Thoughts on the Types of Information we Use

[ShadowBorn]

2 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

Evidence must be interpreted, and this interpretation is often not clear cut. We can think of odds of things happening together, but this does not show a clear chain of logical reasoning. It can be suggestive of certain conclusions. So, stick structures and footprints in proximity suggests that they might be related; neither should be dismissed out of hand. We need to consider various possibilities, not jump to conclusions, and look for other evidence.

 

I think that there is a tradition of argument using cumulative evidence. Maybe it is similar to corroborating evidence? I am not sure, and an Internet search for explanations of the idea of cumulative evidence does not come up with much. There is one philosophy text that discuss it, but it costs a bit, and is not available as an e-book. Apart from that it seems to be used by theologians, and I got the term from an article by a professor of philosophy and theology. 

 

Maybe stick structures associated with footprints provide cumulative evidence or maybe this is misapplying the concept.

 

One of the biggest problems in the interpretation of evidence  is that we do not consider other potential factors. These are called "confounds" by most researchers. That is to say, they are factors that  can confound our analysis. In experimental science, a researcher can attempt to control for confounding factors. In observational studies of wild animals, it is pretty hard to do anything remotely like that. It is pretty hard to do anything rigorously systematic.

Now you really have me. If evidence must be interpreted so that others may see what is really going on. Then we have to look at this differently. 

 

Let's see what the definition of cumulative evidence actually means ; evidence of which the parts reinforce one another, producing an effect stronger than any part by itself.

If people are finding these stick structures repeatedly with footprints is this not showing evidence of these creatures creating these structures.  Now would this not be considered corroborating evidence. Which is  synonymous with comulative evidence. In other words not everyone can be hoaxing or going crazy on what is going on out in the woods. If this was a court of law all the evidence that is out now would point to a living mamal living in our wilderness. The only question that would remain is would be if they are a primative man or an unknown ape.

Quote

One of the biggest problems in the interpretation of evidence  is that we do not consider other potential factors. These are called "confounds" by most researchers. That is to say, they are factors that  can confound our analysis. In experimental science, a researcher can attempt to control for confounding factors. In observational studies of wild animals, it is pretty hard to do anything remotely like that. It is pretty hard to do anything rigorously systematic.

Confounding factors can be difficult in doing field work while being around these creatures. You do not have control of a given area to do proper observation of these creatures. No one has any idea on what to expect from these creatures . No one expects to be hoaxed either. it is understanding the difference. If Native Americans have had interaction with these creatures at one time in our past then what makes it so different now.I think that i am moving off track. I think that we all have been effected by confounds. We just have not learned how to understand it.It might even scare some of us away from research.

[SackScratch]

20 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

I think that a type specimen would be very useful, with some caveats:

1. If there are government agencies that really do not want this thing solved (something I consider a rational possibility) the evidence might just disappear.
2. If there are government agencies that really do not want this thing solved, bought and paid for experts might be hired to say that black is white.
3. Someone shooting one of these things might just not make it out alive with any part of the specimen, if reports of the creatures capabilities are correct.
4. The chances of finding a carcass of any rare large animal in the woods is probably not very good
5. Someone might find a body killed by  vehicle. There was some report of this happening in the U.S. and a story that some mysterious goings on by officialdom made the body disappear
6. There are stories, which may be total nonsense, of live animals and bodies found after the Mount St. Helen's eruption. Again, without knowing the people personally telling the stories, it is hard to have any felling for the veracity of the stories, if they are anything other than tall tales.
7. There are at least two reports of these things being shot that come to my mind, one from British Columbia on the coast and one from Manitoba in a wooded area. The latter is a very interesting report. Of course the fellow who told the tale could have been telling a tall tale, for whatever reason. I certainly don't dismiss the story out of hand.  If I knew that man personally, I would have some basis for judging his soundness of mind and his veracity. It was a very unambiguous report. We almost always have to rely on second, third, or Nth hand accounts.

Some people think it is vital that science acknowledge that the creature exists. I don't care very much. I personally lean to "almost certain," based on various cumulative lines of evidence. If science finally classifies them, I will probably enjoy saying "Told you so!" to a few folks. Apart from that, it is no big deal to me. I doubt that research on them will be any easier, even if funding is made available.

