Recently on the Cryptmundo site, I came across an article posted by Loren Coleman, concerning a new skunk ape sighting. While reading the comments I came across one by a Scott Marlowe that didn't really sit well with me. That being the use of the term skunk ape, or swamp ape. I just don't agree with it and you'll see why below. I also should add at this point that I definitely don't agree with Mr. Marlowe's tactics. I went to his website, www.pangeainstitute.us, to look over "his" database. Imagine my surprise when several of the reports referenced were actually reports that I had investigated while with the BFRO. In fact, it appears that most of the reports were simply plagiarized from different groups' databases, but to the unknowing viewer it would appear that Mr. Marlowe investigated them all himself as there is only his email address on the report and no acknowledgement as to where the report actually came from. For shame, Mr. Marlowe! Plagiarism is hardly a characteristic that one would think an "educator" would stoop to.

Be that as it may, the following dialogue in the comments section is what has prompted me to prepare the following data.







Sorry, but I've got to say, that first paragraph is one of the BIGGEST stretches I've ever read in my life by someone who claims to use a scientific approach.



At this point, a person I can only assume to be an associate of Mr. Marlowe's steps in.







My response below is currently still awaiting moderation.



Okay, so if you've waded through all of that then get ready to have me REALLY bore the crap out of you! :wink:

A major part of my job is dealing with statistics. I'm good with the particular stats that I'm required to work with and if I'm not, then I get to look forward to some irate business owner raising hell with me for screwing up their property assessment. I guess that's why it gets on my nerves when I see someone touting junk science as if its legit.

So, I decided that here was something I could present that is, for the most part, verifiable (I say "for the most part" because what I'm working with are the best guesses of witnesses who've seen these creatures as opposed to someone actually laying a tape measure alongside several of them).

First, I need to give some definitions to the terminology I'll be using.

Dataset - simply the number of samples I'm using in this analysis

Mean - the average of the combined samples

Median - the "middle" number in the dataset (example, where you have 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 15, 17 as the numbers of your dataset, the median is 9)

Coefficient of Dispersion - this is a measure of central tendency that is weighed against the median. I won't get any deeper than that (hopefully Jud will see this and weigh in on a better layman's term than I can), but suffice it to say that the lower this number is, the more heavily you can rely on the median as a useable number

Alright, after all that being said, I'd just like to state that it has been my opinion for quite some time now that it is extremely premature and very unscientific to say that Florida has a different species of sasquatch, when there is absolutely no corraborating evidence to back it up. In fact, everything I've studied seems to indicate that they are very much the same thing as their PNW cousins. I will say that the biggest difference I've noticed tends to be in the bulk of the creatures here versus the PNW. Most witnesses I've spoken with have described these creatures as being lean, or lanky, or looking like a basketball player. Considering the climate here, that makes sense. There's really no need to "bulk up" and too much insulation (fat) in this part of the world could prove extremely detrimental during the summer months.

Onward and upward.

A couple of years ago, I compiled my own spreadsheet for Florida sightings from the BFRO database. One of the things that I included was the height of the creature(s) that was seen by the witness if it had been noted anywhere in the report. After the exchange I had with Mr. Marlowe and DWA, I decided to revisit that spreadsheet. Here's the preliminary data concerning height estimates:



As you can see in the statistical data, the mean and median are both right at seven feet from a dataset of 41 samples. The COD is a bit high at 11.67, but that is due to one height estimate of between 3.5 to 4 feet (perhaps a juvenile?) and another estimate at 12 feet (maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but the number is well outside the rest of the dataset).

Another thing I did was to make a "dot plot" of the sighting data. This is useful in that it gives a graphical representation of the dataset. And in a normal distribution, it should approximate a bell-shaped curve. It does.



I decided to throw out the two "outliers" (3.75 and 12) in order to "tighten up" the dataset and see what the stats would look like then:



This time the COD is even tighter.

And here's the revised dot plot:



As I said, in a normal distribution your data should approximate a bell-shaped curve and even though this one is skewed somewhat to the smaller end (and understandably so, I might add. After all, these things must grow "up" the same as we do), it still indicates to me that the people who witness these creatures are, in fact, looking at a real live animal. I just don't see how a normal distribution could be obtained if these people were all hallucinating.



