The Concept of Evidence

[Guest DWA]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I'd say almost 'cause I think there's a little more to it than that.   If you took all the reports that fit the bell curve within 1, or even 2, standard deviations, of a "standard bigfoot" and remove them from the set you're examining, I think you'd find a second, much fainter, bell curve representing a second species.    I think if you look at a couple specific locations, the Everglades, the coast of BC, and possibly the Ouichita Mountains, and not the whole continent, it becomes even clearer they have at least one "something else" in those locations ... and it's not the same in each place.

 

I don't think it is strong enough to state, as fact, that there is something there, but it is anomalous enough to someone with a data background to scream at them that there's something going on worthy of closer examination.

 

MIB

I can't argue, either with the concept or with the places you mention, not based on the evidence I can't.

 

I once told Bindernagel about the numerous reports of an animal with a nose more humanlike than gorilla-like.  He expressed surprise. He of course hasn't seen one yet, at least not close-up. But then I note the Canadian Robert Bateman's painting of one.  Gorilla-like nose.

[dmaker]

18 minutes ago, DWA said:

I once told Bindernagel about the numerous reports of an animal with a nose more humanlike than gorilla-like.  He expressed surprise. He of course hasn't seen one yet, at least not close-up. But then I note the Canadian Robert Bateman's painting of one.  Gorilla-like nose.

Of course, since Bateman's sasquatch painting was requested by Bindernagel:

 

 

"Bateman has created paintings of both a sasquatch and a yeti. These paintingswere exhibited at the Museum of Vancouver (June 04 – Feb. 05) at Chris Murphy’ssasquatch  exhibit.  I  do  not  know  the  circumstances  as  to  the  creation  of  the  yeti painting,  but  the  sasquatch  painting  was  created  at  the  request  of  Dr.  John Bindernagel, a wildlife biologist and personal friend of Bateman."

 

http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/robert_bateman_-_homin_art.pdf

 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The main point of this thread was to explain why probability and skepticism are integral to the scientific method, and how evidence is treated because of that. If that's understood, then it should make sense why scientific theories (E.g. evolution, general relativity) always remain theories.

 

In regards to there being multiple undiscovered species of primate on the continent of North America, I'm not convinced there's even one, let alone multiple, but there does seem to be truth to the idea of there being different types of humanoid cryptids. I think it would help tremendously just to know what exactly any one of them is. 

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

In regards to there being multiple undiscovered species of primate on the continent of North America, I'm not convinced there's even one

Are you no longer making the claim that bigfoot exists and it is the result of aliens genetically modifying human genes?

 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

My claim was that Sasquatch are Homo sapiens with advanced genetic tampering, and not a hybrid or an uncatalogued species. Since then (May of 2015), I've researched the idea further, and found that the available data supports it even more than I originally thought, but at the same time, the situation seems more complex now due to some of the specifics of the relationship with this much larger phenomenon. 

 

To summarize some of the most useful information:

 

-The difficulty in replicating data on these humanoids is largely a result of the fact that they were designed to be illusive in the first place. This was done through heightened paranoia, heightened connectivity with the subconscious, and improved physiology.

 

- The lack of convincing data is also partly due to efforts block by the government, and in some instances, the larger phenomenon itself. I still don't have a satisfyingly accurate idea of how often they've blocked efforts, but as near as I can tell, it's been surprisingly significant.

 

- The situation is made more complicated by the fact is their DNA is almost identical to that of regular humans. The results of DNA testing on legitimate samples has so far been largely useless for the vast majority of researchers.

 

If someone wants to claim "no, we don't have sufficient data to know that any of this is true", my response to that is you'd be surprised by what can be inferred from existing data on not just this, but any scientific problem.

 

 

[norseman]

Well let's just shove the improbable three seperate North American species idea right off into the ditch..... that's now child's play.

 

So let me get this straight.

 

Aliens have created Bigfoot based on human genetic code. And Bigfoot was designed to intimidate and scare the holy living heck out of humans. And the US government is well aware of the aliens and Bigfoot and is covering it all up?

 

May I ask to what purpose? To stop nuclear war? Global domination? Save the whales?

 

This is very similar to the 1970's six million dollar man episode, except Bigfoot is a robot.

 

Now you have to prove not only Bigfoot, but Aliens too..... and that's not an easy task, because more than likely the human will end up the specimen......

 

 

[FarArcher]

Three to five species of critters world-wide are certainly possible, based on the different descriptions of those that have been sighted.

 

Even little people - possibly related to the Hobbit - and also found in native American narratives.

 

In North America, there have been tracks found of large critters with five toes.  Some found in Texas were found to have six toes.  Some in Louisiana with three toes, a bit webbed.  

Some may attribute these differences to genetic mutations from interbreeding - but that's just another assumption.  In the Western US, most here are familiar with the common physical descriptions, but even in the West, we have two types of faces described.  Some, viewing the face through a rifle scope find it impossible to shoot, as it's too human looking.  Others see a more primitive, ape-like face.

 

In speaking with someone who I think has a lot of personal experiences - it would appear that the critters in the SE Arkansas/Texas/Louisiana corners are way more aggressive than those just two hundred miles away - so it's possible that they're not all alike.  South Florida - swamp ape - seems much different that Pacific Northwestern critters.  Which are different than Eastern Yahoos.

