I’m back.

I had to answer this from WinterIsComing.

“The default position on this topic has to be bigfoot isn’t real until proven…otherwise it’s just blind faith. ”

That’s wrong. There IS NO DEFAULT POSITION on something that is not proven to exist. That “default position” is Believing In Something, in other words, blind faith. Judgment in science is always suspended until proof is accepted.

Faunal models of North America don’t say “disbelieve that bigfoot nonsense, it ain’t real.” They don’t address bigfoot (or Tyrannosaurus rex, outside of its status as a fossil; or little green men from Mars) at all.

One of the great mysteries on this board is how so many seem to think that one of the board’s outspoken skeptics is a proponent of the sasquatch.

Um, that would be me. I am a SKEPTIC. It’s just that folks here are so used to arguing with people who call themselves skeptics while having blind faith in stuff – like Randi up there – that they don’t know true skepticism when they run across it.

Skeptics question every comfortable assumption. Including the blind faith that this sucker ain’t real. We question with evidence. Is the sasquatch real? You tell me. But the evidence says, very clearly, that science should be finding out.

Again. If you don’t think the encounter literature is evidence as strong as one can get short of proof (learn the difference), you simply haven’t read it.

“Finding Bigfoot” is trash. The truly exciting stuff, most in this discussion never see. Including, one is tempted to think sometiimes, the clowns on that show.

And it’s THEIR DATA. (Count on it: they couldn’t make that stuff up. Doubt me? Watch “Finding Bigfoot” once. Shoot, all I have to do is come here for my FB, and I know that.)

Sharon Hill recently said that while BFRO is careful and systematic, they fall well short of scientific. She’s right; and I rarely agree with the skeptic fringe. BFRO has an excellent tool for pulling together the accounts of eyewitnesses. How to exploit that data for scientific breakthrough? Uh, er, not so much.

I’ve heard more than once that the eyewitnesses are the most compelling moments of FB. Wonder why?

We’re the nonpareil witnesses in nature. Why would we pick this to uniiformly screw up?

If you’re curious, you should wonder about that.

And if you’re curious: you never have a “default position” backed by no evidence.

Because – on topic! – a scientist can’t believe in anything.

“ev·i·dence :that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

proof: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.”

You just defined “proof.” Twice.

flame821:

“…the more unrelated witnesses in one area reporting the same thing does add a great deal of credence to any sighting.”

The sighting reports to which this support applies are legion.

“You seem to have had a person experience with this subject that reinforces what you ‘know’ to be true. Most of us have not so we have only the raw data before us. ”

Actually, no. But I have the raw data. I’ve read it. Too many gloss over the sightings who haven’t read sighting reports. I’ve read tons. They are evidence, as strong as the footprints. (Hint: John Bindernagel.) That isn’t an opinion. But if you haven’t read them, you wouldn’t know that.

One cannot enter a scientific debate ignorant of the evidence. The reason the crypto discusson doesn’t sound like a scientific debate is that neither side is armed. OH, sorry. The cryptos are; but they can’t find the ammunition that they themselves have compiled.

Here’s the deal: cryptos are being massacred by the James Randi types, people who essentially do just what he says is wrong in his Bold Framed Quote up there. The reason? Cryptos by and large don’t understand the difference between evidence and proof, any more than Randi does.

The evidence massacre is overwhelmingly in favor of the cryptos, but they fail to understand this, and are getting “out-argued” by people who have no argument. You think I’m wrong? Why isn’t science on the sasquatch beat? The skeptics. That’s why. They just ask questions. And the cryptos answer with: they are the most elusive thing ever (they aren’t); they bury their dead (evidence?); they are In League With Saucer People (oh, OK). You ever notice how the skeptic fringe never argues with Meldrum? They can’t. They lack the chops. But they don’t have to, because people who don’t understand how to look at this lump Meldrum and Bindernagel (whom few proponents have read) in with Georgia Boys. They turn to the proponent fringe, and simply use those people’s own beliefs against them.

Sightings are evidence. NOT an opinion.

And until cryptozoology understands how to (1) work together and (2) use evidence…well, a sasquatch could come to your door every day for sugar, and science will never know.

And cryptozoology will never become science.

