Post subject: What constitues evidence?
After last years Symposium I was became more and more amazed at the amount of good evidence was presented. Biggjimm's Shutter Bug, DW's and Driveroperator's thermals, and yes even some in my presentation that in my opinion went a lot closer to being probable evidence vs. possible.
I personally can say that before I put anything in my presentation I did tons of homework to eliminate everything else that it could be using signatures of the audio, comparing it with the known critters in the area, etc. I know with the protocol that was followed by the others was equal to what I did or better to make sure what was being presented was factual as possible.
So my question is what constitutes evidence? Do we have anything set up with the MABRC in a way of doing a peer type review in the group, to review evidence and allow other serious research groups to see what we have. A lot of us spend a lot of time in the woods and in my opinion coming up with some very good evidence, but we seem to only keep it in the group. I suspect that there is a lot of other researchers who are coming up with the same thing, but due to things like Facebook and others are keeping it to themselves. I would like to see it where the Bigfoot community can come together and give others an honest look at what they are getting.
I understand that we for the most part try to deal with science's standards of evidence. But when science for the most part, is turning a blind eye to anything short of a body, trying to satisfy them is running into a brick wall. I suspect science's reluctance has got to do more with they're unaware of the evidence out there which makes it easier to dismiss than anything else. And as a whole of the Bigfoot community, does not seem to have the ability to agree to be able to submit common things to science. I suspect that there are a lot of good researchers out there that would love to share their information with other serious researchers, but really have nowhere to turn with it.
The MABRC, in my opinion is definitely in the forefront of collecting evidence. What can we do as a group to share this information and get others to verify that they need to think the evidence is worthy. In thinking outside of the box like we do, I think it is time that we need to take the next step in presenting evidence for science and the public to consider. Maybe BiggJimm and Holotype can give us a way of figuring how we can do this. Would it even be possible for the Bigfoot community as a whole to come up with up peer type review for the evidence being collected. Any ideas on how we can open up this type of thing to serious researchers? I know there has been more than one group in areas like the Honobia area, and to the best of my knowledge, none of the information between those groups has been shared and looked at by other groups researching that area. And I think that may be why science is not willing to look at it.
We all know there are tons of people in the Bigfoot community that are in it for fame and glory. And at times some of the BS that we all put up with being part of that community can seem overwhelming. I know I have confided in other groups were other people that I find as credible researchers in my research and my audio and it seems like once you are willing to share they are also willing to share and try to come up with the answers. Are we willing as a group to take other peoples evidence and stand behind it with them? I personally think that that is what is what it is going to take to have science take a serious look at our research. Are we willing as a group, to taken earnest look at our members evidence and willing to stand behind it and submitted to other serious groups? I realize that we are all individual researchers all looking at the same mystery, and that sometimes even in the group itself we have personality conflicts. But I think the MABRC would be far better serving the community if we could come together as a group and stand by our evidence. If we can do that as a group, we can start a trend in the Bigfoot community.
I think the MABRC has gotten to a point where we have the manpower, the experience, and the skills necessary to make this approach work. I would sure like to see the group as a whole come together and make this happen. As I think there is a lot of information that if it was gathered in the community could answer a bunch of questions for us.
Author: Nightwind [ Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:32 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
lots of things here Reb to think about. I have kept most things amongst we here in our group for one reason only. I am not qualified to make the final conclusions of what goes on here at the home place. I know exactly what I and others here have seen in the flesh, I know every thing that has happened here is very disturbing to other people. Then they come back and get truthful of their own sightings. Saying they didn't want people to think they were crazy, so they never told any one. Some times in warm weather I sit on the deck to the wee hours of the morning whistling Dixie, only once did I get a first line whistle back. On warm days when we are having a good time, We get a laugh identical to Reble's big barrel laugh. Sometimes I walk out side and hear MOM like I'm being called by my son who is not here. Are they ghosts? NO they are not. Am I delusional? No. Am I afraid of them? No, what ever they are they know we mean them no harm. When our other field researchers, (I know you know they are here)I don't mind sharing and all is welcome when these changes take place. Thank you for the very thoughtful post, good read as always. Nightwind
Author: Biggjimm [ Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:48 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
I would like it to be a good idea, but there is a issue of trust. You present a peer group with something, its only going to be a matter of time before someone tries to claim it as their own if its good enough. I hate to say it, but mainstream academia is guilty of this. I've seen it first hand were profs steal promising research from a undergrad because they want the prestige and acknowledgement in the community. They want to to adhere to a code that they themselves have problems following.
