How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions

[William Parcher]

FWIW, I made a typo in post #12 that would have confused anyone reading it. I corrected it, but the unedited version is quoted by River in post #16.

 

[tsig]

~sigh~ I'm done. I really am. Apparently discussing rhetorical tactics is beyond folks here.

Probably because all your posts are "Y'all are so dumb".

This is off putting.

 

[William Parcher]

Or like, "I am your unerring messiah. Deal with it."

 

[dmaker]

This statement would be true for "Bigfoot claims can be dismissed because the voices in my head say so" as well. Proper methodology trumps accuracy every time. The logic is simple: proper methodology includes mechanisms for self-correction.

Secondly, while it may be accurate, it fails to have any impact and--more importantly--is detrimental to the cause. Such dismissals as are common on this forum alienate the people we are trying to convince and shut down any possible conversation. No one's going to bother talking to someone who's SOP is to insult those on the other side--not even (and this is the important bit) those who aren't really convinced either way. In contrast, rigorous analysis may drive some away because it's boring, but it will not drive them away because of the toxicity of the discussion. More rigorous analysis has at least a chance of being heard, if not by the core of true believers than at least by those who remain unconvinced.

I enjoyed your post and I do see your point. When presented with claims supported by anecdotes alone, however, how do you perform rigorous analysis? That is often the situation. Particularly with certain bigfoot enthusiasts who promote ideas like if you can't prove an anecdote wrong, then it's true. Usually evoking Occam at the same time.

 

[Cervelo]

Dinwar,
I often proposed on BFF that there's almost the exact same "evidence" for dragons as there is for Bigfoot.

 

[Drewbot]

Dinwar.
Nice RageQuit, however,

I think you are forgetting that many of us have already tried to scientifically debunk the Bigfoot. (or the Dragon in the Garage)

We have followed Sagan's attempts to test their claims, and with each test, Bigfoot becomes more and more silly.

Bigfoot is an incorporeal, floating, camera detecting, gun smelling, burier of it's own dead. Well, I'll just show you my graphic on what Bigfoot can do...

This one is up to date through Addendum 2, perhaps you can see the absurdity that Bigfoot has become. And can now sympathize with those of us who have given up on trying to scientifically explain how BIGFOOT doesn't Porpoise through rivers whilst catching salmon...

Dinwar, the one thing that you will succeed at by going into more scientific methods of inquiry, is give the Bigfooters more GAPS to put their Bigfoot's attributes into...

PS: Could Dinwar, or a Mod tag this thread with 'Bigfoot'?

 

[theprestige]

I for one have learned tons of interesting things about the Apollo Project from rigorous rebuttals of Apollo hoax claims. Surely rebuttals of the form "cryptid claims are dumb lol" are of interest to nobody but the rebutter?

Why not showcase proper methodology, if you have it and know how to apply it?

 

[The Shrike]

It's not your advocating using reason and logic that people take exception to it's your implication that no one else but you has ever used reason and logic.

Indeed.

I've now had a chance to read the article. For those interested in the Cliff Notes version, the authors (Senter and Klein) conducted a morphological analysis of seven centuries'-old illustrations of "dragons". I think two of them are alleged to have been drawn by an individual examining an actual specimen; the remaining five were copies of those original illustrations.

Senter and Klein treated these illustrations as depicting chimeras. They apparently made the assumption that the chimeras actually existed and were examined by the two first-person illustrators, as opposed to simply having been concocted in the minds of the illustrators themselves. Sloppy . . .

Whether chimeras of the mind or the flesh, however, the authors set about to analyze different pieces of the illustrated anatomy and first demonstrate inconsistencies with the known morphology of pterosaurs. Next, they hypothesized about the source material from among known animals. For example, they concluded that one well-known specimen included " . . . the skull of a common weasel; the belly skin of a snake; the dorsal and lateral skin of one or two individual lizards, possibly of the genus Lacerta ; the tail skeleton of an eel; and “wings” that remain a mystery." Their analysis consisted of looking at the illustrations and finding pieces of other animals that vaguely resembled pieces of the illustrations.

Dinwar finds this to be an example of how we should apply critical thinking to claims of bigtfoot. Okay, so just off the top of my head . . .