It is also important to add that these reports come from all over the state of Florida and are not confined to any one particular area. And from what I've read in the reports available this continues right on up into Alabama and Georgia. Hardly a decent arguement for a separate species, in my opinion.



Anyone wishing to use any of this data can feel free, just please give credit to the source. It's the polite thing to do. :wink:

I've just had occasion to see how Mr. Marlow jumps to conclusions in a thread on CZ.com (where he likes to hang out). But I'm surprised to hear that he's taking other people's work and using it unattributed. Actually, surprised isn't strong enough.

Perhaps I'm not as surprised that his statements about the "swamp ape" aren't well founded.

Looks good , Tim ,and I agree since you and I have discussed your data in the past and I used a similar format for what I have in Mi. several of the reports being used are one I investigated also. At the very least credit should go to the investigator or originating orginization.

To answer your question about the 3-4 foot height estimate , yes the witness did believe it to be a juvenile.

The internet has been a real learning experience for me. I'm just an ordinary person... I was thrilled to find a wealth of information at my fingertips! That was several years ago...

Then there's now. I've learned alot. "Just because someone says something, doesn't mean its so, nor is there a guarantee that it is true!" I've learned to scrutinize, but can still be fooled. This stealing of other's work is really sleazy (sp?), and is difficult to detect unless you're familiar with the particulars of a case or cases. It's terrific when someone like you, Fishie, catches them red-handed! I don't understand why people do this, other than sheer laziness, and the desire to become some kind of an "expert" in the field of bigfoot...
But why can't they then think to the future & not know that they will be exposed? :doh: Are they clueless?

And on the same subject, why is Wikipedia quoted so often on this & other boards? From what I see, anyone can post there... Now what's etched in theoretical stone about that place? Please let me know where I'm wrong about this one, 'cause I'm at a loss to figure it out...

But good for you Fishie! At least you confronted them!


Editted to add: It's a bell-shaped curve. Tall, short, young, old. It works. Lord, even dandelions come in different sizes!

Excellent! Then I was right to throw that one out. Now, can you tell me if the witness for the 12 footer was a midget? That'd make it perfect! :laugh:



Thanks, Littlefoot. But that's going to pale to me confronting Debra Leonard, the Executive Director for Florida Keys Community College. I don't really believe any college is going to be kosher with one of their affiliates plagiarizing data, even if that affiliate is only "teaching" a non-credit course. As my good buddy bipto would say, "That ain't cat." :wink:

:laugh: Wish I could , but that one wasn't me.

The ones that have seen me posting ere the last couple of years know that I believe 100% that Bigfoot is a real animal and is out there some place. But I must say that I am not 100% sure that what people see in Florida is what most of us would call a Bigfoot, Let me explain.
I know of at least 4 different spots in Florida that has some sort of monkeys living wild and thriving. I have also heard some reports of large apes as well and not just smaller monkeys. Personally I think what people see in Florida are some sort of Monkey/Ape living wild and they say they say a Bigfoot. Monkeys and Apes do not belong in Florida but they can live here just fine in many places including where most of the Bigfoot sightings come from. If you look at a lot of the sightings from here in Florida they will say young ones or one that is at least not as tall as in other places. Sure some of the reports have them much taller but most are on the small side for Bigfoot reports.

I can just see it happen in my mind. Someone late at night sees lets say a Orangutan run across the road. They call 911 and say "Hey I just seen a Big monkey run across the road" The 911 person takes the report and then has a good laugh with the others that the person seen a Bigfoot. They might even say that to the person jokingly. Or who knows they call the police and say the same thing and it gets turned into a Bigfoot as well. The point is it would be easy for someone to see a Ape or monkey here in Florida out in the wild. And as being that apes and monkeys do not belong here it is easy to see why someone would turn it into a Bigfoot.

I believe in my heart that Bigfoot is a real animal and is running around out there some place right now. But I am not sure that they are here in Florida. I also am not all that sure that most of the cases here in Florida are not just mistaken Monkey/Ape sightings.