Author: Rebelistic [ Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:32 am ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Biggjimm wrote:
I would like it to be a good idea, but there is a issue of trust. You present a peer group with something, its only going to be a matter of time before someone tries to claim it as their own if its good enough. I hate to say it, but mainstream academia is guilty of this. I've seen it first hand were profs steal promising research from a undergrad because they want the prestige and acknowledgement in the community. They want to to adhere to a code that they themselves have problems following.
Yeah I have heard that happens. So any ideas of what we can do to get the info out there in a way of not having it taken? I just think that if we in the Bigfoot community can put stuff out there it could then force the hand of science. I think there is more than enough evidence prove. Could we as a group start the ball rolling?
Author: Grayson [ Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:27 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
I am to the point where I am almost ready to say that written accounts only, without other artifacts or video to support them, as interesting as they may be, are not evidence.
The reason for this is that I believe that I as someone who has never seen a Bigfoot but has read a lot of reports I could write a very believable sighting report. I could provide behavior, surroundings, sounds and incidental details that would make the account believable
Written accounts by themselves are simply too easy to fake. That is not the same thing as saying all the people that make that type of report are liars, they are not. Just that because of the ease of creating a fake written report I don't know if I'd consider them to be evidence
Author: burmballgeetar [ Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:08 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
There is something that needs to be said here...I'm not sure if I'm the only resident skeptic here anymore but I have some issues with what many others think of as evidence. Anything that could be hoaxed, we can assume, will be seen as a hoax. Prints, unfocused or otherwise poor quality pics or video, witness accounts or "historical" references should be avoided as evidence. They are signs of something but not necessarily indicative of Bigfoot.
Evidence that would pass muster with science would be much less circumstantial. Hair, bodyparts or an actual body would suffice. Anything that would contain viable DNA...
Another avenue that isn't mentioned very much is that actual clear video of a Bigfoot that showed it focused and clearly, doing things that a human could not do (moving huge logs, rocks...jumping a huge distance or something of that nature) would do very nicely to sway opinions. The problem with most of the videos and pictures is that they are so easily dismissed as hoaxes. Quite correctly in my opinion.
Author: Rebelistic [ Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:13 am ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
It is easy to call everything a hoax. It is done all the time and suppresses ton of people from bringing forward what they have. Science is a good thing and the protocol is very good. However a lot scientists seem to get in the way of science. And in my opinion that is problem. Sure a body would maybe solve it, but would scientists write it off as a anomaly? DNA is only good if there is something to compare it to otherwise it is considered to be degraded or contaminated. That is just the way it seems to work.burmballgeetar wrote:
There is something that needs to be said here...I'm not sure if I'm the only resident skeptic here anymore but I have some issues with what many others think of as evidence. Anything that could be hoaxed, we can assume, will be seen as a hoax. Prints, unfocused or otherwise poor quality pics or video, witness accounts or "historical" references should be avoided as evidence. They are signs of something but not necessarily indicative of Bigfoot.
Evidence that would pass muster with science would be much less circumstantial. Hair, bodyparts or an actual body would suffice. Anything that would contain viable DNA...
Another avenue that isn't mentioned very much is that actual clear video of a Bigfoot that showed it focused and clearly, doing things that a human could not do (moving huge logs, rocks...jumping a huge distance or something of that nature) would do very nicely to sway opinions. The problem with most of the videos and pictures is that they are so easily dismissed as hoaxes. Quite correctly in my opinion.