1) Claim - bigfoot in a freezer. Analysis - comparative anatomy reveals remarkable resemblance to "Horrordome" costume; subsequent analysis reveals intestines associated with the costume to have come from an opossum.
2) Claim - we have bigfoot DNA from hair, scat, blood, and a "steak". Analysis - DNA all from known animals.
3) Claim - there's a juvenile bigfoot in this game cam photo. Analysis - comparative anatomy reveals remarkable resemblance to black bear.
4) Claim - bigfoot butt-print at Skookum Meadows. Analysis - elk.
5) Claim - bigfoot footprints have dermal ridges. Analysis - dermal ridges are artifacts of the plaster casting process.
6) Claim - bigfoot footprints illustrate mid-tarsal break. Analysis - pressure ridge thought indicative of flexible foot easily produced by inflexible stomper.

I could go on.

I don't know where Dinwar got the idea that people haven't critically evaluated claims of bigfoot, because examples are legion. Some of the folks participating here were instrumental in the analyses of those claims.

The bigger issue lies here, however. Let's say that, despite the analysis indicating the chimeras in the article, people have been claiming to see the little winged dragons more or less continuously to the present day. There are 4722 claims of U.S. bigfoot encounters in the BFRO database. Would Senter and Klein have had to turn in their critical thinker's decoder rings if, after examining the 4000th claim they decided to adopt a default position of "those are taxidermied chimeras, not pterosaurs"? How many claims leading to the same result need to addressed before the most plausible explanation is "hoax" and that can serve as the default?

The OP fails on these two points: false premise that bigfoot claims have not received actual, critical scrutiny and strawman fallacy that some of us attribute "all" bigfoot claims to lies.

 

[Night Walker]

Senter and Klein treated these illustrations as depicting chimeras. They apparently made the assumption that the chimeras actually existed and were examined by the two first-person illustrators, as opposed to simply having been concocted in the minds of the illustrators themselves. Sloppy . . .

A chimera is defined as “any mythical or fictional animal with parts taken from various animals, or to describe anything composed of very disparate parts, or perceived as wildly imaginative, implausible, or dazzling.” (source)

Nowhere in the article do the Senter & Klein make the claim that “chimeras actually existed” as living creatures and, rather than simply assume that the original illustrations were simply “concocted in the minds of the illustrators themselves”, the authors make the case that two illustrations were drawn directly from taxidermied specimens. Other examples of skillful taxidermic chimeras of the time are also given to provide support and the appropriate context that such specimens actually existed as “taxidermic composites” rather than as actual living creatures (or the remains thereof).

I don't know where Dinwar got the idea that people haven't critically evaluated claims of bigfoot, because examples are legion. Some of the folks participating here were instrumental in the analyses of those claims.
...
The OP fails on these two points: false premise that bigfoot claims have not received actual, critical scrutiny and strawman fallacy that some of us attribute "all" bigfoot claims to lies.

Dinwar does not claim that “people haven’t evaluated claims of bigfoot” (this, itself, is a strawman fallacy) but, rather, advocates in favour of “actually looking at the claims” individually in a rigorous scientific manner – which includes the context of historical and on-going cryptozoological hoaxing – instead of simply reflexively dismissing claims out of hand and from afar.

As he says in the OP: “Sure, it requires more effort. And that effort probably could be put to more useful purposes. But that's ignoring the context; we all do goofy things.” Let’s face it - Cryptozoology is a goofy subject yet it is one that we here all partake and enjoy so let’s aim for a higher standard of skeptical goofiness instead of simply reflexively dismissing claims out of hand.

Good stuff, Dinwar…

 

[The Shrike]

Nowhere in the article do the Senter & Klein make the claim that “chimeras actually existed” as living creatures and,

Bolding mine. Why did you add that bit? I didn't write that. It's almost like you're trying to take me to task for a statement I didn't make . . .

Dinwar does not claim that “people haven’t evaluated claims of bigfoot”

Actually, he kinda does.