 

 

If someone runs across a dead one wherever and by whatever means they should remove a hand or the head my any means and take it with them in their backpack or whatever so it doesn't end up just being another one of the million unproven stories on Bigfoot yet again... Even back in 1970 they made a movie called "Bigfoot", has them burying their dead in it which is why bodies are never found... that's always been the main reason that people say it doesn't exist because if it did someone would have hauled in a dead one by now and they were saying that 50 years ago! 

 

as for "Critical Thought" in this mindless Social Media Hypocrisy that already resembles the movie "Idiocracy" I think Evolution is going in reverse now... I hope SpaceX can relocate the smart people to Mars or somewhere while there's still a few left! lol

 

[MikeZimmer]

6 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

Now you really have me. If evidence must be interpreted so that others may see what is really going on. Then we have to look at this differently.

 

We also have to interpret it for ourselves. What it means to me is not necessarily what it means to you. We all bring a lot of past experience to bear, bias, and so on, and each person is going to see things from a different angle, in a lot of cases.

 

I think that you have managed to find a little bit more on cumulative evidence than I have. We start to see more aspects to an apparent pattern, that can lead our conclusions in some particular direction.

[SackScratch]

[MikeZimmer]

17 minutes ago, SackScratch said:

 

If someone runs across a dead one wherever and by whatever means they should remove a hand or the head my any means and take it with them in their backpack or whatever so it doesn't end up just being another one of the million unproven stories on Bigfoot yet again... Even back in 1970 they made a movie called "Bigfoot", has them burying their dead in it which is why bodies are never found... that's always been the main reason that people say it doesn't exist because if it did someone would have hauled in a dead one by now and they were saying that 50 years ago! 

 

as for "Critical Thought" in this mindless Social Media Hypocrisy that already resembles the movie "Idiocracy" I think Evolution is going in reverse now... I hope SpaceX can relocate the smart people to Mars or somewhere while there's still a few left! lol

 

 

Yes, some folks think that they might bury their dead. We have no  information on this, only speculation that has almost no basis in evidence.

 

I think the rush to classify them as some known species is misguided. I also think that those who classify them as only some sort of ape are also jumping the gun. These animals may have some sort of language, if the Sierra Sounds material is not a hoax. They don't seem to be tool users, at least not to any great extent, but maybe our model that tools go together with intelligence is flawed. There are lots of different ways to be smart, and their ability in stealth seems to exceed ours by a huge margin.

12 minutes ago, SackScratch said:

 

Pictures of some vacant looking people.

 

Stills from Idiocracy? I think I went looking for it once, but did not find it.

Edited June 12, 2020 by MikeZimmer

[starchunk]

8 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

 

Yes, some folks think that they might bury their dead. We have no  information on this, only speculation that has almost no basis in evidence.

 

 

 

One example of many, where "speculation" has been used by some as fact, then echoed throughout the online world and accepted as fact, but... it started as speculation, leading to a sea of white noise along the way in the search for the truth of this thing.

[MikeZimmer]

6 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

One example of many, where "speculation" has been used by some as fact, then echoed throughout the online world and accepted as fact, but... it started as speculation, leading to a sea of white noise along the way in the search for the truth of this thing.

 

Yep! And I suspect most of us are guilty. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Paul Simon, The Boxer

[ShadowBorn]

6 hours ago, starchunk said:

One example of many, where "speculation" has been used by some as fact, then echoed throughout the online world and accepted as fact, but... it started as speculation, leading to a sea of white noise along the way in the search for the truth of this thing.

Then the question should be asked as to why it was accepted as fact if it started out as speculation. I have found two maybe three rock piles and have placed pictures of the rock pies. Have speculated if these piles did have creatures buried under them. I just never looked under these rock piles since I thought it would be disrespectfull if I did find some thing underneath them. Others have pointed out that they have had found similar piles before I posted my pictures. 

 

The problem is that we need to get to the root of these problems so that we can get to the factual facts about these creatures. Hence Mike;s flow chart that he has created. If we can weed out the weeds from the wheat  we may get a better picture of what we are actually dealing with..