As a group we have audio, of vocals of an unknown critter. When you add that with prints, sightings, manipulations etc. but it is no considered as evidence. If there is an unknown vocal, there is a critter making it. Science should be interested in what is making it, but a lot of scientists sure don't seem to.
We have thermal. Heat signatures that defy heights and sizes of humans. What made those heat signatures? I'd think science would want to know. But again a lot of scientists won't even look at it.
Same with video and pictures. IN my opinion the only way that science is going to take a look at it is if a group of scientists all see one and because of their papers on the wall it will be a great thing that science has discovered even though there are researcher out there that have been in the field documenting them for many many years.
This was mainly posted as a way to try and get something in a way for the MABRC and other groups to honestly look into each others evidence as a way of all of us to have a better understanding of what we are dealing with and how we can come up with more stuff.
I think every researcher worth their salt is very skeptical of their stuff. So I don't think you are the only resident skeptic. Far from it. But for all the dismissing of everything that is collected, scrutinized and put out there as possible evidence is just as damaging. I can only talk for my audio, but before I ever put any out there I compare it to known animals. I only use the clearest of audio to eliminate the possibility of distortion from ambient sounds as well as echoes etc. by using spectrograms and other tools I have available to do my best to make sure it is not a misrepresentation or misidentification.
Science is failed by scientists in my opinion, not by a lack of evidence.
Author: burmballgeetar [ Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Rebel, it's easy to call most things hoaxes and mis-IDs because most of them are. Beyond that, they are easily recognizable as such. Bigfoot enthusiasts (I'll say it again) need to raise the bar on what they consider evidence. If you have to outline pictures or put arrows on it showing what you see, it isn't compelling. If you have audio of a sound in the woods that you can't identify, you should only say that it's unidentified...not that it's most likely Bigfoot. Folks get offended and defensive when I bring these kinds of things up but you have to understand that I don't say this out of spite or in order to be a troll. There is no shortage of audio, blurry pictures, out of focus video, campfire stories or "eyewitness" reports. Unless you find something different, you can expect the same results. No one will care.
Another thing that I'd like to bring up is the lack of understanding, on the part of bigfooters, of how science works. When enough evidence of something is brought forward, science will change it's stance to reflect the reality of things. That's how it works. Science and scientists have been vilified by the bigfoot community for not accepting crappy evidence or second-hand stories. They are made out to be the enemy when the reality is much more the opposite. If compelling evidence is brought forward, it will be recognized by science. Science has nothing to lose and everything to gain from that. The problem is that bigfoot investigators are so invested (whether that be mentally or financially) in their "evidence" that they are offended when it's rejected. Most of the time, rather than go out and try to find better evidence, they throw temper tantrums and insist on their validity.
The truth of the matter is that it wouldn't take just a body. Body parts, *clear and focused* footage or pictures...DNA samples...they are what constitute evidence. The "mountain of evidence" idea, where it's assumed that more and more evidence will pile up and be adequate rather than quality evidence is a horrible way to approach this if you want to be taken seriously. Piling more vague info on an already confused pile of what can be called "less than compelling" evidence only serves to make things more confusing and less convincing. What is acceptable to some people, isn't to others. Being adamant about it doesn't change what's acceptable to science. The idea that it's specific scientists rather than science itself that reject the notion of Sasquatch is a cop out too. There are any number of institutions, schools, foundations, museums and individuals that are available to use if someone is comfortable with the idea of scrutiny.
A lot of people are of the opinion that it's being actively covered up...that lobbyists for oil or logging industries use big money to keep sasquatch undiscovered and the wilderness open for exploitation. It's nonsense. These industries already have to work around environmental concerns and while it's probably a huge nuisance to them, there are as many, if not more, watchdog groups and whistleblowers on the side of the environment as there are on the side of big business. Much like science, the government has nothing to lose and everything to gain from finding a bigfoot. It wouldn't "scare" people away from parks or wild areas any more than bears or cougars do.