(this, itself, is a strawman fallacy) but, rather, advocates in favour of “actually looking at the claims” individually in a rigorous scientific manner

The people to whom Dinwar addressed these comments have invested enormous collective time and effort in evaluating bigfooty claims, i.e., actually looking at them, with rigor. I'd be willing to bet that guys like RayG, William Parcher, Drewbot, River, and many others here (myself included) have invested more time in rigorous analysis of alleged bigfoot evidence than Senter and Klein did in the preparation and publication of that manuscript.

 

[Drewbot]

I would be glad to go ahead and do a paper like that, for Bigfoot drawings. I would take the Bigfoot drawings and compare them to other Giant, North American Bipedal Primates... oh wait, i mean compare them to other Giant, Asian Bipedal Primates no, sorry, i mean compare them to all the real, actually discovered Giant Bipedal Primates, with Mid Tarsal Breaks, that we have in the fossil record...

 

[The Shrike]

Go for it, Drewbot. To analyze bigfoot with rigor, apparently all you need do is apply some comparative anatomy speculation to different body components apparent in images like these. My analysis indicates that those chimaeras were constructed from great ape heads, orang-utan hides, and skeletal musculature from Marvel superheroes.

 

[Drewbot]

Go for it, Drewbot. To analyze bigfoot with rigor, apparently all you need do is apply some comparative anatomy speculation to different body components apparent in images like these. My analysis indicates that those chimaeras were constructed from great ape heads, orang-utan hides, and skeletal musculature from Marvel superheroes.

All of those pictures can be matched to a real creature.

When Walter Langowski left MIT, he had little idea that his Gamma Radiation experimentation would lead to him becoming part of the great Canadian mutant fighting organization; Alpha Flight. However, these drawings of Sasquatch, do actually represent a real super-hero.

http://marvel.wikia.com/Walter_Langkowski_(Earth-616)



PS: Except for this guy... http://www.thepaintedcave.com/img/pete/sasketch/hypo/body/sasbody_v28_1209.jpg I really no idea WTH this guy is.

 

[comncents]

I am willing to compromise. I’ll support the rigorous analysis of all Footie evidence that provides something tangible for analysis and has a reasonable chance of being valid. IOW, no more campfire stories of handprints on the tent or flying candy. No more footprints to nowhere, stick structures or random broken trees. No more bodies stored in secret places or government conspiracies.
I would accept the “1080HD full facial from 15ft” as long it as looks something like this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib4wFTFzMI4

but no more “family group footage” like this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAcA8Ztta0I

But don’t be surprised if the analysis of the HD video gives results like this…



Basically, Show Us the Monkey (or something that could reasonably be the monkey)....we’re waiting.

 

[jerrywayne]

Dinwar,
I often proposed on BFF that there's almost the exact same "evidence" for dragons as there is for Bigfoot.

Or more contemporaneously, werewolves. Hombre-lobos are making a comeback.

 

[William Parcher]

The opening post article is about late-surviving pterosaurs and their criticisms. Though the article does reference a Jonathan Whitcomb, it is a shame that it doesn't include any insight into the man and what he has been up to.

Critical studies of modern cryptozoologists and their apologists can sometimes be boring and redundant because it is like turtles-all-the-way-down, but instead it is crackpots-all-the-way-down.

Though scientists may feel a desire or obligation to properly criticize them, it does very little more than simply making the skeptics more smarter while also making the crypto believers more frustrated and bitter.

Jonathan Whitcomb is a late-surviving pterosaur promoter and something like a whirlwind Tasmanian Devil bouncing around the firmament. He refers to his beloved late-surviving pterosaurs as The Ropen.

Look here at "Fake Pterosaurs and Sock Puppets" to see what's behind his smoke and mirrors. You will even be treated to comments by Whitcomb himself.

It has all the bells and whistles of cryptozoology, pseudointelligence, pseudonyms, creationism, and the drive of the Crazy Train. Read all the links including those in the comments. Thumbs-up to Daniel Prothero and PZ Myers, and especially for not hesitating to use the deep cutting sword of ridicule.

 

[Night Walker]

Bolding mine. Why did you add that bit? I didn't write that. It's almost like you're trying to take me to task for a statement I didn't make . . .

I’m not taking you to task – just clarifying your statement which seems to indicate that chimeras do/did not exist in any form beyond the imaginary.

