Creature Suit Analysis Part 9

A Study in Probability, as applied to the PG Film


When you have a mystery, a contridiction, an unresolved controversy, and you try to resolve the matter to some reliable conclusion, ultimately, the facts should prevail in the resolution. But those investigating the matter need some direction in how to allocate the investigation resources, as well as some reasoning of what is probable or improbable to guide or determine the direction to the investigation.

In a criminal investigation, for example, you look for motive, means, and opportunity in deciding if a suspect is worth further investigation. This requires some value judgment based on probability, and your initial investigative resources will be allocated toward those probable suspects, simply because one among those probable suspects is in fact the likely perpitrator of the crime. You go to the unlikely suspects when the usual suspects investigations have been exhausted with no result.

Well, with the PG Film, we have a mystery, a filmed event that has endured for 40 years without conclusive resolution, and much heated debate as to the issue of whether the figure on the film is a real species of unknown primate, or a human wearing some kind of costume or fur suit, simply pretending to be an unknown species of primate.

So far, I have contributed some notes on the specifics of how such fur costumes are designed, built, worn and cared for during filmmaking events, to hopefully clear up some of the misconceptions that abound, and to hopefully give one and all a better perspective on what can and cannot be done by this suit technology (particularly of the time).

But as I personally continue to study the issue and try to arrive at a conclusion in my own mind, I approach this issue not just from a factual basis of what the technology of the time could do, or how, but on the issue of probability, the likleyhood something was done. And in this analysis, I see a pattern emerging which I feel has sufficient merit to warrent further investigation.

The Deductive Method

The methodology I have used is a deductive reasoning that draws from a legal principle called "the Presumption of Regularity", as well as from a well known philospohical reasoning called Occam's Razor.

The "Presumption of Regularity" is a weighted system of making value judgments, whereby the usual method or process is expected to yield the usual result. If you put a document letter in an actual US Mail letter collection box, properly addressed and with correct postage, you may usually presume it will reach the intended recipiant. If a medical doctor treats you, and the doctor is properly licensed to practice, the presumption is you will have received correct or proper treatment. If you dispute either result, without proof, the presumption of regularity will decide the issue in favor of the person mailing the letter the regular way, or the doctor treating you the regular way.

In general, we may look at any human endeavor and see certain practices and conditions which are sufficiently common, widespread and usual that we may presume those practices are the standard or expected practices, and so to argue for anything different may require an explanation, justification, or rational for that different event to happen.

Using Occam's Razor (generally paraphrased to say "The simplest solution is the most likely"), we may apply this deductive reasoning to problem solving if we give weight or probability to the alternatives, in terms of the complication of each alternative. And here, it appears to me, the Presumption of Regularity can be applied to that issue of probable weight or likelyhood. One way of doing something which is common, regular or industry standard, for example, is a simpler solution than an uncommon event that deviates from or contridicts industry standard or conventional practice. For the uncommon event, you must explain the conditions that caused the diviation from industry standard practice. You must add a "condition", which by Ockham's Razor, makes that event more complicated and less likely.

In computer terminology and usage, for example, if you are installing a new software, you may choose to accept the "default" install, with one click, or you can choose "custom", which will prompt you to set more conditions or settings to accomplish. The presumption of regularity is that most users will choose the "default" setting, and it is the simplest process with the least conditions (the least clicks and the least decisions on the part of the person doing this). Occam's Razor will verify that of any given group of people installing the software, the simplest solution (a default install) is most likely to be done because it has the least conditions, the least hassle.

Creating a "creature suit" worn by a human actor or mime for the purpose of pretending to be something other than a human, to be filmed, is an established industry, and it does have its standards and common practices. These standards and common practices have evolved over time for convenience, ease of fabrication, more likely success in the finished appearance, more likely success in the performance of the human inside, and more likely what the persons paying for the suit want.

So within this industry of "creature suits" (the makeup special effects & prosthetics profession, more formally described), there are well established industry standards and practices more common and more professional in that they tend to yield more satisfactory results, and demonstrate a higher level of artistry to attain. There are presumptions of regularity, in the design, fabrication, and filming use of these suits, which we can reference in the investigation of the PG Film, and which may give weight to any investigation of a human dressed in a suit as being the figure in the PG film.

The Odds.

Assigning any numeric weight or ratio (the odds, in gambling) for a usual or probable outcome is obviously conjectural at best. Anyone can assign any odds they choose. So any discussion of odds or probability as specified by a numeric ratio is just an illustrative concept, not a conclusion. I use this herein simply to show how a sequence of events, each with some ratio of probability, becomes less probable as more and more conditions need to be met.

So, for example, let us say, in my list below, for one item, the usual industry practice is twice as likely to occur as an unusual or different practice, so the odds of the unusual occuring are half as likely as the usual occuring (odds of 1:2).

But now add a second occurance or specification and say it also has a 1:2 likelyhood of the irregular occuring. Then the likelyhood of both irregular things occuring in this one situation is now 1:4.

Adding a third condition brings the likelyhood of all three unusual conditions being satisfied at 1:8.

So while the exact numbers themselves are conjectural, we can see a pattern of decreasing likelyhood as the number of condition of unusual occurance add up. I've used the 1:2 odds (unusual to usual) just to illustrate how the improbabilities pile up as the list gets longer. In most cases, the odds of the unusual are actually even less likely, but we will use the conservative 1:2 as a cautious illustrative value.

The Individual Circumstances.

Now we will examine the specific circumstances individually, as to what is common, industry standard, or what has the presumption of regularity, and what may be the exception to the rule, the difference or uncommon specification that will not usually occur and needs explanation or ratiionalization.


1. A Creature suit tends to be made genderless (as defined as not showing any secondary sexual characteristics or genital anatomy) unless specifically dictated by some strong plot specific necessity.

