Thoughts on the Types of Information we Use

[vinchyfoot]

10 hours ago, Twist said:

If my opinion of them being nomadic is correct then this type of data, while difficult, will eventually lead to discovery.  Predicting correctly when and where to be.   

 

 

I would think its more opportunist, the nature of their immediate surroundings dictating their reaction to it. If it makes more sense of move around they will, if not, maybe not so much. Same could be said for a nocturnal vs diurnal argument.

[Twist]

Very well could be, that would make pin pointing their next move even more difficult until we find their catalyst for change.   

[vinchyfoot]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

Very well could be, that would make pin pointing their next move even more difficult until we find their catalyst for change.   

 

 

Sadly it would, but it seems like other animals have done the same and changed habits when they've been forced into new circumstances.

[Twist]

It’s going to take hard work to find out specific factors.  Namely factors such as weather, food/water, mating etc.   Finding patterns and acquiring a large data set to work from.   

[MikeZimmer]

On 6/10/2020 at 10:47 PM, MikeZimmer said:

I

 

Some people think it is vital that science acknowledge that the creature exists.

 

 

Thinking about this a little bit more, I decided it does not make sense to talk about "science" as thought it is some monolithic creation. There are individuals and institutions involved in the scientific enterprise: administering, funding, publishing, supporting, doing, ... . Some are brilliant, some are drones. Some are careerists and opportunists, some just really are driven to know stuff. Some are honest, some are lacking in the integrity department. Some do good work, some produce pretty shoddy stuff. Some might actually be in a field where the existence or non-existence of a relict hominoid was relevant to their field of study, most would not be.

 

Spring boarding from this last thought, I wondered what fields might be impacted by this? Physics? Nah. Chemistry? Not likely. Materials science? Not a chance. Genetic research? Yeah. Primatology? For sure. Physical anthropology? Seems to be the case, they should be. Anatomy? Peripherally. Anyway, I will not take this list any farther, since it needs more thought. However, some have suggested that we need to get science involved if we have physical evidence. I wonder what thought they have given to this in detail. Which scientists would they involve? Have they discussed this with any that they think would not show them to the door as soon as they broached the topic? People don't like to waste their time, and if they feel a priori that something is going to be a waste of time, they will probably not even open the door. So, what would the general approach be here, and have relevant authorities been brought on board? We don't need to convince science, only convince certain key individuals that we have the real goods.

[MikeZimmer]

On 6/16/2020 at 10:32 AM, norseman said:

Here is how we should be looking at this...

....

3) Witness reports

sightings, observed trackways, heard unexplained sounds, etc

3 has little value. 2 has some value in getting us to number 1. And as of yet no one has produced number 1 in an acceptable way to science.

 

 

Norse,

 

This is a very good breakdown. Thanks.

 

I guess that I value anecdotal information more than a lot of people do, and I (and some others) can make a very good case as to why dismissal of it is irrational. In any case, that is not a discussion I am going to get into right now. Hence, I think witness reports, when considered in the aggregate are useful data. We know they are not clean data.

 

I did a lot of data analysis in a past life as a data administrator and data modeller, researched some of the literature on data quality, wrote about the issue of data quality for my colleagues, and understand the issues reasonably well. Hoaxing, lies, plague honest inquiry everywhere, and sadly, science is infected by this as well. Even when folks are trying to be honest, errors in data creep in. No matter what sort of evidence, data problems exist to sandbag us.

[MikeZimmer]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

It’s going to take hard work to find out specific factors.  Namely factors such as weather, food/water, mating etc.   Finding patterns and acquiring a large data set to work from.   

 

The data we have in the BFF database (I forget the acronym) is based on a collection of anecdotes I think. Have not some folks used that database to do this type of work? I thought were some discussions of this a while back, maybe quite a while back. If so, has the analysis of the data proven fruitful for anyone?

 

Overall, in various data bases, there are bound to be uneven methods, un-systematized methods, of data collection, and some filtering based at best on some heuristics. There will be bias determining what gets accepted How could it be done otherwise? Probably this is the best we can do, collectively, but it makes analysis a lot less certain.

 

An aside: I consider the psuedo-skeptical dismissal of anecdote as irrational but that does not mean anecdotes should not be treated with caution, just as the published results from scientific research need to be treated with an abundance of caution.

 

An aside to the first aside: Science has its problems, big problems, at least in some areas of research. There are a lot of critiques regarding failure to replicate, the failure of peer review, the poor design of studies, the misuse of statistics, bias, careerism, fashion, triviality, dishonesty, general incompetence, and undue influence from business. See for instance, the widely cited paper by John P. A. Ioannidis "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", available at https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 . As someone who at one time had embarked on a path to become a scientist (of sorts anyway, in experimental psychology), this is quite discouraging to me.