RSR! (Ask. Someone will tell you.)

Next thread.

I don’t think most of us on this sight disagree with many of your points. I think we just don’t give the same weight to data that you have. You seem to have had a person experience with this subject that reinforces what you ‘know’ to be true. Most of us have not so we have only the raw data before us.

Many of us feel the data is compelling and deserves a closer look but we also understand that the field is so polluted with hoaxers and showmen that it is ridiculously hard to get anyone with scientific clout to their names to take the time to really delve into the subject. And that’s not even taking into consideration the time and financial issues. We all regret and lament this situation but we know we have to find better evidence, gather more data, become almost cynical in our evaluation of the latest blobsquatch clip on YouTube, because we have to. If it can’t pass our basic evaluation, it certainly won’t pass closer scrutiny.

Mr. Coleman has made a career out of Cryptozoology, Mr Woolheater has been involved in this field for (I think) at least 2 decades. How many times have they come across a photo, footprint or video that didn’t give them second thoughts? How many have been posted on this site that haven’t gotten shot down as hoaxer or misidentifications?

I think this is where the ‘True Believer’ statement in the post came from. You will always have extreme outliers in any group. Some will never believe (flat earth, moon landing was fake) no matter what proof you give them. Some will believe anything that their ‘gut’ tells them is real (little winged faeries, inner Earth). Both of these groups are the ‘True Believers’.

Most of us lie in that big area of the middle, perhaps leaning a bit to one side or the other. Ideally that is where all the scientists and researchers should be too, but people being people, they don’t often do what they ‘should’ they do what they want.

Just for the sake of argument, think of how our cultures, race, and gender influence how we see the world, how we relay information and how we ‘hear/process’ data. Heck, consider the difference between how Western men and women see and process colours, which tends to go well beyond the gender differences of rods and cones in the eye. Or how Eastern vs Western Cultures see and describe the same photo.

Photographs, videos, etc. would be considered evidence. -once proven to not be hoaxes, honest misidentifications or other known animals

Hair, blood, scat and foot prints with proper forensic testing would be considered evidence.

A physical specimen, living or dead, would be considered the Holy Grail of evidence.

Well, you’re right about the unreliability of witness testimony…mainly because of all the reasons witnesses are motivated to misrepresent what they saw. Payola; eagerness to please; eagerness to incriminate; eagerness to protect; intimidation of witness; nervousness…etc. etc. etc. I’m not sure what reason there would be for someone to come out and say they saw something the world laughs at, other than that they saw it. There are very very few sighting reports I have read that bear a chance the witness was innocently mistaken. Dangerously deranged, maybe; lying like a rug, maybe. But if neither of those…doubtful. And I just don’t think a significant minority of them, much less all of them, are crazy people or liars. Possible; but I wouldn’t bet a real coin on it. And I’d give a plug nickel only under duress.

Your other points may be well taken. But that is no excuse for the scientific community to quash interest and curiosity among its members. It’s a violence done to science that needs to stop. No one should be afraid to say “this appears legitimate; it’s had legs too long. Maybe we should be encouraging more research rather than laughing at people spending their own time and money pushing frontiers.”

THAT’S science.

Somewhere in there I’ll see where you disagree with me.

Nope.

But for people to stop looking at crypto as a joke, cryptos better start understanding how to look at evidence.

If science worked according to the murder rule, the sasquatch would be real.

THERE IS ZERO – ZERO – evidence for the skeptical fringe’s belief in the nonexistence of sasquatch. And it’s not because “you can’t prove a negative.” It is because there is a mountain of evidence the skeptical fringe has done nothing to debunk. If you can’t debunk it, it stands for someone to review and tell the rest of us what it is. When you ask a skeptic why sasquatch isn’t real, he ASKS QUESTIONS.

(Where are the bodies? Why hasn’t anybody shot one? Why hasn’t anyone hit one with a vehicle?)

WRONG! YOU BACK A SCIENTIFIC POSITION WITH EVIDENCE, not questions! If you haven’t done your homework, don’t be so dang obvious about it!

To say “that could have been a man in a suit” and presume that is true ain’t science, people. What is your evidence?

Eyewitness testimony has been the great discoverer in scientific history. One goes nowhere without it.