The extreme examples are such Hollywood classic creatures as "The Creature From The Black Lagoon", a reptilian/fish hybred creature, shown clearly head to toe without any fur to hide anything, and emphatically not possessing any genitalia or excretory organs. A fur covered creature has the additional advantage of the fur actually obscurring any potential sexual/excretory anatomy, so a fur suit may have an even higher degree of realism and still be gender neutral. Because gender-neutral creatures have been made so commonly and nobody has made any strong objection or criticism of such, and because a fur creature has an excellent cover for any genitalia, the genderless form is particularly appealling as the norm.

So if you order a fur suit of a "creature", chances are the question "Boy or girl" never comes up. "Unspecified" is the default option.

And creature suits are for movies kids can go to (or they were in the 50's 60's and 70's) so you'd better not put anything on a suit you wouldn't want kids to see. So the idea of a fur suit with fluid, jiggling humanlike breasts (or any indication of male genitalia) is almost unheard of in the creature business of the 50's to the 70's. I was even asked in 1980 to put male genitalia on the Swamp Thing suit, and upon inspection of the sculpture by director and producers, the organ was removed because it may have pushed their anticipated film rating from PG to "X", and they were under contract to deliver a PG rating for US audiences. 1967 times were even more conservative on this issue.

So a genderless creature look is the expectation, the norn, the presumption. And a genderless suit would have sufficed for the filming if it was a hoax, the intent to show a live creature, not specifically a live female of the species. Aquiring an existant suit would have, in all probability, been a genderless one. Aquiring a second hand suit so designed as to being conspicuously "female" would have had some prior industry usage, and thus some chance of being recognized as an industry created suit. So the argument of the figure in the PG film as being some type of industry used suit which was sold off second hand after its industry use, is improbable.

A custom ordered creature suit with a specific anatomy including secondary sexual characteristics, detailed quite realistically, requires a justification, a specified reason to stray from the norm, the usual, the default. Such a suit would also have piqued the interest, been unforgettable, to any industry person who saw it, because such gender obvious suits were so rare. So a custom fabrication order, done for a "secret" filming and striving to not draw attention to the custom order, would have stayed less noticable, more secretative, if it were the default, gender neutral.

Odds for a suit with gender characteristics 1:2 (reminder here: actual probability would likely be even less, but 1:2 is used as a conservative probability for illustrative purposes)

2. A creature suit tends to be tailored to a generic body unless a person with a specialized body is contractually locked into the commitment to wear the suit.

There are two concerns here. One is the practical probability of substituting the intended suit wearer with another person if the intended person is injured or otherwise unable to continue. The second consideration is the vulnerability of the producers to the prospect the mime (suit wearer) may fake illness or injury while renegotiating for more money, since the suit wearer, being of unusual physique, is not easily replacable.

As an example, in 1988, I was working for a theme park robotics company and a client wanted a stroller costume for a human to wear, along with the robotics for the same alien figure for a theme park dark ride. In my planning with the client, they wanted a little person (formerly referred to as a dwarf or midget) to wear the costume, and they found many available people who were 3' 10" tall. But they found only one person who was 3' 2" tall. The design would clearly have been better with the 3' 2" tall person, but they chose to go with the 3' 10" specification, because of the exact concerns above. By this choice, they had more people available in case the mime had to be replaced due to injury, and more options to replace if a mime wanted to hold out for more money.

So the conventional business wisdom was go with a design where substitutions of the human inside are easier, making the intended venture less dependent on a specific person for success.

In reference to the PG Film, I did a study of how a human mime might fit into the anatomical proportions of the figure in the film (Thread titled "Creature Suit Analysis Part 6 - Comparative Anatomy"). My conclusion was that a human with an armspan about equal to the person's height could not fit the hands correctly, and that a person of unusual proportions, with armspan at least 112-115% of body height was necessary.

As others contributing to the thread commented, finding humans with that proportion was possible, but uncommon as compared to the general population. For reference, they also referred to armspan as "wingspan".

If you consider that a person hypothetically making a suit to fake the PG film is under no design constraint to match any specific anatomy of a known animal, design issues such as exact arm length are at the designer's discretion. And that discretion favors the presumption of regularity, that you are more likely to have a successful production if you design to the more common physique of the human inside, so you are capable of substituting the mime with another human if required by unexpected circumstances to do so.

So a suit designed to fit a person with normal proportions of height to armspan ratio of 1:1 would be the presumption, if there is no contract for a mime of irregular proportions to be reliably committed to the venture.

Odds of both above (gender specified suit and uncommon physique of actor) occuring 1:4

3. A creature suit tends to be designed with a simple and effective way to seperate the head from the body, for both dressing/undresing and for giving the mime a break (head off) between filming segments. Similarly, the human body, with it's erect head on a column-like neck, is condusive to a design with a straight neck split for a neck seam or blend into the body. So a straight neck seam design has all presumption of regularity.

The PG Film figure has a massive humped neck, making the conventional neck seam impossible, and posing specific design problems on the two design options that remain (as detailed in the Creature Suit Analysis - Part 7 Notes). So this design of the neck, the humped back, and the low forward head, is an unusual or challenging design.

Odds of all above unusual 1:8

4. In general, creature suits are designed to be seem most, and to look best when viewed from the front. All conventional industry usage expects the suit to look good "coming" instead of "going", best on the front, moreso than the back, if they can't have perfection all around. But any suit has compromises in seams, closures, and motion restrictions that may need to be cheated. One ambitious solution is to build a front-perfect suit, and a back-perfect one if one suit cannot do it all.

If only one suit was made at the time, all presumption of regularity would be that it was designed as a front-perfect suit, and any suit acquired as an industry relic or second hand cast off would almost certainly have been a front perfect suit. The PG Film figure, if a suit, was a back-perfect design, because the entire back, neck, and head blend is flawless.

Odds of all above unusual 1:16

5. Partially a derivitive of #4 above, but seperate because of additional functional advantages, a suit traditionally has a zipper/closure up the back, for ease of dressing as well as yielding a better appearance in the front.

