Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

What constitues evidence?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31    White Unicorn

White Unicorn

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 724 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:05 AM

View Postsam12six, on 26 February 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:



That's why cryptozoology isn't a science. There's no qualifications and no degrees involved. Call yourself an expert and go out into the woods and howl for a while and you're as much of a cryptozoologist as anyone else. IF smoking gun evidence for Biff shows up (a body or part of one), then the species will graduate into the realm of science and be dealt with and studied by biologists. 'Til then all the stuff mentioned is like I said before - just a bunch of stuff you can interpret depending on your own beliefs.


I agree with you totally.  As in the case of big foot which everyone one seems to be interested and discussing.

I was in the mountains on a hike video in hand and a fellow hiker said look and we started filming what looked to me like what people call big foot. I thought, could be a stupid man in monkey suit although it looked real and was interesting to watch.  I didn't think, oh I can post on Utube or something...didn't have that back then anyway...well I didn't become a believer because to me the evidence of video was not enough to even prove it to me.    

Years later, a co worker went camping with family in another state.  The son got photos of one running from their tent after it was stealing food from the tent during the night.  They all saw him and are hard core believers of the big foot now and said it wasn't human and will never go back because it was so scary.

I think some things out there exist that are getting grouped together as big foot. They said the campground called it "grassman" because it built little huts from twigs and grass in the area. I've seen the huts before and thought, weird hunters, since I didn't hear the local legend until after that story.  It was real whatever was building the huts and stealing food. I now know why the little campground is popular for more than the stables LOL. But it could just have been a mental case of a "wild man" since it was in the same region as a closed mental hospital in my opinion. After all, there are some really big hairy naked guys and they could go crazy. Photos were good but not enough to say he wasn't a big ugly hairy human with a Mick Jagger like mouth! They didn't go public.    

I try to be open minded and say there's a possibility they exist but I don't have any evidence to rule out other explanations to myself.


#32    Domina Lucis

Domina Lucis

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere that has chocolate

  • "I'm not dead, so I'm obviously doing something right."

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:06 AM

I think for us to be able to say without a doubt "Bigfoot is an actual creature that exists.", we need body or DNA or something of that sort. A picture, video, and/or report is just not going to cut it. Videos and photos can always be faked and there's no way to prove a person is telling the truth or lying. There will always be a little needle of doubt with those kinds of things. You need something that cannot be denied, cannot be faked, and is physical.

My two cents.

Posted Image

Domina Lucis


#33    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:20 AM

View PostWhite Unicorn, on 26 February 2013 - 02:05 AM, said:

I agree with you totally.  As in the case of big foot which everyone one seems to be interested and discussing.

I was in the mountains on a hike video in hand and a fellow hiker said look and we started filming what looked to me like what people call big foot. I thought, could be a stupid man in monkey suit although it looked real and was interesting to watch.  I didn't think, oh I can post on Utube or something...didn't have that back then anyway...well I didn't become a believer because to me the evidence of video was not enough to even prove it to me.

Years later, a co worker went camping with family in another state.  The son got photos of one running from their tent after it was stealing food from the tent during the night.  They all saw him and are hard core believers of the big foot now and said it wasn't human and will never go back because it was so scary.

I think some things out there exist that are getting grouped together as big foot. They said the campground called it "grassman" because it built little huts from twigs and grass in the area. I've seen the huts before and thought, weird hunters, since I didn't hear the local legend until after that story.  It was real whatever was building the huts and stealing food. I now know why the little campground is popular for more than the stables LOL. But it could just have been a mental case of a "wild man" since it was in the same region as a closed mental hospital in my opinion. After all, there are some really big hairy naked guys and they could go crazy. Photos were good but not enough to say he wasn't a big ugly hairy human with a Mick Jagger like mouth! They didn't go public.

I try to be open minded and say there's a possibility they exist but I don't have any evidence to rule out other explanations to myself.

Interesting, do you still have the footage you took of whatever it was? I know I'd love to see it.


#34    White Unicorn

White Unicorn

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 724 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:42 AM

View Postkeninsc, on 26 February 2013 - 02:20 AM, said:



Interesting, do you still have the footage you took of whatever it was? I know I'd love to see it.

Looked just like that original one near the lake that was proved a hoax decades ago. Same area but on a mountain beyond the lake.  It's just a hairy figure and you can't tell much even on zoom to determine. Sorry, I've been moving a lot lately and everything is storage.  I'm thinking of putting it all together in a photographic travel expose when I retire and get some free time. Business trip down time for recreational sightseeing, RVing adventures, museums, digs, and the accident weird stuff as a spice.

Edited by White Unicorn, 26 February 2013 - 02:42 AM.


#35    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 8,982 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:36 AM

View PostWhite Unicorn, on 26 February 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

HMM ....I said What you are looking for is DNA, a BODY as a scientific verification  which would be PROOF of the cryptid's existence.

But you don't count witnesses or videos of living animals or their DNA or their living or dead bodies as PROOF that it would just be evidence???
And I said scientific evidence is testable, DNA would be evidence. Now how are witnesses or videos testable by the scientific method? Anecdotes are not evidence, not in this instance.

Edited by Rlyeh, 26 February 2013 - 03:38 AM.


#36    White Unicorn

White Unicorn

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 724 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:08 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 26 February 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

And I said scientific evidence is testable, DNA would be evidence. Now how are witnesses or videos testable by the scientific method? Anecdotes are not evidence, not in this instance.

