Thoughts on the Types of Information we Use

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

Hiflier,
 

All I’m hearing is you playing the victim.

 

You never discuss the science of e-DNA, don't study it, don't discuss it, but instead you keep coming after me because you think you're somehow right in doing that. Well, you're not.. And you're the ONLY ONE. Think about that.

[Twist]

I said good day sir.  

[gigantor]

@hiflier

@Twist

 

If you want to argue, take it to the tarpit!

 

You're highjacking this thread.

 

[norseman]

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

 

1) Physical evidence

Hair, Scat, EDna, Dna, bones, flesh, teeth, etc

 

2) Trace evidence

Footprints, teeth marks, audio recordings, video recordings, tree structures, slide marks, body casts, etc

 

3) Witness reports

sightings, observed trackways, heard unexplained sounds, etc

 

4) Hoaxing

trackways, video recordings, audio recording, etc

Basically we are stuck with 2, 3 and unfortunately 4? And we are trying to get to number1!

 

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.

 

Number 4 plagues us because some people think it’s funny, some people thinks it will strengthen their cause and some people want to cash in. In the end? It’s number 4 that hurts us the most and why science doesn’t take the subject seriously.

 

There may be another category.

 

5) Conspiracy 

Some people feel like the government is covering it up. Not unlike UFO’s.... which now seems to be the case after the Navy admitted that UFO’s are real. After debunking them for 60 years. Will at some point in the future will we see the government admit Bigfoot is real? That secretly they have been studying them all along? Is this an avenue we should pursue? 
 

And the last category that has to be addressed is this.

 

6) Non existence

Either it went extinct or never existed at all. We are all wrong. The tracks I saw where caused by x,y or z. Witnesses are seeing bears while intoxicated. Etc, Etc, etc. Not a pleasant proposition to consider. And yet we seem to have serious problems getting to 1. Logically should it be this hard? If there is truly a healthy breeding population of large primates living in our forests? All species get sick, wounded, die. All species leave behind feces, blood, saliva. It cannot be helped. So we need to self examine WHY we are not succeeding. Is it because we are seeking something that isn’t truly there? Or are we incompetent? Are we focused on the smoke and not the fire? Is the government torpedoing our efforts?

 

Maybe Zimmer’s categories can play a role here. Disseminating different classes of information. But in biology this takes a back seat to physical evidence. Just like in a court of law? DNA trumps a contradiction by a eye witness account.

 

 

[MikeZimmer]

30 minutes ago, norseman said:

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

 

...

 

Maybe Zimmer’s categories can play a role here. Disseminating different classes of information. But in biology this takes a back seat to physical evidence. Just like in a court of law? DNA trumps a contradiction by a eye witness account.

 

 

 

Norse, on the whole I agree with you; not perfectly, but will have to think about it.

 

My classes are just a logical breakdown, and they seem to apply in any sphere.  I did not invent the terms, only structured them. I called it communication of information, but they apply to our own internal dialogue as much as to communication with others. Maybe someone can show me where they are inadequate; then I can modify them.

 

There is always a question of how evidence is to be interpreted, and even a body on a slab, however obtained, has to be interpreted. Some things are easy and obvious, admitting of easy understanding, some things forever problematic, maybe never to be understood correctly by any.

 

I grant you that honest scientists would have to admit this cryptid into the taxonomic tree somewhere if presented with your type 1 evidence. I think it closer to human, some think it closer to the other apes. We don't know. Even if we get it admitted into the official taxonomy, I can't see how research becomes easier, even with more funding. We don't have a Sasquatching Jane Goodall or Dianne Fossey that I know of. It might take that sort of obsessively dedicated person.

 

It is not even clear to me that official recognition would make it better for the species survival. Maybe, maybe not. If I remember, you are on the side of the "woulds."

 

I don't think it irrational to believe that there is some government cover-up. I don't have a strong view one way or the other. Some have argued that if the creature exists, many in the government must know of it, and since it is not admitted knowledge, there is some sort of cover-up. Could be. Ditto for UFOs. Ditto for a lot of things that have gone on, and still go on, but cannot be discussed on this part of the forum. I save that for other sites.

 

I may get back to the discussion  later. 

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by MikeZimmer

[MIB]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

6) Non existence

Either it went extinct or never existed at all. We are all wrong. The tracks I saw where caused by x,y or z. Witnesses are seeing bears while intoxicated. Etc, Etc, etc. Not a pleasant proposition to consider. And yet we seem to have serious problems getting to 1. Logically should it be this hard? If there is truly a healthy breeding population of large primates living in our forests? All species get sick, wounded, die. All species leave behind feces, blood, saliva. It cannot be helped. So we need to self examine WHY we are not succeeding. Is it because we are seeking something that isn’t truly there? Or are we incompetent? Are we focused on the smoke and not the fire? Is the government torpedoing our efforts?

 

That is a set of very very good questions.     I think no, it should logically NOT be this hard, so something is wrong with the logic we are using.    I do not think non-existence is a serious option .. having seen 2 on different occasions, it is not an option I, personally, can take seriously.    If I were hallucinating, how did I hallucinate what Roger and Bob filmed when I'd never seen the film?    I do not think we are incompetent.   I believe we are, as your question asks, focused on the smoke and not the fire.    It is about the only thing that makes sense.  