Simply put, a back zipper provides the easiest way for a person to dress into and out of a suit, so any industry suit sold second hand to others would almost assuredly have been a back zipper suit. To custom design a suit without a back zipper greatly compounds both the design and especially the dressing of the human into and out of it. If it were done, most likely it was for a special purpose, and would have more likely been retained in case of future need.

If custom ordered that way (no back zipper), it would have more costly, as well as more likely needing some wardrobe assistants to go with it for filming.

Odds of all above unusual 1:32

6. Creature suits that are fur covered tend to be designed with consistant fur (even color, density and length). It's an odd thing about creature creations, especially with hair or fur. The usual challenge is to get everything to smoothly blend together, so both the director and producers approving an effort, and the audience watching the film, will tend to criticize a fur suit if the hair looks irregular for no explained or justified reason.

If you have multiple fur characters and want to distinguish between them, then variations and irregularities are believable. If you have some scene showing how fur is damaged or otherwise messed up, then you can show it irregular after that exposition of events. Or if you are matching a specific real animal, and may use the real animal filmed as part of the footage, and the suit must match that film, every irregularity in the real animal's fur must be perfectly matched.

But absent any of those three conditions, fur is expected to be smooth, consistant in color and density. Irregularities are perceived as poor workmanship of the fabricator.

The PG Film shows many irregularities of the fur, but has none of the known or usual justifications for someone deliberately doing so. So the irregularities are unusual.

Odds of all above unusual 1:64

7. A raised neck hackle is the worst type of grooming effect one can maintain.

My notes in Part 8 of the Creature Suit Analysis elaborate on this, but for a suit, brushing the neck hair down smooth would be the usual practice, to be expected. The raised neck hackle is the hardest effect to achieve and sustain, as well as the one most likely to be messed up by the neck turn.

So this fur styling, for a suit, is highly unusual.

Odds of all above unusual 1:128

8. Hollywood suit makers tend to go with a suit onto the filming situation, to finish the job and make sure their work is represented in the best way.

There are several potential reasons for this. The job really isn't done until you film the suit, and it is not professional to do the fabrication as professionally as possible and then allow amateurs to take it to the filming, and perhaps put it together wrong, embarrassing the professional who made it. The usual practice is for a profesional who builds something to take it to the filming, or allow a trusted colleague to take it to the filming. It is highly unusual for a professional to make something and allow unknown amateurs to "finish the job" by taking it to the filming.

Further, a professional may be concerned with potential misuse by amateurs, and some liability reflecting back on the maker for that misuse. Imagine, as an example, somebody wants to have their human in the suit run around in the woods, to look like a real creature while they film, and a nearby hunter shoots the suited man, killing him. The family of the dead actor could conceivably sue not only the hunter and the stupid filmmakers who did nothing to protect the actor by making the filming event more obvious to uninvited onlookers, but they might sue the suit maker as well, as a contributor to the negligence.

Or some fools could wear the suit and just try to scare people driving along a forest highway, for fun, and one driver, so scared, accidentally crashes the car, resulting in human fatality. Again, the investigation into this act of possible negligent homicide may cause the suit maker to also be investigated for culpability in negligently giving such to amateurs.

While these hypotheticals may seem remote, the general presumption of regularity is that the people who make creature suits go with them to the filming, to insure first that the performance is done well, and second, as a business and legal precaution, to insure the suit is not misused by amateurs in any manner than may result in tragedy (and liability).

So the usual practice is for the team making the suit to take it to filming, and it's unusual for a suit to be handed off to amateurs for their own use as they choose, in perhaps amateurish or unsafe ways. But all descriptions of the PG film event as a suit exclude any participation of the suit makers during filming. This would be unusual.

Odds of all above unusual 1:256

9. Staging a film using a person in a suit usually requires creating a setting condusive to the limitations of the mime, thus assuring their performance will be more successful, despite the hindrances the suit itself causes. Control of terrain the person walks on is one such consideration.

We know suits may limit a person's time wearing it, may limit the person's ability to walk, may limit the person's vision, and may limit the person's ability to even safely break their fall if they trip. Working the suit in a controlled environment is the usual manner or method. Having support people close to the suited person is usual and wise. Having the person travel on any natural outdoor terrain usually involves walking the person through the path, "blocking the scene", and even "preparing the ground" by walking through it first for a safety check, removing anything the suited person might bump into, trip over, slip on, or otherwise have a problem with. All of which leaves a lot of footprints.

This is simply good professionalism, the usual way.

Putting a person into a suit and having them go into natural terrain without preparation and extensive safety review by both the mime and helpers, is highly unusual, more likely to result in accidents the filmmakers would be liable for, or accidents that ruin the filmed performance.

The PG Film sequence appears to have been filmed in an outdoor setting not very condusive to the safety of a mime wearing a suit, and reports of the scene do not suggest a lot of film personal footprints. This includes the end sequence footage, with the figure apparently stepping over some branches and going into more dense wwooded hill terrain, an unusual and potentially unsafe action for a person in a suit, unless extensive practice in the terrain was done.

And casts of footprints were made subsequently to the filming by people not attributed as being part of the hoax. This "blocking of a scene", and the number of times the suited actor walks through the scene to familiarize himself with the terrain, would result in an extensive number of footprints needing to be erased, before a final single set of prints were made to match the walking seen on film. Thus finding only one set of footprints would be unusual, in any location where a suited human was used.

Odds of all above unusual 1:512

10. Availability of stretch fur - The use of a standard flexing but non-elastic type artificial fur, or real skins or hides, to produce a suit would result in the fur bending and buckling in unnatural ways, cloth-like ways rather that living anatomy ways. The film does not give any evidence of such. Stretch fur introduced in the 80's can stretch and compress more realistically, but may not have existed then. One contributor to the forum has offered testimony that the fabric industry had technical capability to make such stretch fur, while the one known current manufacturer today acknowledges they did not make it until the 80's. So while there is a theoretical argument that such could exist in the late 60's, there is no proof as yet that any such stretch fur actually did exist at the time, and so the default or usual assumption must go to the fur proven to exist as a common product, known to have been used at the time for creature suits. A stretch fabric not proven to have existed then, with specified size, cost, and manufacturer, must be presumed the unusual.