The fact is that if the quality of evidence doesn't change, the designation of bigfoot as anything more than a myth won't change either.
Author: Biggjimm [ Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:50 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Actually without a holotype and a paratype specimen to compare it to, even body parts wouldn't be usable as solid evidence since they would just be labeled as unknown, since there is nothing that matches it.
- tooth (2).jpg (24.12 KiB) Viewed 5137 times
Author: burmballgeetar [ Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Bigjimm, I'm not very well versed in DNA analysis, tooth morphology or the Scott's Valley molar but that is the type of evidence that should be focused on. Not the things that get attention now. Things that can be analyzed. Things that actually exist and can be examined. I'd be super curious to know what kind of information comes back from that tooth. Having said that, should it be determined to be human, I'm also super curious to see if footers cry foul. While I'm no longer a believer in bigfoot, I do enjoy staying informed and also watching footers' reactions to things.
Author: Biggjimm [ Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:24 am ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
The testing came back inconclusive on the tooth to the best of my knowledge, but yes I agree on the quality of evidence needed. Its just that in extant mammals that are already known, the quality of sign needed to study is no greater than that we see in bigfoot. In field mammology they use tracks, hair, and scat to identify the presence of a species in an area. In fact several species, like the Kamchatcan Brown Bear were described on trace evidence alone and accepted. In my mind, I am essentially working on the mammology aspect of the science, instead of trying to gather evidence to prove the species, I am studying it.
- greenriver.jpg (32.54 KiB) Viewed 5137 times
Author: Rebelistic [ Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:16 am ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
burmballgeetar wrote:
Bigjimm, I'm not very well versed in DNA analysis, tooth morphology or the Scott's Valley molar but that is the type of evidence that should be focused on. Not the things that get attention now. Things that can be analyzed. Things that actually exist and can be examined. I'd be super curious to know what kind of information comes back from that tooth. Having said that, should it be determined to be human, I'm also super curious to see if footers cry foul. While I'm no longer a believer in bigfoot, I do enjoy staying informed and also watching footers' reactions to things.
The root of this is all in one sentence that you stated. I am not a believer of anything. I have SEEN them. For me the knowledge is there. Now I am trying to figure out the where, what, and why. So what is not good evidence for the non-believer I guess means nothing to me and trying to prove it to them is for me, a useless endeavor. Now if I am lucky enough to find something out there that I suspect is from them I will surely share it. I gave a hair sample to Biggjimm a couple years ago. What he said it was most like doesn't make sense to me but I trust his knowledge. No tantrums as you state. On to the next I say as I'll continue to look for more things as I am out there.
My audio for the most part is labeled as unknown. But if it doesn't compare to known by science critters, and because I know they are there, again I have seen them, I find it possible to probable that it is them. Sorry if that offends you. So again, why should I be worry about proving it to anyone when I know. I followed others leads and found a place where there appeared to have activity. Been in that area 2-3 times a week during the days for a few hours ever since. Go out at night for listening posts every couple of weeks or so and collect audio of unknown. I have seen the prints. I have seen the manipulations of the area. I have heard them grunt. I have heard the knock. I have seen them. I've had rocks thrown at me and my truck. I could go on and on.
Personally I feel no obligation to prove it to anyone. I figure if I have done it, others can to if they want to. And if my findings are not good enough for science or you... so be it. One thing you said on a post a ways back about all the places that will look at things that we find. I sure like to see that list. I have tried 3 times to get institutions to listen to the grunting incident clip. 3 times I was told no either by word or deed. One was a highly known bigfoot organization that Meldrum is part of. One was a primatologist in a zoo. And one was a wildlife biologist with the state. So if you seriously have a list of people that would be willing to look at it I would be indebted to you for that list.
Everyone told me when I got started in this that I would learn more about humans and human nature than I would Bigfoot. They were right!
Author: burmballgeetar [ Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:15 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Where is your grunting clip? Perhaps I (or someone else here) could identify it.