Damn! Oh well, that one's not enough to skew the data out of kilter. :wink:

Micahn,

I know where you're coming from regarding mistaken identity sightings and I'm also aware that there are several species of exotics that aren't supposed to be here in Florida, yet they are anyway.

But from the data I supplied above, there was only one height estimate shorter than five feet, and as Jim just pointed out, the witness believed it to be a juvenile.

Of course, five feet would still be well within the range of a chimp or an orang, but I find it very hard to believe that there could possibly be enough of either roaming the state to account for all of the sightings that have been reported, even in that height range.

As for not being sure that they're here in Florida, well, I just wish you could have been with me when I interviewed a couple of witnesses who've always stood out prominently in my mind. If you'd seen the look of conviction, sincerity, and outright amazement at remembering what they'd witnessed then there'd be little room for doubt that these people saw what they say they saw. I know that doesn't help to convince you, because like the old saying goes, "You'd have just had to be there."

Nice work Tim! I'd love to see you do that with the Arkansas reports.

Tsk Tsk Mr. Marlowe to plagiarize other's investigations and claim them as your own on your site. For SHAME. That puts you in the category with the Biscardis, Moneymakers and Crooks in the credibility department.

As you would no doubt say to your students, "Do your own work!"

Tim, I remember in another thread Judaculla said that the appearance of a bell shaped curve doesn't mean that the animal really exists. He was talking about footprint finds, but his argument was along the lines of hoaxers don't know what size feet to make, but they probably all know the feet need to be larger than human size, and it seems reasonable that most of them would choose a large, but not too large, size, which would converge on a number with outliers on either side.

Adapting that argument here -- since size is always an estimate, and the "prevailing wisdom" for years has been that these things are 7' or taller, wouldn't the same argument hold?

I'm not trying to undermine your argument at all; to my untrained eye it looks like a solid argument. I'm looking for the answer to that particular criticism in both cases of height and footprint size. It seems that Dr. Fahrenbach's whole line of reasoning is weakened by Judaculla's argument and I wondered if there is any rebuttal possible from a statistical point of view -- ie, is there anything in the data that points away from hoaxing and human error accounting for the bell curve?

EDIT -- changing inches to feet. No 7" squatches in the data!

I believe you're talking about this one , Db.

That's exactly the one!

You're right, DB. A bell-shaped curve doesn't mean that these creatures exist. I probably should have been clearer in my explanation. What I'm seeing though, is that when you put this information in conjunction with other statistical data, such as footprint measurements, it certainly begins to make the arguement for the existence of these creatures much more compelling.

And of course, all the statistical analysis in the world won't prove the existence of these creatures, but I am of the belief that if enough data is compiled in this manner (when and where available), it should make a much better arguement to "mainstream science".

I'd like to think that could possibly happen, anyway. I'd really love to see someone who is scientifically-minded, ethical, and responsible, finally be able to get a grant to really take on a serious study of these creatures. And if what little information I might be able to throw out there could ultimately help in that regard, then I'd be tickled to death! (And hopefully they'd be willing to throw me a bone and let me in on the expedition/study/field work, etc.) :wink:

And as a sidenote: I see that Mr. Marlowe has now listed the source of the reports in "his" database. They were not listed as of yesterday, so it would appear that his attention was gotten regarding that matter. Good! (I still can't help but wonder why he and the mysterious "DWA" haven't chosen to take up the conversation from Cryptomundo over here though. Too many views maybe?)

Excellent work Tim

Im not a fan of Marlow - but question, that sketch he had made up of that "thing with white eyes" - is that supposta be a skunk ape? Is that his opinion?

Fish, I think the statistical stuff is compelling. It isn't my forte so I was absolutely asking for knowledge there.. I think what you just said makes the argument seem better -- the statistical data all support each other, seemingly pointing to something that has the dimensions of a living creature. I suppose one could cast doubt on any one piece, but what are the odds hoaxers would get everything so close, even with the "pressure" exerted by the idea of the "common" sasquatch?