 

Since we often need to make important life decisions based on sound evidence, the failure of science to reliably produce the goods is more than unfortunate.

 

 

 

[gigantor]

8 minutes ago, MikeZimmer said:

The data we have in the BFF database (I forget the acronym) is based on a collection of anecdotes I think.

 

Its based on sighting reports from the BFRO and other research groups. Some are anecdotes and a few have real evidence.

 

10 minutes ago, MikeZimmer said:

has the analysis of the data proven fruitful for anyone?

 

Yes

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

Genetic research? Yeah. Primatology?

 

I have attempted to contact both.

 

1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

However, some have suggested that we need to get science involved if we have physical evidence.

 

I've been trying to get scientists involved in order to acquire physical evidence (DNA).

 

1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

I wonder what thought they have given to this in detail. Which scientists would they involve?

 

I have given a LOT of thought to detail. As far as scientists? Geneticists and primatologists.

 

1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

So, what would the general approach be here, and have relevant authorities been brought on board?

 

The relevant authorities won't get on board. Been trying for two years. In discussion with two PhD's currently, however.

 

1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

We don't need to convince science, only convince certain key individuals that we have the real goods.

 

We don't have the real goods. But science can get the real goods. The trick is a Catch-22: Getting them on board to begin with. So far I have recently had a positive assessment on my conceptual DNA approach.....from a scientist. Waiting for a second opinion. Then it will be asking permission to use them as references in order to hopefully kick the concept further up the ladder.

[MIB]

52 minutes ago, gigantor said:

Yes

 

"Ditto".  

[MikeZimmer]

8 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

Its based on sighting reports from the BFRO and other research groups. Some are anecdotes and a few have real evidence.

 

 

Yes

 

Do remember a thread where people talked about this?

 

 

8 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

I have attempted to contact both.

 

 

I've been trying to get scientists involved in order to acquire physical evidence (DNA).

 

 

I have given a LOT of thought to detail. As far as scientists? Geneticists and primatologists.

 

 

The relevant authorities won't get on board. Been trying for two years. In discussion with two PhD's currently, however.

 

 

We don't have the real goods. But science can get the real goods. The trick is a Catch-22: Getting them on board to begin with. So far I have recently had a positive assessment on my conceptual DNA approach.....from a scientist. Waiting for a second opinion. Then it will be asking permission to use them as references in order to hopefully kick the concept further up the ladder.

 

 

Good effort, and perhaps it will pay off.

 

[hiflier]

10 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

 

Good effort, and perhaps it will pay off.

 

 

Thanks, Mike, maybe it will. What is a shame though? There was no response from either Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, Dr. Todd Disotell, or Dr. Mireya Mayor. I had no choice but to go to other scientists. So be it. One thing that helps though is those other scientists at least have some Sasquatch related background. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by hiflier

[SackScratch]

I like how in the "Willow Creek" movie the girl in it compares Bigfoot to Leprechauns saying there's about as much evidence for Leprechauns existing as there is for Bigfoot!!  In the end she is a believer only while being dragged through the woods by a Bigfoot screaming!!  That's often what it takes for some...

[MIB]

19 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

21 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

However, some have suggested that we need to get science involved if we have physical evidence.

 

I've been trying to get scientists involved in order to acquire physical evidence (DNA).

 

I'm not optimistic that will yield results.   I have been trying something similar .. with a twist.    I am curious who is already doing e-DNA testing in the field.    If they are, and if they are using primers that should identify everything in an area, we might have our DNA evidence for bigfoot without realizing it.    However, it does not look like e-DNA testing use is as widespread as I was lead to believe.    I think we've been mislead a bit on sample size as well.   It apparently takes filtering a vast amount of water to collect enough DNA to test for, it's not just a matter of dipping your water bottle in the lake "as shown on TV."    There doesn't seem to be a lot of scientific interest in approaches focused on "show me everything in the environment", rather, funding, etc are based on determining if "X" is in the environment, and traditional methods are a lot more cost-effective.    If you're looking for wolves, wolverines, lahotian red band trout, or invasive mollusks, that is what they test for, specifically, rather than looking for everything, then seeing if "X" is in the list.     Unless we find some situation where someone is specifically testing for primates, and in North America, that's us, and we already know we are everywhere, I don't see a way to piggyback on other ongoing research, it's going to have to be done specifically to look for bigfoot.    ... at least, that's the way it appears right now from the scientists I've talked to.

 

MIB

 

[Twist]

Also what makes me nervous with E-DNA testing is if like other tests may show, BF possibly being a close relative all results could be thrown out as human and overlooked.