Shortcoming of The Scientific Community

[Patterson-Gimlin]

↑↑

I completely agree . You explained it quite well.

[Incorrigible1]

OMG, you're gonna set off the "knowers."

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

53 minutes ago, Art1972 said:

1)  No, they absolutely do not have enough data to determine the existence of, and make a declaration about, the creature we call Bigfoot or Sasquatch.    What data are you talking about anyway?   Aside from anecdotal accounts (like my own), some occasional track lines that show up (some of which are immediately questionable), and too many fantastic claims of possessed bodies, or regular habituation, what oodles and piles of data are these scientists supposed to be sifting through, and analyzing ??   

 

2)  What "incredibly large amount of data" are you referring to?   Databases compiling sightings?   Websites like BFRO compiling anecdotal accounts?   A few sets of plaster cast feet ?   I have no idea what data you're referring to, that you'd like all these prominent scientists to examine and analyze. 

 

You want scientific recognition?   Classification?  Mainstream acceptance of the idea of existence ? 

 

No amount of stories, or suspect hairs, or plaster casts, or photos of footprints in the mud/snow will ever get us there. 

 

Skeletal, or intact remains on a cold steel exam table, is the only thing that will get it done, whether its a result of natural expiring of the animal, or helped along by a hunter, or logging truck, or however else Bigfoot's die. 

 

I guess I didn't explain it in a concise enough manner. Breaking it down, my claims are:

 

1. There's currently enough of the right data to logically determine that Sasquatch exist as biologically real entities.

 

2. The scientific community only vets data through replication, not analysis. This is for reasons I've explained.

 

3. The scientific community isn't able to replicate any of the data (i.e. not able to have their own sightings) due to the difficulties that the phenomenon presents.

 

So based on this the answer is "yes and no" to the question of whether or not we have enough information to determine that Sasquatch are real, as it depends on how you look at it. It's the vagueness of the usual answers to this question, along with a lack of understanding that causes so much debate in regards to it.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[Incorrigible1]

1. Besides unsourced footprints, what physical data exists?  Anecdotes are not data, sorry everyone that feels differently.

[MIB]

Correct but irrelevant.   What we call a "Microsoft answer", technically correct but misses the point.    Individual anecdotes are not data.  I do not believe anyone is presenting them as such.   This seems to be an attempt to set up a straw man .. or else ignorance of what's actually being discussed.    So .. clarifying for those who have managed not to "get it" yet: the individual anecdotes are not data.   Correct.  Data is quantifiable.   When the anecdotes are measured, then the body of measurements compared statistically, the result IS data.  In fact, it's pretty near a working definition of what data actually means to a statistician or data analyst.  

 

The data doesn't exactly prove bigfoot, but to a qualified data analyst, it absolutely is non-random, consistent, yet with exactly the right amount of variation to eliminate hoaxing from the mind of anyone competent to look at the data as a scientist .. that is, unless the hoaxes were deliberately coordinated.   I believe DWA has already told you that numerous times over the years.   If your personal animosity towards him were not outweighing your judgement,  you'd probably see that on your own.

 

One last thing: there is no such thing as "physical data."   There is "physical evidence", but data is never physical, it is always virtual, because it is quantified measurements or descriptions of physical things, NOT EVER the physical things themselves.  

 

MIB 

[Guest DWA]

14 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

I forgot to add that the inability to validate data is also a shortcoming of researchers in general, not just people who have a career in science. As far as a lack funding goes, I don't think that's really what's lacking. If teams of researchers were to receive funding to do year-round research, the odds are that "Bigfoot's" status of the existence won't change within acadamia, as they're not able to collect data any more effectively than the top current researchers who are doing it during their free time for non-monetary reasons.

Disagree.  Any team of researchers that managed to *obtain* year-round funding would *already* have examined the evidence; said, there's an animal behind this, and used that very data to build their case. You will do *whatever* you have to do to get funding, and even a 'scientist' knows that evidence makes the case for funding.

 

And as I have said here, many times, there is way more than way more than violent overkill enough data to do that.

