed and tracks say that it still does. It's simply not the same thing as the Okapi caper. Okapi had PROVED physical history- Sasquatch does not. So........ya need a foot in those BF tracks regardless of the pile of reports and regardless of their consistency. Not saying they don't exist mind you, just saying thinking so won't cut it.

 

Very well said hiflier.  

[Guest DWA]

Um, no it's not.  But one can be wrong if one insists hard upon it.

Remember: when the animal is confirmed I was right all along; anyone disagreeing with me...was wrong.  All along.  Just need to interject logic into the discussion.

[Twist]

3 minutes ago, DWA said:

Um, no it's not.  But one can be wrong if one insists hard upon it.

 

That's a very introspective expression of yourself DWA, thanks for sharing with us.