In fact, you'd figure that if they are all hoaxes and misidentifications, you'd get a lot of 8 footers and then a lot that are much smaller (because they are actually bears and other animals mistaken for bigfoot, and none of those animals are big enough outside of the range of the brown bear). It doesn't make sense to me that all the distributions would look good.

If I understand his contentions correctly, that pencil necked bubble headed thing drawn by a witness named Jennifer is supposed to represent what Marlowe calls a “Swamp Ape” as opposed to a “Skunk Ape.”

He thinks Florida “Skunk Ape” reports either refer to hoaxes or sightings of individuals of a southern population of the same species of undocumented primate most often reported from the PNW. The "Swamp Ape," he thinks, is a totally different species from what we know as the Sasquatch.

According to a report on his Pangea website, Marlowe thinks the “Swamp Ape” evolved from the same primate stock that gave rise to New World monkeys. He bases this, in part, on Jennifer’s description of a flat nose.

I agree with Fish. The whole thing is absurd.

Yes, DB, it's true that this analysis alone, as outstanding as it is, won't stand alone as sufficient evidence of the animals' existence, but it seems to me that it's another extremely interesting piece of analyzed data that is a bit difficult to shake off.

Very nice work, Tim.

By the way, your interview was excellent.

And yes I'd like to see those pics of you with face paint. Maybe I can improve my face paint application methods. :wink:

the bell shape tends to disprove [not completely] the fact that every sighting is a hoax. if all the info was hoaxed there would not tend to be the bell shape due to people hoaxing what they generally believe a creature would look like. the shape would be more linear then curved.

That's what I thought, only I didn't think linear. You'd have a great clump at some range that corresponds with cultural ideas of "bigfoot" (and I guess that could be linear within its range), and then a lot of smaller ones for all the mis-IDs that were bears -- not a bell curve.

But I have to confess -- I'm a musician, not a statistician. Numbers are not really my thing..

Except "a one two three four.." :thrasher:

Not really, alot depends on the circumstances and the investigation that goes into the.

If you were to base an analysis on tracks alone as a means of corroboration then Judacullas linked to writing would be correct.
For example. I currently have two sets of "feet' for testing purposes. The first set is particle board . Mostly used in the winter for testing on snow. They measure 17L x 7B x 5H. The other set I have are used more for testing in differnt strata made from a 2x6 plank and carved out. The measurement there is basically 14L x 5 1/2B x 4 3/4 H. So if I were to "find" set 2 in August, set 1 in Oct and set 2 again in March, then it would also make that same bell shaped curve. With differnt people hoaxing tracks it would be much the same,working seperatly as Jud pointed out they would vary in both size and times of year found to create that same bell shaped curve.

We don't know that measurements for a set of known fake tracks would demonstrate a normal distribution or that analysis of the fakes would produce the same statistical results as a set of tracks thought to be legitimate. It is an interesting experiment that could probably be tested with the proper design, as Jud has suggested on other occasions.

The timing associated with the track find scenario you describe would have no bearing on the data distribution, if that is part of what you are implying (unless your study has to do with seasonal variation of foot size). The more important point has to do with sample size. You cannot place confidence in conclusions drawn from three samples.

I'm no number crunching pro, but I know sample size is important in statistical analyses. The Florida data Fish examined involved 41 values. Googling for information about determining adequacy of sample sizes led me to this place where I entered values provided by Fish. This resulted in 99% confidence interval of 6.59289<7.12<7.64711 (i.e., 6' 7" to 7' 7").

The case of finding two 14" tracks and one 17" track, as described in your imaginary scenario, resulted in 99% CI: 5.08692<15<24.91308. If I'm interpreting this semi-correctly, this means that 99 times out of 100 one would expect to find the actual or true value for this population parameter is between 5 inches and 25 inches. Not too helpful. More data needed.

However, admittedly, stats are not my thing. I may not have used the appropriate forumlas or interpreted the results accurately.

I'm going back to trying to figure out soccer. :new_weirdsmiley:

Let me get back to you on that, I'm no where close to being a statistician either. Wondering though Tim if you see this ,would you prefer a seperate thread to deal with the track thing ?

And soccer ? I'm in the same boat as you one that one.