And also, don't feel like I'm calling your integrity or honesty into question but if I believed everyone who told me that they've seen bigfoot, I would have to believe that they were behind every tree in the forest. If you don't feel compelled to find proof, that's fine but you are sharing your thoughts and opinions on a forum that is more or less accessible by the public. You should be prepared to stand behind the things that you say and present your argument. Again, I'm not calling you a liar and I'm not saying you don't believe that you saw bigfoot. What I am saying is that when you share those kinds of things on a forum, you can expect for people to ask for evidence.
The point of my posts here on this thread is that the evidence that has been put forward by the Bigfoot community has not been compelling enough to warrant more investigation by the folks that Footers want validation from. Obviously, I don't mean you personally, but the community of squatchers at large has been seeking to have BF recognized as a species for quite some time. Again, the tantrums that I refer to aren't indicative of you personally but do you remember when the Sykes DNA study came back as bear? Squatchers from Tampa to Tacoma were throwing fits! It was ridiculous. Then they had the audacity to just ignore the results and continue referencing it as if it had come back conclusively as bigfoot. That is a huge problem. It shows a lack of maturity and an overall sense of incompetence and ambivalence towards reality. What I do know is that the folks who claim to do research and then present fuzzy pictures, indistinct videos or rely on trees that are broken by snowload as evidence are not doing anyone any favors other than the skeptics. Who, by the way, are laughing their asses off at what currently passes muster with bigfoot enthusiasts. Again, the focus should be on better evidence, not more evidence.
Rebel, I want to emphasize that this isn't in any way focused on you or your research, with which I am not familiar. This is focused on the bigfoot community at large. You have to admit that nothing of great significance has been brought forward.
Author: Biggjimm [ Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:08 am ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
I tend to agree overall that the bigfoot community needs to police its own , grow up and work together, but in all honesty, its not that much different from any other group of amateurs in a conventional field of science. Take amateur fossil hunters for example. The amount of crap and immaturity in that area within its respective community actually makes the antics of the bigfoot community look tame in comparison....but then again we have to deal with hoaxers and hoaxed evidence, they do not. With the fossil hunters its all about claim jumping, try to discredit finds that may be new species, stealing, etc.
Author: Rebelistic [ Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:13 am ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
The grunting incident is in my research thread. I also used it in my presentation last year at the symposium. Take a listen to it as it sure was an eye opener for me. You could also hear my stuff on my YouTube. Just type in my name, Randy Savig and it will take you to it if you want. I have made an actual video or two on there but for the most part I just use pictures of stuff found in my research site to present my audio. I wasn't aware of the free audio sites at the time so I used that media. Honest opinions of course are welcome. I spent weeks trying to identify any critter that even closely compared to it to no avail. The closest match blew my mind.
Author: Teresa1 [ Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:16 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
What was the closest match you could find Rebel?
Author: Nightwind [ Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:53 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
I'll stand for that ovation Jimm and Rebel, Jimm I have never seen you work, but I can read your work and know it is top job. I'm not much at puckering up but I do know good work when I read it. You Reb I have watched you work, you are the perfect example of (that dog can hunt) you use both ends of the stick to figure out if things are right or wrong. Knowing you as we do, your brain has been wrapped around so many things it has to hurt to think. On the other hand you have no trouble thinking it out for yourself. You don't need any ones help or approval. Good job fellas & ladies
Author: Rebelistic [ Sat Feb 07, 2015 9:19 am ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Teresa1 wrote:
What was the closest match you could find Rebel?
If you go to the audio portion of the evidence room it is there. I can add some more of what I did to get the comparison for the symposium if folks want it. The closest comparison was a gorilla.
Author: TC85 [ Fri Jul 17, 2015 4:31 am ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
I have to agree and disagree with Grayson on sightings being evidence. Any one sighting can't be called evidence but the numbers of can be looked as evidence. Meaning no matter which individual encounter you look at and how credible or fantastical it may be..it cant be proved. However, science would say that the sheer numbers of sightings has to be taken into account because not everyone is lying or mistaken? Right? I don't think I'm able to truly explain the theory behind that but it is impossible to totally discount all encounters as misidentified or hoax. Therefore, it fits into the evidence box somehow?