 

We are where we are, it is quite plain, because the word 'scientist' doesn't describe most of them.  They are techies, very qualified in narrow fields.  Like, say, your IT guy, who is no 'computer scientist.' Or your VW mechanic, who isn't an 'automotive engineer' much less 'designer.'

 

We are where we are because the scientific mainstream doesn't apply science to copious data. In other words...they *don't think like scientists.*

Edited June 7, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

9 hours ago, MIB said:

The data doesn't exactly prove bigfoot, but to a qualified data analyst, it absolutely is non-random, consistent, yet with exactly the right amount of variation to eliminate hoaxing from the mind of anyone competent to look at the data as a scientist .. that is, unless the hoaxes were deliberately coordinated

I don't buy this. There is no reason the hoaxes have to be deliberately coordinated. I think that is a gross exaggeration meant to add legitimacy to the reports as evidence. There is nothing, that I can see, in the reports that requires any kind of close collaboration. Anyone can read a few reports, or watch a bigfoot documentary, and pick up enough classic report "markers" to easily fabricate an encounter that would pass an enthusiast sniff test. Easily. No one has bothered to offer any examples of reported behaviour that would only be known to a trained primatologist. The claim is often made by DWA, but never, not even once, substantiated with any examples. Maybe you would like to try?

 

Ironically, the reports are, to me, the most damning bit of bigfoot evidence. You simply cannot have an animal of that size, numbers and reported range, with that reported behaviour, escape confirmation for that long. The sheer number of reports are what make bigfoot seem less likely, not more. 

 

I understand you have a different opinion. I'm just offering mine. If you want to get personal and attack me for that, that is fine, just do it in PM or buy a premium membership, and I'll meet you there and you can take as many swings as you want.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest Cricket]

17 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

"...Another working method for determining the accuracy of data is by analyzing the data itself, rather than trying to replicate it. Although this method works, it's not one that's used by the scientific community, as it adds a challenging new element to scientific study that the majority of scientists aren't comfortable dealing with. The fact that it won't look good on paper (to their peers) doesn't help much either..."

 

Quote

I'm not sure what you meant in the above quote.  Can you clarify?

I can speak only from my own admittedly limited experience and what I learned from those who taught me when I was in grad school working on my thesis research into hominids. I had a question I wanted to explore and I had to figure out a way to do that which involved quantification that I could then statistically analyze. I read relevant literature and devised a series of bone measurements that I felt might be indicators of what I was looking into and wrote a research proposal for review. I collected raw data (the measurements) from skeletal collections which I then subjected to statistical analysis. I first tested the measurements for measurement error on a test skeletal collection. After I collected all the raw data I tested it for normality and other statistical conditions (such as right-skewed, left-skewed) which might have required I make some kind of adjustments. As it turned out, I did have to make some of a different kind before I could proceed. I also had to make sure I used a statistical method that was appropriate to the inquiry and the data I collected. In short, I was looking to extract some kind of significant pattern that would not be apparent in a huge mass of raw data. I collected my own raw data, I processed and analyzed it myself, and I presented the results. The procedure is not at all unusual. Additionally, others could easily attempt to replicate my methods if they wanted. I’m not sure (and feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken), but I get the impression that there may be some misunderstanding in some parts of the BF/cryptozoology community about what ‘raw data’ is and what can be done with it. I don’t think anyone interested in BF or cryptids has to sit back and wait for outside scientists to do something with whatever miscellaneous information and/or raw data they have! I posted some rough ideas, for instance, regarding what could be done with the BF tree/branch structures in the ‘field methods’ forum—all it takes are some motivated people to think about how to approach a given issue (which would definitely require a literature search of what others in biology, anthropology, etc., have actually done to systematically investigate similar issues), come up with an appropriate research design, and run with it. It doesn’t always require a huge budget. So I would say that the only science that gets done is the science that people actually get to work and do.  I hope that doesn't sound snarky, because it is NOT meant to be.  I actually think it would be great to see that happen more than perhaps is occurring presently.