Odds of all above unusual 1: 1024

11. The Look Back sequence would be one of the hardest gestures to accomplish with the rigid furcloth of the time. Better to just show the figure more facing camera (the whole body toward camera) and then let the performer turn and walk away.

If a sequence is prepared , blocked or scripted, and you have a suit that has a rigid furcloth neck not very condusive to a strong head turn, and such a turn is likely to reveal flaws that would increase the prospect of discovering the film is hoaxed, the usual way is to plan the actions to the limitations of the suit. So you can plan to come upon this creature, as it faces toward camera, and then it turns the full body to walk away, no look back.

This would be a more usual blocking of the scene, a script of action the suit is more likely to do without revealing any suit flaws. The look back, in this sense, is a highly unusual action for a suit of the time, if you couldn't stop the camera and let a grooming assistant step in and brush out the fur for the walk away part of the sequence.

Odds of all above unusual 1:2048

12. Production convenience usually dictates that filmings in the wilderness (like forests) will be cheated to roadside locations whenever possible, to insure the logistics of getting to the site are not complicating the effort.

Going far into the wilderness to film anything is a challenge, and any person who's filmed locations knows a roadside station for the cars, trucks, equipment, can park is far better than carrying lots of equipment and crew people miles into the woods.

So if you need to fake seeing a furry creature in the woods, why not film it near a forest highway, maybe a 1/4 mile in from the road? It's plausable to see such a creature not that far from a highway.

If you are going to choose a location to fake a sighting and film a person in a suit, why go far into the forests, where the simplest problem becomes a potential for ruining the venture, because support is so far away?

The usual is to film closer to street or road access, and just go deep enough into the woods to look right. The unusual is to go far into the woods, far away from support, supplies, assistance and convenience.

Odds of all above unusual 1:4096

13. Success begets sequels.

A hoax is a business, with a plan and a goal usually. If it succeeds, the conventional business wisdom is that you continue with what succeeded. You have a suit that fooled Hollywood and the scientific community, and so why not film it again? Maybe wait awhile, bring along some unsuspecting fellow researchers, go a week or so without any luck seeing anything, and then, just when you're all about to give up, "WOW, there it is again". You hoax a second sighting, maybe from across a revene, so nobody from your group can easily give chase. and you now have more eyewitnesses who would truthfully say what they saw seemed real.

Then your second set of footage is worth even more than the first, and your business continues to profit.

In the film business, any film regardless of what the original intention was, if successful, tends to spawn a sequel. The sense of greed, to exploit a successful film or event, is the usual practice. To never attempt to repeat a successful film or event, when you have all the necessary tools (like a suit that fooled everybody before) is unusual.

If the person doing this is ill and needs money for medical care, it's highly unusual to not follow one success with another attempt.

Odds of all above unusual 1:8192




So I look at this sequence of events, as compared to descriptions of how the supposed hoax was pulled off, and by whom, and I compare the stories to the above list of probabilities as I know from industry experience, and I see an ever increasingly improbable prospect the filmed figure was the product of a planned hoax. I see absolutey no credibility for the common or most prevelant description of how the supposed hoax was accomplished.

The most generous odds I can give for all the above unusual things happening is less than 1 in 8000. If the individual odds of any specific item are less than 1:2 (and many of the specific considerations reasonably should be even less likely than 1:2), the odds of all the above occuring can easily go upward to more like 1 in 20,000, or even higher odds against the sequence happening.

A skeptic may say the odds of winning the lottery are less, yet people do. But that is because the number of people buying tickets is greater than the odds any one person might win, so probability favors someone winning. But there aren't 8000 people trying to get suits to film hoaxes, so any lottery comparison is not valid.

Each person investigating this film may list their own specific items of circumstance and the usual and unusual variations, but the generalized concept stands as logical. The more unusual circumstances you list, the less the chances or probability are that such a list of events occured together in one filming.

I've posted this one day before my scheduled interview on "Let's Talk Bigfoot" (Wed. Feb. 13) so if we do discuss this, you will have had some opportunity to read through it first, and know better what's being discussed.

Bill Munns


Reference to Occam's Razor, from Winkpedia
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Very detailed listing of odds. I'd tend to say that the 1/20,000 number points TOWARDS it being a hoax. When you consider the odds of the other option.

What are the odds that Roger Patterson filmed a living, breathing, unclassified, bipedal, female, hairy creature?

Bill, if the film subject is indeed a mime in a suit, it makes perfect sense that they would make several practice runs through the terrain. Would it be safe to assume then that Patterson filmed several takes of this practice run to familiarize himself with the film sequence? If this is the case, there should be more than one Patterson Gimlin film right?

Drew:

I'm not sure how exactly to calculate odds Patty is real, but obviously the odds of filming any true cryptid is small, considering how many people are trying with no result.

Remember November:

I can't speak of the mentality of a hoaxer. Some are methodical and meticulously plan everything, and if such resulted in the PG film, yes, there would have been many tries, takes and rehursals.

But some hoaxers are daredevils who just set up the starting marks and "go for it", one take, one try.

So I think any speculation of more Patterson film showing other tries or takes can be argued either way and so I wouldn't favor either option.



Bill

This Creature Suit Analysis Series that you have put together is a very fine piece of work. I hope that it can be used in the future to tempt some wealthy idividuals or research foundations to pursue the verification of the film subject as a real living creature and not a man in a suit. This study of probability gives a very good perspective on why the validity of the film subject as a real creature should be considered as the most likely scenario.

For me, I have learned simply to trust my senses. And what I see on the film is clearly not a man in a suit. For most others, the idea that a real live sasquatch was actualy caught on film is too radical to consider, no matter how real it looks. Your series goes a long way towards giving a rational and methodical way of coaxing people to simply believe what their senses are telling them anyway.