I wouldn't believe in the witnesses or videos alone and proof would be in DNA or body etc that could be studied. But the witnesses and videos should be taken into account with the study to know more about the animal.    

You said "Science doesn't deal in proof. Proof exists in mathematics and logic."

Appeared to mean there would never be scientific proof of a cryptid's existence even with a body living or dead.





#37    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 8,982 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:41 AM

View PostWhite Unicorn, on 26 February 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

I wouldn't believe in the witnesses or videos alone and proof would be in DNA or body etc that could be studied. But the witnesses and videos should be taken into account with the study to know more about the animal.
Maybe you would... but when you brought up scientific research, you weren't just talking about your standard anymore. Witnesses maybe taken into account, still that isn't enough to be considered evidence.

Quote

You said "Science doesn't deal in proof. Proof exists in mathematics and logic."

Appeared to mean there would never be scientific proof of a cryptid's existence even with a body living or dead.
Correct. Even a living or dead body can be further studied and researched.

Edited by Rlyeh, 26 February 2013 - 04:45 AM.


#38    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,195 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:02 AM

Since this theme seems to be mainly about evidence for Bigfoot and other such things, let me bring up the things that bother me about all this.

While I think it is possible (and anyone who has wandered around northern Canada will know what I mean -- that's very large territory) that a small community of some sort of human variant or pre-human is hiding out there (it would have to be pretty smart and determinedly hiding), it seems wildly unlikely for two reasons, and neither of these seem (to my knowledge) to ever be addressed.

First, how did it evolve?  The age of great apes is long passed, and they were entirely tropical creatures.  If it is some sort of homo erectus, it doesn't fit and would have tools and fire.  Something earlier in human ancestry?  Not in North America surely -- and way too big.

Second, how does it evolve extinction from the consequences of generational in-breeding?  You need a breeding population numbering in the thousands to avoid such extinction over a span of even a few hundred years.  Surely no one thinks a population that large is undiscovered out there?


#39    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,195 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:14 AM

Common speech uses the words "evidence" and "proof" almost interchangeably, with "proof" implying stronger evidence than just evidence.

Logically, a "proof" as in mathematics is nothing more than a demonstration that two statements are tautological -- that is, if one is true, then the other necessarily is true as well, even though it may not be immediately obvious.  As such a proof tells us nothing about the real world, since the first statement could be false, in which case the second remains undetermined.  Therefore such proofs are useful only when we have high confidence in the truth of the first statement.

The word "evidence" is more often used to describe observations we make in the real world that lead us to infer (rather than "deduce" in a proof) that something is true or false.  (I have seen the word "evidence" used to describe the results of a logical proof, so this is hardly rigid).

I think it unwise to ever say, "There is no evidence that . . .."  For example, there is no evidence that there is a God."  Oh, but the universe exists, things are in harmony, sunrises are beautiful, my cat purrs.  Well, it is certainly a non sequitur that any of these statements demonstrate God, but to me at least (a pretty hard atheist), they are evidence -- just not evidence that I find convincing.

It's like poetry -- if it rhymes or uses figures of speech or sound patterns or linguistic stress (in Vietnamese linguistic tone), it is poetry.  It may be bad poetry, but it's still poetry.  The evidence may be poor or bad evidence, but still it is evidence if someone thinks it is.


#40    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:15 AM

Quote

Second, how does it evolve extinction from the consequences of generational in-breeding?  You need a breeding population numbering in the thousands to avoid such extinction over a span of even a few hundred years.  Surely no one thinks a population that large is undiscovered out there?

Depends on whom you ask really. If you go to the BFRO they estimate between 2000 - 6000. Some sites are significantly higher, for instance Crytomundo has a guy who's claiming or I should say pulling out a number of 100,000. I will give the BFRO some credit for explaining to a degree how they managed to S.W.A.G. out their number. The guy at Cryptomungo just sort of came up with it out of some warm, dark, moist place........of course, he might have mentioned it elsewhere and I simply didn't see it.


#41    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,195 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:19 AM

Sounds like hand-waving.


#42    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:50 AM

Might be, but I think everyone sort of has a number in mind.....assuming of course there really are Bigfoot. However, you have to keep in mind that not every sighting reported is an actual Bigfoot. The BFRO assumes that for every sighting they consider to be viable and true there are at least an "X" number of unseen Bigfoots. How they came up with their "X" number is a bit of a mystery to me, but then I'm just a guy.


#43    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 7,057 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:09 PM

~ * waves * * * ~

Quote

' ... life and death carry on as they always have ~ and always will, only the dreamer is gone ~ behind the flow of imagination, beyond any effort to be still
dancing in the ebb and flow of attention, more present than the breath, I find the origins of my illusions, only the dreamer is gone ~ the dream never ends
'

GIFTS WITH NO GIVER - a love affair with truth ~ Poems by Nirmala

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#44    Nathan DiYorio

Nathan DiYorio

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Bitter words with sweet flavor are poison just the same.

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:10 PM

Typically I prefer DNA over videos or photos. Although in the cases of cryptids which are simply larger or smaller members of a classified species (like that episode of Monster Quest where they found out that the squids of one species get really freaking huge) a comparison photo or video can be counted.

On a case-by-case basis other evidence can be counted if it makes sense for the area or if something happens which doesn't make sense for the known fauna. This isn't proof of a cryptid, necessarily, but it is proof of something which needs further investigating.

Edited by Nathan DiYorio, 27 February 2013 - 08:11 PM.

Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users