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Cricket
clarification

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

There is nothing, that I can see, in the reports that requires any kind of close collaboration

 

I agree, dmaker. If anything the randomness works more in favor of proponents as randomness involving hoaxing over say, the last hundred years or so, doesn't seem all that logical. This doesn't discount any misidentifications or other errors or dysfunctions but is only addressing the unliklihood of collaboration on the gross consistencies among reports. Lots more to say on this point but most of it is redundant. 

[FarArcher]

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

I don't buy this. There is no reason the hoaxes have to be deliberately coordinated. I think that is a gross exaggeration meant to add legitimacy to the reports as evidence. There is nothing, that I can see, in the reports that requires any kind of close collaboration. Anyone can read a few reports, or watch a bigfoot documentary, and pick up enough classic report "markers" to easily fabricate an encounter that would pass an enthusiast sniff test. Easily. No one has bothered to offer any examples of reported behaviour that would only be known to a trained primatologist. The claim is often made by DWA, but never, not even once, substantiated with any examples. Maybe you would like to try?

 

Ironically, the reports are, to me, the most damning bit of bigfoot evidence. You simply cannot have an animal of that size, numbers and reported range, with that reported behaviour, escape confirmation for that long. The sheer number of reports are what make bigfoot seem less likely, not more. 

 

I understand you have a different opinion. I'm just offering mine. If you want to get personal and attack me for that, that is fine, just do it in PM or buy a premium membership, and I'll meet you there and you can take as many swings as you want.

 

 

When I see a statement like this with the qualifier, "cannot," I tend to cringe.

 

I realize not everyone has actually been in the field - never been in remote areas - never been in difficult terrain - never tried to find something large in thousands and tens of thousands of acres - and realize how difficult that can be.

 

Hot on the trail of four individuals, we crossed into an allies area of operation - and only 200 meters in, we ran into what at the time was referred to as "The Lost Regiment," 900-men strong.  With all the aerial recon, with our allies constant patrols seeking groups like this - they'd missed a 900-man regiment for three years.

 

Our recon company was basically a hundred man unit - numbers varied with casualties and transfer - but we tied up two enemy divisions - who's entire mission was to interdict us.  But we only went out in five and six man teams.

 

dmaker, I can hide a yellow schoolbus - no - I can hide ten yellow school buses in one valley in say, Oregon - and you won't find them.  And the buses are not trying to hide.  The buses won't try to evade you.  The buses won't run away to avoid detection if you get close.

 

I think your practical knowledge falls far short of your perceived knowledge - which is why you make these erroneous assumptions. 

 

You'll think I'm entirely FOS, and I don't care - but the biggest mistake I see most making is that they think they're after an animal.  A "dumb" animal - and put up glaringly obvious trap cams, or try to "drive" these things, or even set up ridiculous traps, trying to catch one.  All of these things work on dumb animals with varying degrees of success, but because they don't work on these critters - folks reach the wrong assumption - they don't exist.

 

These things are primitive men.  Not human, but men.  Call it a man/hybrid, a primitive man, or just use the simpler term "caveman." 

 

When you start fresh with that perspective, or really stretch it out - assumption - then the reason they're not stumbled on, caught in traps, or carelessly walk into an area laced with trap cams - becomes more clear.

 

In the Rangers, we had 5-man and 6-man teams - very, very difficult to detect.  Our A-teams were ten men, but it was divided into two separate five-man teams - again, very, very difficult to detect.  We've had a company size unit walking all over us, actively looking for us, and we went undetected.  If you don't want to be found - you probably won't.

 

We didn't even use ghillie suits - yet the long, non-reflective (non-sheen) hair on these cave men act as a natural ghillie suit - making then ten times harder to detect than a man in camo.  If they just get down, and remain stationary, folks will walk right by them - because they'd walk right by me.

 

I urge you.  I beg you.  Stick to the things you're very familiar with - have volumes of practical experience with - have practiced with.  Repeating ridiculous assumptions that some other unknowing folks have said - doesn't make them true.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by FarArcher

[Martin]

3 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

  If they just get down, and remain stationary, folks will walk right by them - because they'd walk right by me.

 

 

I thought they were super stinky... 

[FarArcher]

Just now, Martin said:

 

I thought they were super stinky... 

 

I've heard that from some - I didn't smell doodly squat - not one time, and they'd stand right at the edge of the tent for ten or fifteen minutes at a time.