 

So the question I'm left with is ... what is the fire?   To me that suggests our assumptions are wrong.   Possibly the ones we speak are correct but the ones we act are wrong.    Perhaps we do not know how to do the thing we should do so we cling to the thing we know how to do and pretend they are one and the same.

 

What it means is that our efforts are off target and will never get us to where we are trying to go in any systematic way, the only thing continuing the search does is keep us out giving serendipity a chance.

 

.. it's the best I've got.

 

MIB

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

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

 

1) Physical evidence

Hair, Scat, EDna, Dna, bones, flesh, teeth, etc

 

2) Trace evidence

Footprints, teeth marks, audio recordings, video recordings, tree structures, slide marks, body casts, etc

 

3) Witness reports

sightings, observed trackways, heard unexplained sounds, etc

 

4) Hoaxing

trackways, video recordings, audio recording, etc

Basically we are stuck with 2, 3 and unfortunately 4? And we are trying to get to number1!

 

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.

 

Number 4 plagues us because some people think it’s funny, some people thinks it will strengthen their cause and some people want to cash in. In the end? It’s number 4 that hurts us the most and why science doesn’t take the subject seriously.

 

There may be another category.

 

5) Conspiracy 

Some people feel like the government is covering it up. Not unlike UFO’s.... which now seems to be the case after the Navy admitted that UFO’s are real. After debunking them for 60 years. Will at some point in the future will we see the government admit Bigfoot is real? That secretly they have been studying them all along? Is this an avenue we should pursue? 
 

And the last category that has to be addressed is this.

 

6) Non existence

Either it went extinct or never existed at all. We are all wrong. The tracks I saw where caused by x,y or z. Witnesses are seeing bears while intoxicated. Etc, Etc, etc. Not a pleasant proposition to consider. And yet we seem to have serious problems getting to 1. Logically should it be this hard? If there is truly a healthy breeding population of large primates living in our forests? All species get sick, wounded, die. All species leave behind feces, blood, saliva. It cannot be helped. So we need to self examine WHY we are not succeeding. Is it because we are seeking something that isn’t truly there? Or are we incompetent? Are we focused on the smoke and not the fire? Is the government torpedoing our efforts?

 

Maybe Zimmer’s categories can play a role here. Disseminating different classes of information. But in biology this takes a back seat to physical evidence. Just like in a court of law? DNA trumps a contradiction by a eye witness account.

 

 

That is a great post. Enjoy the 🏆

I agree with you, especially the part well you know which part.😄

[vinchyfoot]

On 6/16/2020 at 10:12 AM, hiflier said:

 

You never discuss the science of e-DNA, don't study it, don't discuss it, but instead you keep coming after me because you think you're somehow right in doing that. Well, you're not.. And you're the ONLY ONE. Think about that.

 

Maybe a more varied approach is in order, not just one focus..... Like Norseman suggested above.

[SWWASAS]

On 6/16/2020 at 12:54 PM, MIB said:

 

That is a set of very very good questions.     I think no, it should logically NOT be this hard, so something is wrong with the logic we are using.    I do not think non-existence is a serious option .. having seen 2 on different occasions, it is not an option I, personally, can take seriously.    If I were hallucinating, how did I hallucinate what Roger and Bob filmed when I'd never seen the film?    I do not think we are incompetent.   I believe we are, as your question asks, focused on the smoke and not the fire.    It is about the only thing that makes sense.  

 

So the question I'm left with is ... what is the fire?   To me that suggests our assumptions are wrong.   Possibly the ones we speak are correct but the ones we act are wrong.    Perhaps we do not know how to do the thing we should do so we cling to the thing we know how to do and pretend they are one and the same.

 

What it means is that our efforts are off target and will never get us to where we are trying to go in any systematic way, the only thing continuing the search does is keep us out giving serendipity a chance.

 

.. it's the best I've got.

 

MIB

 

I agree with much of what you say.   The methodology we are using is not working.    I for obvious reasons think of everything in aviation terms.    t Lets draw the analogy that BF is a stealthy very fast airplane.    Difficult to find on radar, and very fast.     On the other hand as a BF researcher,   am a slow airplane from another era.     While I might get glimpses of BF off in the distance, it's speed and ability to evade exceed my capability to close and study it or close in for a kill.     I think that is what is going on.    BF is very stealthy, difficult to find and track, and probably walks faster than we can run.      Staying with the airplane analogy,  the Germans beat us to developing an operational jet aircraft.     When German jets were seen over the skies of Europe during WWII,  the best of our fighters could not catch them.   However American pilots started following the German jets when they returned to base and could shoot them down when they slowed down to land.    Maybe we need to change tactics,   find their nests or settlements and study them there.   As a solo researcher, my chances of flushing a BF into view is very slim.    I have tried and failed.  It could withdraw faster than I could advance.    I wonder what would happen if in the same situation there were a dozen of us and one or two of them.    Several researchers form a line and made a push towards one or two and drove them towards other researchers or caused them to break cover.     Even if we are in the field with others, we normally pair up for safety and just make our self easier to avoid.      Would more people making sweeps through sections of the woods,  force BF to break cover?    I think we have been making it too easy for them to avoid us.  