Nah, I think this thread is a good one to continue this discussion. After all, it's the tracks, the height estimates, the color variations, the seasons, months, times of day...all of that and more that will help to work in conjunction with each other.

As peregrine pointed out, the example you used has too few samples to place any reliability on. In fact, the sample size I used is pretty much a bare minimum, but I wanted to see how it related to the reports from Florida. (And T, you got yourself a deal. I'll start working through the height estimates for Arkansas next.) Ideally, what I would really like to do is take height estimates from across the continent, run the same statistics, as well as arraying the data on a GIS program to see how things measure up (no pun intended). I think it would be very interesting to find that as you move into more mountainous regions the height estimates begin to climb. I've had it in my head for a while that larger size would be more of an advantage in mountainous regions simply because it'd be easier to get around. That's why I used to not accept the height estimates from here in Florida. I just couldn't see something that large being able to get around in the denser vegetation we have around here. However, after I began lining up the height estimates it became apparent that folks were indeed seeing a creature that ran about 7' in the median. (And I also had to realize that at 6' 2" I can move around just fine in the densest crap myself if I don't mind belly-crawling and/or getting scratched all to hell and back by the thorny vines.)

And peregrine, to the best of my knowledge you're reading that confidence interval correctly. As for soccer, I stay away from that too. It seems to make the people in the audience crazy and want to kill each other. Too dangerous a game for my taste. :wink:

Uh...did someone have a question?

Looks like y'all have got this pretty much settled. :happy:

Ha ha. Very funny. It is to laugh.

Yeah I got a question...you gonna' tell me if I get at least a C- on that? Did you happen to see any glaring errors that I missed? Is my reasoning on the right track with these numbers?

[Doctor McCoy]

Damnit man! I'm a bureaucrat, not a statistician!

[/Doctor McCoy]

:laugh:

Not only does he do a good McCoy, but a darn good Daffy Duck too! :laugh:

Give me a day to read the thread. I stumbled on it tonight and am exhausted. I am highly confident that I am headed for dreamland in the next few minutes.

In that case, I anxiously await your response.

Ho ho! Ha ha! Duck! Dodge! Perry! Spin! Thrust! THWAP! :laugh:

OK...original question...is it justified saying that there are two or more species of undocumented bipedal primate in North America?

I'm not sure it's justified to say that there is even one undocumented primate species in North America, so I'm not keen on the idea that we can confidently say there is a plurality of them. The real way to settle the question is to have DNA samples from PNW sassies and compare to DNA from Florida swamp/skunk apes (whatever...). I imagine that won't happen anytime soon.

However, what Fish wants to know is whether his descriptive stats speak to that question.

Statistics nerd side note: BTW, Fish, I like boxplots better than scattergrams and histograms. The COD correlates well with other measures of variance like SD and quartiles, which are part of a boxplot (I'm a big semi-interquartile range fan). But, to each his own.

If there were substantial height differences between the two species AND both species were present in Florida, you would expect to see a bi-modal distribution (double-peaked) with a large enough sample. I have no idea if these perceived anatomical differences are in height or not. If the differences these gentlemen are discussing are in things like frame, skull shape, whatever, and not in height, your data won't speak to that difference.

Here's the thing...intraspecies (within one species) physical variation can be enormous. Look at humans. Look at dogs. Look at cats. The physical differences can be striking. A chihuahua and a great Dane are both dogs. Inuits, aborginal Australians, and Scandinavians are all humans.

Even if we don't use these examples (which are primarily driven by breed and race), differences in appearance, stature, etc. can be further driven by something as simple as nutrition. If I restrict food availability for an animal after it is weaned, it will grow to be smaller and leaner than those which had ad libitum access to food. I didn't create a new species through malnourishment.

Even if these folks had quantified these observations (doesn't sound like they have), had a large enough sample (doesn't sound like they do), and performed a T-test between their sample sets (I'll believe that when I see it), an observed difference could just be intraspecies variation.

The distinction is not justified.

One more thing...the burden of proof is on the claimant. It's their claim, let them do the legwork. You don't have to accept a damn thing.