To say otherwise is to profess ignorance of the history of science.

At the same time, numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent — a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony.

These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be “certain” of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident.

(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html)

But disregarding the whole eyewitness angle, (for the sake of argument) I do feel the need to defend the scientist who are afraid to risk their reputations and careers to publicly lend their voices to the possibility that Bigfoot is real.

While you understand the nuances between many sightings and have a good idea of what passes the sniff test regarding witnesses the public, in general, does not. So all they get is the sound byte that ‘Dr _____ believes in Bigfoot’ and what comes to their minds? Blobsquatch photos and videos? Jokers with huge wooden feet strapped to their boots? The misinformation that the P-G Film was a proven hoax? Biscardi, Finding Bigfoot, that facebook group that sees Bigfoot in every photo and comes up with the most amazing analysis of details (I want their monitors, cuz obviously they have some cutting edge stuff in that office). And when they are proven wrong they never seem to issue a correction, let alone learn from their mistakes. (I half think they’re trolling the community)

While most of us on this sight realize that those examples are nothing more than idiots, tricksters and misinformation the public in general does not. Now, PERHAPS if science was better funded it wouldn’t matter so much, but when you have only your reputation to bring to the table as you fight for grants and funding in order to perform research many scientists cannot afford to take such a huge risk. Not to mention the finite money is being divided between cures for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers and diabetes vs renewable energy sources vs rumored bipedal primate in North America, where do you think the money is going to go? I wish politics and money didn’t play into science or medicine as much as it does but wishing doesn’t do us any good.

My hat goes off to the scientists and researchers who are putting their money, time and reputations on the line to keep plugging away at this research. I know you think Ketchum is a lost cause but, if by some chance, the DNA analysis can show that something unknown is out there our chances of getting funding have just increased dramatically. Whereas if it doesn’t show much of anything we haven’t really lost a lot from our current position.

Although I absolutely agree with your opinion regarding dismissing the subject out of hand. Most scientists know better than to do such a thing, they will normally respond with “I don’t have detailed knowledge on that subject” or “I haven’t really given it any thought” or the ever popular “That’s not my area of expertise” rather than simply stating something is bunk without evidence to back that opinion up.

You are still confusing evidence and proof!

“I wasn’t saying to sneer at all eyewitness accounts and write them off as nut jobs…but they aren’t evidence of anything..”

In other words: sneer at them and write them off as nut jobs. Same EXACT thing.

“And saying eyewitness accounts is golden is crap too…”

Then, why would you say they’re golden? Pray tell. I sure don’t. “Golden” is tantamount to proof. Did I say they were proof? No.

But nothing else short of proof gives you a better idea where the proof might be.

We are near-flawless observers. (Think of your average day, negotiated almost totally with your eyes. Think of everyone else’s. Same thing.)

When we say we see something, and there is no good reason to believe we are lying, and no good motive for us to lie, then it is irrational to presume that.

Saying that sightings are not evidence? Presuming that. Period.

“The problem with the sightings are evidence argument is that it needs to be clear what sightings are evidence OF – Sasquatch? no.”

Then when I say I can place the murderer at the scene, because I watched the murder happen, you just laugh and tell me to go home, because all that is is evidence THAT I SAW something, like, um, a MURDER?

No you don’t. You call me in; and the appearance of lil’ ol’ me, just me, causes everyone on the defense table to sweat through their suits, and for the defendant to start imagining, hard, what a lethal injection feels like.

It isn’t proof; but o boy.

In other words: my testimony is evidence that the defendant committed murder.

Sightings of sasquatch are testimony to sasquatch.

Or we are killing people over trash.

“I will argue that sightings are important as a step in gathering actual scientific evidence that hopefully will result in the documentation of a new species. but on their own, even as a group, they cannot be taken as evidence of the existence of the species. ”

Um, you contradict yourself. There is a simple quick easy way to say your quote straight through the word “species.” And that is:

Sightings are evidence that the species exists. WHY IN THE WORLD! would it count as a step otherwise?

Right? Thank you.

Once again, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND PROOF!

(Science accepts the latter. Only difference.)

Or…it means that science is, in terms of the harm done to the integrity of the discipline, disastrously wrong.