[ShadowBorn]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Several researchers form a line and made a push towards one or two and drove them towards other researchers or caused them to break cover.     Even if we are in the field with others, we normally pair up for safety and just make our self easier to avoid.      Would more people making sweeps through sections of the woods,  force BF to break cover?    I think we have been making it too easy for them to avoid us.

Sometimes a push might work like you do when hunting deer.  Where you have hunters sitting in a certain spot and you have other hunters pushing those deer towards those sitting hunters. Now I am assuming on my part but this just might be dangerous with these creatures.. My take is more of the old school style of research in where you have them come to you. It seemed to have worked for me back in 2000 in my first encounter with glow sticks and salmon. So I see why it could not work now. It has worked with these old time researchers as well. Ones who I cannot even remember their names no more since it has been so long. Tactics that have worked. If you have had encounters then you have to think back to the point that led up to your encounters. There is not if's about it. Why change some thing that has worked in the past. Proven methods should not be changed. One might be able to modify that method .  But if it stops you from reaching your goal. Then go back to what worked. They are flesh and blood and do leave physical evidence. So this does mean that they can make mistakes. Just as humans who are not perfect they too can make mistakes like us. We have seen these mistakes in reports. Like I have been saying the math is there. We just have to look for it and put the puzzle together.  This is what this is a puzzle that we need to find the pieces that will solve this puzzle. That puzzle is the truth. 

[MIB]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Maybe we need to change tactics,   find their nests or settlements and study them there.

 

Your airplane analogy suggests we need to try to anticipate where they are going to be and be there ahead of them so we are not "chasing something faster than us."    That is more or less what I'm trying to do and I'm trying to leverage the report data, official and otherwise, to help me locate where my chances are best at any given time.     I have a window at the end of August and start of September where I think I've put the odds in my favor, but .. what about the rest of the year?    The "more earlier" or "more later" than that small window I get, the less success I have which suggests that either my analysis-on-a-napkin is wrong -or- I'm actually looking at the temporary convergence of several groups in that window.  Either could be true, both could be true, and there are logical ways neither is true if we consider the possibility the BF behavior is different in that spot making them easier to detect than it is when they are arriving or leaving.   Moving targets.  

 

I wish we really knew when they gave birth in the Pac NW, whether all of them do so at the same time, seasonal like deer, or if it is scattered year around as humans do.    Could tell us whether it is worth looking for that concentration of activity or whether it doesn't exist.   

 

Stuff like that ...

 

MIB

[Twist]

6 minutes ago, MIB said:

That is more or less what I'm trying to do and I'm trying to leverage the report data, official and otherwise, to help me locate where my chances are best at any given time.     I have a window at the end of August and start of September where I think I've put the odds in my favor, but .. what about the rest of the year?  

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.   

[ShadowBorn]

Are you not then favoring what expedition Bigfoot did  with their so called advance data algorithm. Like a complete data analysis of all the sightings and then coming down to a prediction to a predetermined area. Which I feel that is very meaning less. You can take a plane in a given area and place it in a glide with a thermos and the maybe be able to find a place that they might be. Mark that area and hike in silently and hope to be able to get video of your find. But good luck with that. It is either they are going to find you or you are going to run into them by accident. . If they were so easy to predict their movement there would be a conversation that we are having right now. This discussion would be done with.  

 

Like I have said in my previous thread . we have been doing this since the 50's and have tried everything that could have been tried. Nothing to this day has brought nothing that proves these creatures exist as an actual flesh and blood. Yet the math does not lie that they do not exist. The accounts can account for that. The truth is there in peoples faces but refuse to accept it. The problem is that there might not be that many. The few that there are just wonder from one place to anther,. Nomadic yes but few. Staying hidden in from us. They choose who they want to respond to. If they become aggressive then you have to think that they might not have a choice. You have to imagine how we would be if our survival was at stake how we would be. I can say one thing if my life was at stake I be doing what ever it takes to stay alive. We have a brain so we have understanding . So if they are part human then they must have some understanding of them selves. You few can shun me but I really do not care. I know what I have encountered and I know people who have encountered the same that I have. I am still going to speak out. My word means just as much as any ones else word does.  I will not back off. I do not need a tarpit to deal with what I believe in and have encountered.  No opinion just fact.

[MIB]

2 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 think they are at least partially nomadic.    Lot of small valleys and fairly tall, steep mountains around here.    The activity up high is seasonal suggesting nomadic but there are lower elevation spots where stuff seems to happen year around.   That leads me to guess that there's a mix, some somewhat year around locals but quite a few that move substantial distances.    It has an interesting implication .. those that stay put may keep an eye on an area such that the migrant ones will know if the area is safe to pause in for a while.

 

Maybe, that is. 

 

MIB

[Rlee]

If not migrant or nomadic then how big of a population would you need to counter inbreeding? Rare sightings in unusual places definitely support a migrant lifestyle.