 

Mine was butt-ugly, with more of a ape face than a human face.  Then again, if you put hair on some of those "recreations" at the Smithsonian, and make it larger - it could look like one of them, too.  In fact, it's my personal opinion that these things are men.  Not human - but a primitive man - some kind of cave man that didn't go extinct.

 

Primitive, but canny - and out-hiding, and out-smarting those who actively hunt them.  Hunters body language is telegraphed perpetually - and they're easy enough to pick out and avoid.  Fact is, I believe these things are smarter in the forests and mountains than those actively hunting for them - with rifles.

 

 

[MIB]

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

 

Bigfoot may not exist precisely as we expect because our image is a compilation of data points describing two DIFFERENT things.   This may account for some of the difficulty in finding them ... we're not looking for precisely what either one is.   What we're doing is akin to a duck hunter shooting between two birds hoping to get both but if they're too far apart, we get neither.   The difference between what we're after and what we imagine we're after may be tripping us up.

 

MIB

[Guest Cricket]

Regarding multiple species or not:  There are ways to evaluate the range of variation in primates, so I would say that anyone who is interested might do a literature search and find out how that is done and what really constitutes significant variation.  It may not be possible to apply to BF at this time, but it's still something to think about until such time ever arises.  As for government suppression of anything:  On the one hand, government takes criticism for not being able to do anything right or well, yet the government could do this so effectively? 

[FarArcher]

4 hours ago, MIB said:

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

 

Bigfoot may not exist precisely as we expect because our image is a compilation of data points describing two DIFFERENT things.   This may account for some of the difficulty in finding them ... we're not looking for precisely what either one is.   What we're doing is akin to a duck hunter shooting between two birds hoping to get both but if they're too far apart, we get neither.   The difference between what we're after and what we imagine we're after may be tripping us up.

 

MIB

 

I mean, take the wolf.  There are three species of North American wolves.

 

Gray/Timber, Arctic, and Coyote.  Then you have multiple, regional subspecies.

 

They're similar, but not alike.

 

 

[Guest DWA]

Well, the Arctic is really considered a race of the gray wolf, but really, canids are so plastic genetically that it almost doesn't matter.

 

But you forgot red wolf.  To wit, I saw a trailcam shot from TX a while back - not sure if I could find it now should anyone ask - that was plain as hell (to me) a red wolf.  Which isn't supposed to be in TX anymore, but hell, when you've trapped "the last ones," how are you gonna convince me, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? And I mean, this shot was guidebook-good.  And it was a red wolf.

 

But there you are.  There is more than enough data that doesn't-quite-fit the mold - are all those 'juveniles' that people see all by themselves really all juveniles?  All of them?  Really...? - for anyone to wonder how many species of NA primate there are, other than us, and bet quite a bit, more than lunch, on 'more than one.'

 

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by DWA

[FarArcher]

24 minutes ago, DWA said:

Well, the Arctic is really considered a race of the gray wolf, but really, canids are so plastic genetically that it almost doesn't matter.

 

But you forgot red wolf.  To wit, I saw a trailcam shot from TX a while back - not sure if I could find it now should anyone ask - that was plain as hell (to me) a red wolf.  Which isn't supposed to be in TX anymore, but hell, when you've trapped "the last ones," how are you gonna convince me, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? And I mean, this shot was guidebook-good.  And it was a red wolf.

 

But there you are.  There is more than enough data that doesn't-quite-fit the mold - are all those 'juveniles' that people see all by themselves really all juveniles?  All of them?  Really...? - for anyone to wonder how many species of NA primate there are, other than us, and bet quite a bit, more than lunch, on 'more than one.'

 

 

 

No, I didn't forget the Red Wolf.  That's a subspecies that I was referring to.  As is the McKenzie wolf.  You point out very well how widespread, beyond "generally accepted knowledge" these different species and subspecies are.  Some now consider the Arctic a subspecies, like the Mexican wolf, and Eastern Timber wolf, the Kenai, Newfoundland, Yukon, - I mean dozens and dozens.

 

They don't all look alike, they're different, and many are regional or geographically limited or located.

[norseman]

How many known bipedal primates are there in the world? Just us.

 

I don't think you can really equate Bigfoot to a Wolf.

 

I think the variance of sightings descriptions are based on human observation and not multiple species.

[FarArcher]

50 minutes ago, norseman said:

How many known bipedal primates are there in the world? Just us.

 

I don't think you can really equate Bigfoot to a Wolf.

 

I think the variance of sightings descriptions are based on human observation and not multiple species.

 

I think you should do more reading of the sightings, interactions, descriptions, and narratives.

 

You may know of one primate.

 

I know of two.

 

 

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

I think the variance of sightings descriptions are based on human observation and not multiple species.

Yet there is a difference among species that is not based on human observation. The difference comes in regions of human observation. In other words depending on where it has been spotted ,whether it be in the Pacific Northwest or the East coast. There are differences in the character of the creature behavior toward us humans. Certain creature features  have been observed with longer hair while other creatures have been observed as being aggressive. While others may be very tamed compared to those of the south. I might be talking out of my a** but there is a difference among these creatures and not one is the same.