Thanks for the great work!

Great work, looking forward to tomorrow nights interview, good luck

Bipedalist:

In your quotes at the bottom of your post, I suppose we should give all credit for that last quote to Winkpedia and their article on Occam's Razor. So maybe you should re-write the attribute a bit to reflect more the article as the thought behind the quote, and me (if mentioned at all) as merely a messenger bringing it to others' attention through my article.

I don't mind taking credit for what i really do think through and figure out, but I like to see others properly credited as well for their contributions.



Bill

AOK done, whats the difference between Wikipedia and Winkpedia, and yes you can joke about it if you want

Bipedalist:

The difference is in my lousy spelling.



Bill

Thanks for the quote adjustment.

Rolando:

Apologies for not responding to your comment earlier.

It would be very nice if this note series did indeed inspire some funding for studies to conclusively determine a lot of the issues I've mentioned, because everyone would benefit by such conclusions.

The intuitive sense you speak of is of tremendous value when we try to sort out mysterious things, and resolve controversies, because out initial reactions and intuitive responses can often be very clear and correct. The simple truth is that absolute deductive reasoning (and the scientific method) do actually sometimes fail us, because the methods cannot sometimes deal with a problem where an element of faith or presumption "connects the dots" so to speak, where a more analytical process might go round in circles trying to connect every dot to every other and never get finished.

It's like the occasional story we read in the papers of a person who goes into the Social Security Offices and tries to prove he/she is alive, when a system glitch has declared them dead. It's nearly imposible for them to prove they are who they say they are, by the contrived rules the agency uses. Similarly, some things we know are real, science still seems incapable of accepting, like accupuncture. The medical community still seems to be incapable of accepting the reality of it.

So there are times when intuitive faith is all we have to guide us.

Thanks for your kind words about my efforts.

Bill

Why automatically assume it could not be an animal. It's not like unknown animals that were known through myth and story haven't been proven real before. It has happened, and as unlikely as it may be, it can and will happen again. Maybe not with BF, but it will happen again.

Right, I agree, I thought about trying to come up with some numbers, but then there would be a huge argument over how I arrived at those odds, and that's not what I want to do, it's your thread so feel free to if you have the urge.

Also, in addition to the people trying with no result, consider the number of people who AREN'T trying to accidentally capture one on a game cam, or Hit one with their car.

Also, consider that those that ARE trying, do not have access to the equipment, and funding that people looking for tigers, for instance, have access to.

One in a million (maybe more), but as more information is gathered; it's beginning to appear on that day both he and Mr. Gimlin 'won the lottery'.

It's a sad day for the suitniks.

Sam

Drew:

A second thought about your interest in trying to put some odds or probability on a real creature.

The system I used above relies on Presumptions of Regularity to define what's more probable, so the less probable can be determined by comparison. But with the real creatures, we don't have any presumptions of regularity yet, no comparative baseline, so to speak, to use to set odds or probability.

So the probability issue, as related to the real thing, remains a question we can't answer yet. All we can say is that as the probability of a suit goes down, the probability of a real creature goes up as the most credible alternate explanation.

And I, for one, see the odds of a suit going south, on a one way ticket.


Sam

Suitniks?

Bill and others,

First, excellent work, Bill. Like I said at the end of Part 7, the likelyhood (still can't spell that word) or probability if you will, of it being a suit is beyond comprehension. But something needs to be stressed although Bill you did touch upon it (or I might have missed it if you expounded upon it). That is the subject of what it is by design you are postulating or hypothesizing and what it is that you are not postulating. What is not being postulated cannot be made a part of the equation even though it might seem intuitive to attempt to do so. This seems to have been lost judging by some of the comments throughout these related threads.

To make clear, in any scientific investigation the hypothesis is critical to how the experiment is conducted and how the results are then interpreted in order to determine whether the hypothesis was correct or not. Even though this "experiment" is a work in progress and not a formal scientific research project (although it certainly could be), the preliminary "results" if you will, favor validation of the hypothesis that it is not a suit.

That "result" if you will, is the antithesis of an affirmative of it being a "bigfoot" (whatever that is). There are, believe it or not, many possibilities of what it might be other than that specific thing, probabilities aside.

What would be needed to "prove" what it is and not what it is not, is hypothesizing whatever anybody wants to postulate. And whatever it is that they want to postulate requires an established protocol to be followed. At a minimum it requires establishing a method and procedure together with experimentation, that can be replicated, which provides a conclusion as to the validity of the hypothesis. If one wanted to postulate that the subject in the PGF is a bf then one would need to go through the scientific method. Of course, establishing an hypothesis, setting up an experiment and getting to a conclusion would prove most elusive, would it not?

I know this may sound simple and obvious especially to those with scientific backgrounds, but it is imperative to understand in order to put this whole subject in its proper perspective.

There is but one conclusion to the research project at hand (either yes or no to a suit) and its corollary as it has been framed in these discussions is not, and scientifically at least, cannot be a part of the equation. Philosophically, of course it might be, but not scientifically.

To be perfectly clear, what I am suggesting is that if a formal experiment were conducted, a subsequent paper written and a peer-reviewed publication process be conducted, with the results showing it was not a suit, it would not, in the scientific world mean anything in terms of what the subject actually is. The process would prove a negative not a positive. That is something entirely different.

I readily acknowledge, however that it does not mean it might not prove very meaningful to a lot of people, myself included.

Soundman

You know suitniks, the bigfoot counterculture. They took copious amounts of Benzedrine and realized bigfoot was just Maya. They would steal cars and drive across the country reading poetry and mocking the establisment.

Soundman:

Here's another way to think about it.

The film is potentially remarkable evidence, with excellent scientific validity, but it is "tainted" by the accusation of being falsified. So effort to remove the accusations of being false and fabricated may then restore it's fundamental integrity as scientific evidence of an unknown bipedal primate currently not in the existant wildlife inventory.