Actually, he kinda does.

He kinda claims that “people haven’t evaluated claims of bigfoot”?

The people to whom Dinwar addressed these comments have invested enormous collective time and effort in evaluating bigfooty claims, i.e., actually looking at them, with rigor. I'd be willing to bet that guys like RayG, William Parcher, Drewbot, River, and many others here (myself included) have invested more time in rigorous analysis of alleged bigfoot evidence than Senter and Klein did in the preparation and publication of that manuscript.

… and you’ve all done a marvelous job in debunking some Bigfoot claims. Why not up the ante and submit some of your efforts to peer-review (like Senter & Klein)? It might take more effort than preaching to the converted on a skeptical forum…

 

[William Parcher]

Why not up the ante and submit some of your efforts to peer-review (like Senter & Klein)?

For me, the answer would be no interest.

 

[The Shrike]

For me, the answer would be no interest.

Also, others already have published bigfoot refutation papers. They work best as specific analysis of alleged physical evidence, e.g., molecular analysis of hairs. I don't think we can publish a paper refuting the kind of silly claims that tend to get pooh-poohed by us meanie-heads here at the ISF, e.g., "bigfoot tossed a Good-and-Plenty at my buddy."

 

[jerrywayne]

I'm with Dinwar on this issue.

Let's argue the issues and arguments revealed and used by Bigfoot enthusiasts. Skeptics here have been masterful over the years in addressing such topics. For instance, Kit and Parcher's examination of alleged Bigfoot trackways in Northern California in the late 1950s is the way to do it. They presented what was needed: a rigorous debunking of a plank in the Bigfoot story.

Nowadays, though, there does seem to be an over-reliance here on the fraud and dishonesty that is undeniable in Bigfootery and using it as a virtual go-to explanation for all things relating to the Bigfoot phenomenon. For instance, not only is Dyer a liar and Standing a hoaxer (and both obviously so), but Meldrum or Bindernagel or anyone that touches the subject is often dismissed as a knowing liar too. Bigfoot proponents come to the skeptics here and we admirably argue with them; then if they don't admit to their errors in reason, some skeptical posters invariably pull out the “you are lying” card and play it.

Do skeptics here really believe almost all Bigfoot phenomena is attributable to knowing lies and fraud/hoaxing, just liars lying to other liars and no one really believing any of it? Well, our poster from Alaska has challenged me to produce the name of just one Bigfoot advocate who really believes in Bigfoot. Sounds like HE doesn't believe there are any real True Believers in the pro-Bigfoot camp. The Shrike seems to think an advocate like Meldrum is in it dishonesty because he is not rationally consistent. Parcher has said he assumes any “eyewitness” is lying; it is WP's first option. River has offered that Bigfoot itself is human hoaxing/fabrication/lying and delusion and just “occasionally” misidentification.

Maybe we have different goals here. Once. I reasoned that the Ruby Creek sighting, an early plank in the sasquatch story, was a bear encounter. I was told it was pointless to “shoehorn” a bear into a Bigfoot sighting; another poster offered that a better explanation was to assume it was all just a lie to begin with. One poster even wondered why I felt it was necessary to explain a Bigfoot sighting at all.

For me, I want to explore why, when I was a little kid, no one had any idea that America was home to indigenous, anomalous, giant bipedal apes, and now thousands of people claim to see these apes all over the U.S. and thousands more give the idea of native apes credence. How did this idea, this belief, come about? What's behind it? How did this phenomenon evolve? For instance, how different would things be today if John Green didn't believe two tall tales (Roe and Ostman) and had recognized a bear encounter made into a sasquatch event by Indian superstition at Ruby Creek? And as a former believer, I know what it's like to hold a belief in Bigfoot. I know to dismiss my belief as a knowing lie on my part is bogus as an explanation. I extrapolate my experience to the phenomenon as a whole.

Dinwar's call for rigorous examination of the arguments put forth by Bigfoot advocates is noncontroversial, or ought not be. As a side benefit, perhaps it would help articulate why people believe in such things. And his criticism of the overuse of the “fraud and lying” explanation for Bigfootery has more merit than folks here care to recognize.