Author: Rebelistic [ Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:36 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
TC85 wrote:
I have to agree and disagree with Grayson on sightings being evidence. Any one sighting can't be called evidence but the numbers of can be looked as evidence. Meaning no matter which individual encounter you look at and how credible or fantastical it may be..it cant be proved. However, science would say that the sheer numbers of sightings has to be taken into account because not everyone is lying or mistaken? Right? I don't think I'm able to truly explain the theory behind that but it is impossible to totally discount all encounters as misidentified or hoax. Therefore, it fits into the evidence box somehow?
Especially in areas of other reports. Also those are areas where tracks are cast, possible manipulations, unknown audio is collected. The list can be endless in some places.
Author: Holotype [ Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:20 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Well here's my oppinion. Sightings ,however credible , are not evidence . Audio, psudoevidence, at least it can be tested. Thermal same category as audio. . Only true evidence is anatomical .we need a Holotype specimen, it doesn't have to be a whole specimen . A big enough piece of bone , tissue , or hair with viable DNA . if you want to document behavior , how they live , their habits that's fine and dandy. But until this thing is described , and a Holotype, paratype specimen is housed , and curated. it will continue to be viewed by the mainstream as a load of crap. My guess is it won't be one of us dragging one of these things in . It will be an accident , one will be found by a landowner, hunter , or outdoor enthusiast . Probably already has happened they just didn't get past the powers that be yet . But it will happen .
Author: Biggjimm [ Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:02 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Have to agree. Photographic, video, thermal, etc all will not be enough. However that being said, the body of evidence would be enough for any other species....
in fact there are a few that were described on less. But this one, as scrutinized as it is, only a body will work
Author: Holotype [ Mon Aug 17, 2015 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
I agree Jim , the body of evidence should be enough . And taxonomic nomenclature has been assigned to unknowns with less evidence. For me the the best evidence so far is
1 footprints with ridge patterns .
2 not one sighting . But the cumulative sightings , past ,and present . All of them as a whole
3 and the Paterson gimlin film . Anyone who says it's a guy in a suit , just hasn't looked at it with an educated eye .
4 and of course the two I have seen myself .
Author: Grayson [ Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:02 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Your #2 should be expandedHolotype wrote:
I agree Jim , the body of evidence should be enough . And taxonomic nomenclature has been assigned to unknowns with less evidence. For me the the best evidence so far is
1 footprints with ridge patterns .
2 not one sighting . But the cumulative sightings , past ,and present . All of them as a whole
3 and the Paterson gimlin film . Anyone who says it's a guy in a suit , just hasn't looked at it with an educated eye .
4 and of course the two I have seen myself .
Sightings all over the world by multiple cultures and over centuries. The sightings and described behavior are consistent from place to place and over time. This is important because before the mid 19th Century there was very little communication between these cultures.
Also the reports began to surface as soon as immigrants arrived in an area for example lumber jacks, miners and trappers are the first to report encounters. Why are their reports of encountering cougars, bears, wolves, coyotes and other large predators believed but the accounts of encountering Sasquatch deemed to be misidentification or tall tails?
Author: Holotype [ Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:52 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Yes Grayson , you are right . It's funny I was going to add what you added , but just decided to keep it simple . For me native American accounts , and cross cultural names for the animal. Seem very important . And should attract more interest by ethnozoologists.
Author: Grayson [ Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:50 pm ]
Post subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Holotype wrote:
Yes Grayson , you are right . It's funny I was going to add what you added , but just decided to keep it simple . For me native American accounts , and cross cultural names for the animal. Seem very important . And should attract more interest by ethnozoologists.
All that said.
I agree there needs to be a holotype. That is a sad thing to say but it is true.
Updates every