Efforts to establish it as a known, identified and studied wildlife specimen (or human ancestral species) can simultaniously be done by the search for a live specimen. And disproving a suit or other fabricated falseness of the film doesn't give the positive search all the finality of species a live specimen would. But it may restore the integrity of one of the best pieces of evidence that justifies a search and funding to positively identify the species.

And please keep in mind, my notes are a "first draft" concept that may hopefully lead to something more structured scientifically in the future.

Bill

http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/newsissues/042...sp?page=Weekly3

According to this, for 60 years a breeding population of woodpecker has gone UNNOTICED. There are some seemingly credible sightings of BF.

I may be misunderstanding you, but I think I have to respectfully disagree with you here - and I'll be the first to admit I once felt somewhat the same for a while whilst investigating this subject.

There is conclusive, verifiable evidence of the existence of humans disguised as fake animals in costumes going way back before this footage was shot. Some (not being date specific here) have fooled people into thinking they were real animals. Others have suspended disbelief, in clear footage, long enough to carry a story for a couple of hours or so. Others are laughable. Horses for courses though.

The materials & techniques to achieve this were available at the time of this footage - your valuable opinion (which I've enjoyed) as to their suitability & logistical application aside.

There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that the figure in that footage is an unidentified species.

The default ergo should be that it's a guy in a suit until proven to be real. The desire, wish or urge to 'believe' does not or should not enter the equation.

Posted without emotion or confrontational intent .

Edited to alter a line that sounded unintentionally condecending .

I may be generalizing, and if I am I'm sure I'll hear about it, but my impression is Suitniks are those that know these creatures do not exist and therefore, by default, the film must be of a man in a suit. Any idea or notion that it may be a real creature is swiftly knocked to the ground by this group, because, as we all know, BF is just a fairytale.

Sam

Sam- What do you call those who look at Patty and believe it is a guy in a suit, yet, still believe there is a Bigfoot out there then?

Bill, Your first two paragraphs introducing part 9 say it all for me; I will probably be posting on that topic in the near future. Congratulations on your series of articles. I think you have caused more thought on the part of forum readers than anything I have seen posted in the year I have been a member. Good Job!

Question: Perhaps you have addressed this in a previous post and it got past me, but would you be willing to articulate the minimum number of persons that, if the PG Film is a hoax, had to have taken part in the conspiracy? I presume someone had to bankroll a substantial amount of cash, someone had to design the suit, someone (perhaps the same person who designed the suit?) had to construct the suit, the mime, assistants, et cetera. Using a conservative best guess, how many people had to knowingly have been a part of the hoax?

Again, good job. HMB

JohnWS

Here perhaps we should seperate two issues: One is the more generalized question, Have people dressed up in fur costumes to cause other people to think they saw a creature of unknown species? and the more specific question, was this done specifically for the PG Film.

In answer to the more generalized question, I would emphatically agree it has been done many times, in all degrees of sophistication or lack of same, with varying degrees of success in convincing the observers that they were witnesing a real event as opposed to a staged or 'fake" event. Nothing in my notes has ever attempted to dispell the generalized question. Faked sightings with people in costumes is a fact and has occured.

All my notes deal with the specific incident filmed by Patterson. And in that regard, there are simply two opposing explanations for what is seen on that film. A.) It is a human costumed to look like an unidentified primate species, or B. ) It is a real unidentified primate species. I'm not aware of any third explanation of what the figure on film is.

My notes, and my own curious mind, have not proven that a human in a suit or costume is impossible, to the exactitudes of science, in that film. The notes deal more with probabilities, with degrees of difficulty, and known capacities to accomplish things.

But I must respectfully disagree when you say "the default ergo should be that it's a guy in a suit until proven real."

There is nothing biologically difficult about it being real. It's size, anatomical structure, method of locomotion, and all other detail elements of it's apparent anatomy are perfectly "credible" as an unknown or as yet unstudied live species. Truthfully, no default assumption can be made either way, real or faked. There is no conclusive evidence either to prove a human in a suit or a real unknown species of primate. So the lack of conclusive evidence doesn't favor one option above the other. And the sad scientific mindset which dictates "all the big animals have been discovered" is actually a lame and unscientific bluff.

Consider also the first studies of the platypus by European scientists concluded it was a fake, a duck's bill somehow grafted on a beaver's body.

The default is a draw, not favoring either real or faked. So proponents of either opinion must strive to prove their case, and similarly strive to prove the unlikelyness or improbability of the opposite if their case.

So as much as proponents that the figure is real must strive to prove such, and must prove the improbability of a fake, those who may advocate that it's a fake must prove it can have been accomplished with the materials of the time (and no one has yet), as well as prove the improbability it may be a live and unidentified primate species.

Neither side gets a free ride as the default assumption.




Holdmybeer :

Thanks for the note. I will think about your question as to the "manpower, etc." needed to accomplish a hoax, but I don't want to just throw out a guess off the top of my head. Let me think it through, and I'll get back to you and the forum on this.

Bill

- - -

There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that the figure in the footage is a guy in a suit either.
That being the case, the default status of the PGF (for now) should be "inconclusive" - not the positive claim that "it's a guy in a suit".

While it's true that some think or believe that there is little or no chance of the PGF being genuine, that also should not enter the equation. You could be dead-on accurate - - but it doesn't matter. Without verifiable data it's just another opinion regardless of "probabilities".

I can understand someone lacking the belief that the PGF is genuine - and lacking belief in bigfoot as well - but that's much different than stating that the film should be considered a fake by "default".

"Fake by default" reasoning is not skepticism or even logically sound.

Bill, I realize after reading my post again that it appears I am principally addressing you. However primarily what I was addressing included comments such as what was quoted. It seems to me that there is this built in reaction to the corollary to your main objective.

On the one hand I agree with you with the falsification issue and in fact I argued pretty strenuously that if Meldrum's tracks and trackways could be classified why not the actual animal? After having spent considerable time in the field gathering data that convinces me beyond doubt that a bipedal ape-like creature exists and after reading through these threads and then after re-thinking the scientific method, I am left with the "other hand".