 

Not saying they don't- I imagine they do.

 

During the dry season, if we didn't make a water crossing, we'd be out for two weeks with barely enough water to drink.  And we were pretty ripe ourselves.

[Guest DWA]

Ironically, the reports are, to me, the most damning bit of bigfoot evidence. You simply cannot have an animal of that size, numbers and reported range, with that reported behaviour, escape confirmation for that long. The sheer number of reports are what make bigfoot seem less likely, not more. 

 

And this is the chief danger when nonscientific minds dominate the blathering on a topic.  There is nothing about that that makes sense, and everything about it that contradicts everything we know about the world, and I do mean everything.

 

We recently found A HUNDRED GD FREAKING THOUSAND GORILLAS! we didn't know were there, "there" being a place crisscrossed by warring factions for decades.  FOR DECADES.  In a similar place, we found MASSIVE UNKNOWN HERDS OF ALL SORTS OF MAJOR BIG AFRICAN UNGULATES.  The saola's ENTIRE COUNTRY GOT BOMBED AND AGENT ORANGED TO A CRISP, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DYING...without anyone but locals knowing the animal existed.

 

(Not my fault I have to put the obvious in all caps.  Not my fault, don't come lookin at me.)

 

See, that guy is one person...against whom I am putting the consistent experiences of thousands of people.  That would be THOUSANDS.  Who have seen this thing we simply cannot have.  But here is where that guy blows it.  "Confirmation" has nothing to do with it.  The denial of a teeny coterie of people - let's just make sure we know what "the scientific mainstream" is - means nothing to reality.

 

In short:  far more people have seen this thing we cannot have than there are scientists actively denying it.  I'm going with them...because that is the most damning, to that tiny coterie of people in their denial, bit of bigfoot evidence.

 

(Further underlining that that guy doesn't read them or can't be bothered to think about them.  Or worse, both.)

 

 

I was driving on Maryland's Eastern Shore some months back when a sika stag - most coveted trophy on the Shore, and legendary for its abilty to avoid, they call it the "Marsh Ghost" - waddled, and I assure you that is most certainly the word, across the road, right in front of my car.  A big one, and old.  WADDLED. I could have run over it on foot, never mind my car.  I can so assure you that I am one of the extremely few humans ever, ever to see that old tired waddling animal, because any gunner or bowhunter on the Shore would have taken the opp immediately.

 

And anyone who's seen the Shore knows there's not much place for that animal to hide.  Not much place at all...for any of the thousands of them - more than the native whitetail - to hide.

 

No way that happens.

 

Shoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooore, buddy.  Get.Out.More.

 

 

29 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

I urge you.  I beg you.  Stick to the things you're very familiar with - have volumes of practical experience with - have practiced with.  Repeating ridiculous assumptions that some other unknowing folks have said - doesn't make them true.

 

In fact, the sum and total of bigfoot skepticism is endlessly repeated shibboleths, each one of which has long since been utterly destroyed.  The biggest problem is the proponents; they keep giving time of day to people who are not even at the table in scientific terms.

Edited June 7, 2017 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

And one more thing about that "confirmation" canard:

 

Anyone who  is reading up on this topic knows that many (if not most) in the scientific ranks either acknowledge the animal's existence, you know, off the record so they won't be punished for it, or, you know, are intrigued by the topic, many of them (including some of the brightest lights in the field) on the record. Then there are those who have written books about it that it apparently doesn't increase one's career prospects to acknowledge.

 

And none of them has seen one.

 

Except for the scientists who have.

 

It is very possible for many people to know something is real that a few deny...and others just go, I don't need to correct my boss, because knowing what the evidence tells me personally is quite enough for me.

Edited June 7, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, FarArcher said:

dmaker, I can hide a yellow schoolbus - no - I can hide ten yellow school buses in one valley in say, Oregon - and you won't find them.  And the buses are not trying to hide.  The buses won't try to evade you.  The buses won't run away to avoid detection if you get close.

Buses do not tend to bang on trailer doors, howl into the night, raid dumpsters, build stick huts in suburbia, etc, etc....