Starchunk

I understand about your " sea of white noise ". I try very hard to keep out what I have experienced with these creatures in the general area of the forum. Try to keep it to the flesh and blood creature that it is. The reason I say flesh and blood is due to the hard evidence that it leaves behind. I am talking about physical evidence. Sure we might have some witnesses that might be miss identifying and maybe even faking for attention. But what about the ones who are not. What can we say about those that have found hard evidence that prove them right. The numbers point to these creatures being real. The only thing that has not shown up that can prove them is a body. But every graph that has been made to show these creatures has shown a living being in our forest. You cannot mess with the numbers. The numbers will always go on the side of the creature that it exist. Can we say that this is a fact or is this just speculation. Again I am going on side that this is just my opinion. But numbers do not lie the math tells the truth.   

 

[Incorrigible1]

7 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

One example of many, where "speculation" has been used by some as fact, then echoed throughout the online world and accepted as fact, but... it started as speculation, leading to a sea of white noise along the way in the search for the truth of this thing.

 

I call it the "Bigfoot Mythos."

[BlackRockBigfoot]

11 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

I call it the "Bigfoot Mythos."

Yup.

 

Plenty of examples of it.  I see people parrot it all the time. They bury their dead, the stick structures mark boundaries, the whole idea of 'clans', etc etc.

 

Someone mentions something fairly new or novel, and subsequent stories begin to incorporate it.  Eventually, it becomes part of the mythos because it has been repeated so often.

 

You see this in the crypto-tainment podcast community.  Podcasts fascinate me.  They are the 'tales around the campfire' of the modern era.  You see elements of certain accounts that seem to grab the collective imagination of the community and begin commonly appear in subsequent stories.  The Bigfoot version of the Men In Black is my favorite example of this.  The large biker looking guy and the smaller, well dressed ex-military looking fellow who show up after encounters and hush people up.

 

You always have to remember...this is a crazy freaking topic when you get down to it.  Filled with mystery and outlandish claims.  It attracts a certain element... people who are playing what is basically an alternate reality game.  They add a lot of noise to the signal.

[ShadowBorn]

2 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

 

Someone mentions something fairly new or novel, and subsequent stories begin to incorporate it.  Eventually, it becomes part of the mythos because it has been repeated so often.

Again they are just stories based on unproven facts. They become a part of this creatures action due the repetitive nature of the story. Which makes it the mythos of Bigfoot. We are always assuming that about this creature. 

 

2 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

You see this in the crypto-tainment podcast community.  Podcasts fascinate me.  They are the 'tales around the campfire' of the modern era.  You see elements of certain accounts that seem to grab the collective imagination of the community and begin commonly appear in subsequent stories.  The Bigfoot version of the Men In Black is my favorite example of this.  The large biker looking guy and the smaller, well dressed ex-military looking fellow who show up after encounters and hush people up.

With out showing proof, they are just stories. Podcast are just entertainment and are meant to attract people for this purpose. I can say the same thing about you tube as well. Where is the science involve there ? Researchers in this field of searching Bigfoot are just amateur scienctist. We should be trying to teach each other on what to look out for so that we can study this creature up close in it's natural environment. If we cannot retrieve a body then we should try a different angle in the study of this creatures behavior. They have done this with other creatures. 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

14 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Again they are just stories based on unproven facts. They become a part of this creatures action due the repetitive nature of the story. Which makes it the mythos of Bigfoot. We are always assuming that about this creature. 

 

With out showing proof, they are just stories. Podcast are just entertainment and are meant to attract people for this purpose. I can say the same thing about you tube as well. Where is the science involve there ? Researchers in this field of searching Bigfoot are just amateur scienctist. We should be trying to teach each other on what to look out for so that we can study this creature up close in it's natural environment. If we cannot retrieve a body then we should try a different angle in the study of this creatures behavior. They have done this with other creatures. 

Podcast accounts probably have the same signal to noise ratio that submitted accounts have...

 

There are some people with legitimate encounters mixed in with the people just making stuff up.  

[Rlee]

If you found a body in the woods and submitted it to science how many people do you think would believe it? A quick scan of the internet  shows how many people don't believe in Covid, Vaccines, Dinosaurs,  or even the local news. we are bombarded by miss direction and have to use some of our great  intelligence to sort through it. Do you think the common man would believe big foot or would it just be considered fake news.

 A body won't do. We need living specimens.