What is on the other hand is the issue of probabilities and possibilities. Things aren't always what they seem. The scientific method is the best means to show how things actually are. While I agree that there is an accumulation of anecdotal reports which combined create a set of physical and behavioural traits thus leading one to be able to "paint a picture" of an animal we all know as bigfoot, the problem is in sorting out which anecdotes are real and which are simply misidentifications of known animals.

Let me illustrate. I have conducted probably hundreds of hours of audio surveillance in areas where bf have been reported. I have numerous examples of what appear to be wood knocking recordings in wee hours of the morning in remote areas that fit a particular pattern. What I have found is that after time and scrutiny many of these (not all) are eliminated as possibilities of a bipedal ape-like creature causing the noise. One of them turned out to be a horse coughing but the sound clearly sounded like a wood on wood concussion and fit a pattern established by other wood knockings in other areas away from horses. How many sounds may fall by the wayside if there is not first convincing evidence linking a real bipedal ape-like creature striking a tree with a stick or branch? Even if you obtained a photograph of one doing this how do you know without being able to physically examine it what it is?

With no animal as the "holotype" as it were, there is no animal to make a comparison to and thus no means to scientifically come to an affirmative identification. The best that can be said sans a physical body for examination is that whatever is on that film has a certain set of characteristics that could be shown to make biological sense from a structural standpoint. Since this is a one of a kind film, there are not even other recorded moving images that can be used for comparative purposes to at least show that there are other things out there that have similar traits.

Again, there are no bones, no hair, no scat, no blood, no flesh, that to date have been associated with photographic evidence of something resembling this thing on the PGF. So no amount of scrutiny to the PGF can provide the positive side of the coin.

You make a good point that what it can do is provide a theoretical possibility of it being an animal and thus provide at least one reference point for an initiation of serious scientific study. Further clear video showing movement would also help to substantiate the case.

My concern is that the science does not get watered down, undermined, misused or politicized as in the case of global warming for example. In other words, we cannot let our desires get ahead of the facts or we will find that our foes will use the facts to get our heads.

Soundman

Stubborn?...and in all honesty Drew my response is not meant to be flippant.

I guess I just don't know.

Sam

Soundman:

I would agree with you and share your concern that "science does not get watered down, undermined, misused, or politicized".

So what do we do when scientists are the ones watering down, misusing and politicizing the issues? Frankly, some of the worst junk science I've ever seen or read came from esteemed paleontologists and physical anthropologists (letting their desires and agendas get ahead of the facts with dinosaurs and human origin studies, respectively).

The only thing I know, personally, is to take the issue where I have some level of experience and expertise, and try to clear up the facts from the misconceptions and false assumptions, to at least put this particular issue on a more solid foundation and level playing field. And I wish scientists would do the same. I wish skeptic would do the same.

We all would gain if they could.

Sam:

Stubborn seems the right word.



Bill

Bill,

Not disagreeing, but trying to formulate some caveats in this area:

Perhaps it is my background in experimental psychology that make me think so, but it seems to me that all evidence in science is to some extent probabilistic.

All observation is, by definition, subjective, and only in certain areas of science is it possible to replicate observations, or even to do all of that much experimental work. Many fields of study (e.g., Geology) are essentially historical.

Even taking a position reading from a meter is subjective, though certainly potentially repeatable. I read an excellent paper years ago as an undergrad detailing this view.

It takes a lot of creativity to do experimental work in field biology, and when I worked with the breed (drunken herpetologists), for a short time, they mostly just did species surveys along survey transect lines.

Perhaps I have it wrong but I don't like to see people applying models from hard sciences where experiment rules the day, to something like cryptid research. So, I like your probabilistic analysis, and it could probably be made more rigorous.

Regards

Bill,
Great question. Wish I had the right answer. But actually I think its twofold: 1) Spine and 2) Resist temptation. Science more than ever is driven by pragmatism as opposed to truth-finding. I have a good friend in the field of meteorology who is somewhat of an enigma. In my opinion he is silent when he should be more vocal on the skeptical side. However, I feel he doesn't want to cut his own throat and acquieses (can't get the red line out of that one either) to the majority opinion.

It's tough when your livlihood (I can't spell) is wrapped up in research and further research is wrapped up in only one possibility. The reality is the science is so complicated it is hard to just state the truth - We cannot know for certain at this time. More data is needed. Or the sun may trump everything else.

As far as bf research it is now the least advanced and least corrupt it will ever be. Funding of research to simply find out if they exist for the wonder of discovering the species trumps every other motive. Its just that there is very little incentive for big bucks kind of people to front such an operation. And so it is small scale and limited to eccentrics.

I have blabbered enough. Look forward to hearing Bill tonight.

Soundman

That "suitnik" argument is of course, sometimes looks like a classical case of "begging the question" or "circular reasoning". Circular reasoning is used a lot, but seldom is it presented in such a straight forward fashion that you can see the circularity immediately.


***

Moe: Sasquatch does not exist.

Joe: Why do you feel that; there are sighting reports, extended sighting reports, multiple witness sighting reports, multiple trackways, and a least one video that probabilistically appears to be genuine.

Moe: All sightings, tracks and other evidence are either:
1 - hoaxing
2 - mis-apperception,
3 - delusion
4 - the result of other psychopathology

Joe: Have you demonstrated that all evidence brought forward falls into one of these categories?

Moe: It is not necessary, at least some alleged evidence has been shown to be such

Joe: How do you know that all evidence falls into the category of mistakes?

Moe: Because Sasquatch does not exist.

So, I may be accused of presenting a straw man here, but after reading internet chatter for months in various forums, I don't think that I am.


Regards

p.s., it is interesting to see those who disparage the provenance of the Patterson/Gimlin film and at the same time feel that Sasquatch may in fact still exist. These are logically separate beliefs.

Mike:

Thank you for your caveats.

I suppose everything plugged into the human brain, can be argued as subjective at that stage of the process.