[MikeZimmer]

2 hours ago, Rlee said:

If you found a body in the woods and submitted it to science how many people do you think would believe it? A quick scan of the internet  shows how many people don't believe in Covid, Vaccines, Dinosaurs,  or even the local news. we are bombarded by miss direction and have to use some of our great  intelligence to sort through it. Do you think the common man would believe big foot or would it just be considered fake news.

 A body won't do. We need living specimens.

That is an interesting perspective, but I suspect that you are right. Hey, did you hear that the Earth is flat!!!!!

[MikeZimmer]

It seems to me that people really over-estimate their ability to make sense of the world, and under-estimate just how complicated some things can be to figure out. Hence, we get a lot of people thinking that they know the answers. I'm not sure that I even know the questions.

 

In any case, the interpretation of evidence is hard, even if you actually have some. In our area of interest, we usually end up with a lot of ambiguity, to wit (I always wanted to say that):

1. Strange knocks and splashes
2. Odd howls, roar, moans, mutterings, and for a few, speech-like gabbling
3. Strange pacing in the brush, just out of sight
4. Fleeting glimpses of something hairy, under less than ideal viewing conditions
5. Depressions in the moss or duff that may or may not be tracks
6. Photos that are so unclear that even with red circles, it can not be ascertained what it is your are looking at

Couple that with the cases of hoaxes with photo and video fakes, made-up stories of encounters, suits (obvious and not so obvious) and we have, as BlackRockBigfoot suggested above, a lot of noise obscuring the signal.

 

On the other hand, we have some reports that are not so ambiguous, in that the evidence is more robust in important ways. We have tracks and track ways that are quite clear. Some tracks are found in places where the explanation of hoax is less believable than supposing a real track. Some of the tracks are so far out of the range of human size to render human origin an absurd notion. Some go on for miles, in places where hoaxing would make absolutely no sense. We have numerous casts of tracks, and even the odd hand print. So, the ambiguity is not in the evidence. It is clear in some cases that a hoaxed track way is improbable, and mis-identification makes just about no sense at all.

 

We also have video evidence, with little ambiguity, in the sense that it is plainly not a bear, or an escaped Orangutan, and plainly not pareidolia. So, we are left with two possibilities, it was a non-human upright creature or a man in a suit (of course it could be a creature in a suit - did you ever consider that one?) The Patterson-Gimlin film and the Freeman video come to mind as non-ambiguous - either a man in a suit or an upright walking primate like creature. I lean strongly towards the first as being authentic, and treat the second with more caution.

 

We have sightings, both with a single witness and with multiple witnesses. Some of these extend back to previous centuries. Some are in old newspaper accounts. Some come from people in responsible positions in the community. Some come from folks quite familiar with the outdoors, and with the creatures in it. Some are biologists. Some are foresters. Some come from people who have unimpeachable reputations.

 

There was the Albert Ostman encounter above Toba Inlet. Of course, Albert Ostman might have been making things up, but there are some interesting details that seem to be something he would not have invented. He did swear under oath that he was telling the truth, and there are possible legal consequences for lying on such an affidavit. Again, if he is to be believed, there is no ambiguity. The Ostman story is problematic, for the things he reports seem quite fantastic. (Maybe it was a logging family of gigantic size in suits - there are some strange goings on in that neck of the woods past Lund).

 

I find that the William Roe encounter in the Rockies admits of no ambiguity in the sense that he either saw a female Sasquatch feeding on berries, or he is quite a teller of tall tales. I find the William Roe encounter to be compelling. It warn't no suit.

 

A third encounter with no ambiguity was the encounter at Ruby Creek. In that one, there were clear visual sightings by a woman familiar with bears; there were tracks and other strange things. The Ruby Creek incident has supporting evidence. To suggest that the woman living by Ruby Creek fabricated the evidence is ridiculous. I see little reason to doubt it was a real Sasquatch.To suggest a suit would be absurd.

 

So, we can have pretty clear cut evidence in the sense of it must be either deception or a real encounter. You might think that this does not take us very far. I would say that it does, in that we are not dealing with blob-squatches, blob-tracks, fleeting sightings, red-circled photos, and mystery noises. We still have to assess the credibility of the sources, but there is evidence which we can assess. We should not waste our time on any of the other stuff. If you need to red circle it, keep it to yourself.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by MikeZimmer