In my personal point of view, I see the sciences as existing on a sliding scale of "hard" (mathematics as he most "hard, followed by the physical sciences of chemistry and physics as almost as hard), and then the not so hard sciences in the biology group, getting softer with the paleo sciences (where amazing conclusions seem to be born out of remarkably sparce data) and finally the "social sciences" as the softest, because of the highest number of variables (individual humans themselves being highly variable).

But I would love to see a revision of the scientific method whereby there are levels of proof, and probability factors into the earlier levels and repeatable or testable data is needed to push any hypothesis to the higher levels of certainty. That's mostly wishful thinking, though, because the scientific establishment isn't going to change their method any time soon, as far as I can see.

But I thank you for seeing the merit for my probabilistic analysis, and I would agree, it could, and indeed should be made more rigorous in subsequent drafts.


Soundman:

A few years back, I set up a website called "The paleoanarchist" with a lot of notes on my views of both paleontology studies and the problems with the scientific community, and one article was called "begging for dollars". It dealt with the sad plight of scientists trying to maintain their integrity while trying to get funding through the usual channels (grants, etc.) and having to either shut up and not rock the boat if a more esteemed colleague had a stupid idea needing to be challenged, but he was a peer review powerhouse, so he'd kill your grant if you criticized his dumb idea, or you might have to inflate your hypothesis and even fudge your data to get a positive conclusion that showed you are a winner, a proven researcher, to get new grants.

Either way, you'd have to sell your integrity to get some measure of success in the system, hoping with that success, you could buy back your integrity. Viscious circle some people never break free of.

Sadly, you are right in that there's very little money for doing the crypto/BF research well.

Let me get rich, and i promise I'll change that.




Mike:

Your next post, the circular logic thing. Reminds me of the feedback loops in human origin studies of the 70's. Amazingly popular then, even though it was junk science through and through.
Bill

Bill,

Permission granted. Get started now!

Soundman

Soundman:

"Permission granted. Now get started"

Yes, sir.

The attached illustration is an airship, and the whitish cylinders are heluim filled.

The volume allows for an airship gross weight of 90,000 pounds. it can hover at treetop level, and navigate both day and night.

The six spherical structures on the hexagon corners are the research units, each housing people, cameras, focused audio, heat detection thermographic imaging, etc. (full array of visual and audio devices to locate and identify living species). And two adjacient spheres can focus on one location below, to triangulate the recording and determine distance, allowing the imaging to scale the size of the species sighted. Computers and new software record all the audio and visual data collected with GPS data and sensing device orientation for precise location determination of species sighted, and the imaging or audio from multiple sources, allowing the distance or scaling, is also layered into the data files.

The system is actually for doing wildlife census studies of wilderness areas, and it can be used to find both known existant and cryptid species alike.

Now, if I haven't got enough money for the helium, do you think people could chip in with some hot air?



Bill

- - -

Exactly right.

I think that most "skeptics" of the PGF on this forum are pretty careful in that they present their arguments in a way that avoids making a positive claim. In that sense, there are only a few "real" suitniks on the board - people that make positive claims of a hoax without providing conclusive evidence.
Dfoot being a prime example. So it's definitely not a straw-man argument - it just doesn't apply to all the skeptics.

For example, Skeptical Greg does a masterful job of arguing the suit side of the PGF argument without falling into fallacy. He has stated to me that he "allows for the possibility" of bigfoot, but his screen name makes it clear what side of the fence he's on - argumentatively. I think in his mind, the possibility of bigfoot being real is FAR less probable than that human beings are clever at making suits, but he seldom resorts to the "no specimen" argument. He has, but it's rare. If he did so, there wouldn't be much for him to say, so I do appreciate the way he engages the "evidence" - as proponents see it first- and then proposes different explanations for it. Some of these explanations seem far-fetched to me I must admit, but yet without a bigfoot carcass or specimen, are his explanations really any more far-fetched than bigfoot itself? I'm really not so sure. At least SG offers reasoned and interesting arguments for his skeptical position. For example, I think he's probably made a find on the flexing calf image. It does appear to me that there could be something in the foreground (maybe a light colored stick or branch?) that partially obscures Patty's calf - making it appear to change shape or flex. It's hard to tell for sure, but the flexing calf might be just a lucky break for Patterson.

But as Mike has pointed out, a lot of the question begging by suitniks is veiled and harder to spot than in his example. Dfoot blended psuedo-evidence and matter-of-fact presentations that SLOWLY - and unintentionally - amounted to a huge and nebulous circular argument. He already had concluded the PGF creature was a man in a suit, and then basically altered and hoaxed evidence to "support" his claims. And then when pressed, all he had really demonstrated was that he had a positive belief that the PGF depicted a man in a suit. In the end, it was a suit because he knew it was a suit - case closed.

Bill; no shortage of free hot air anywhere I've ever been. Love that LTA platform...after you locate the big guy, you'd probalby make alot of money in ecotourism if you could fit a hot-tub into the plan.

No matter how much I proof read, I still don't eliminate all of the mistakes.

Read "misperception"

You came to the right forum to ask that question.

Didn't really intend raking this over again but I may have been misunderstood (not that it really matters).


Granted - the footage is inconclusive.

My reference to 'default guys in suits' comes from the undeniable fact that they do in fact exist outside of the PG footage, and they are the only possible alternative to a real creature (Bill - your earlier reference). A real creature (IMHO) is an extraordinary explanation (though not impossible) and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

A costume is not an extraordinary explanation. The default possibility/likely explanation (IMHO) should not be an exotic one.

Edited to remove an ill thought out example .

John:

Well, here, the reasoning gets very subjective.

Yes, costumes and suits do exist, but none specifically like what we see in the film.

And large primates do exist, but none specifically like what we see in the film.

So one can argue, yes such a suit can be made, but one can argue that yes, such a primate can exist.

If we really do approach this from a "pure" theoretical point, it simply may be either a real primate or a human in a suit posing as a real primate. It's not a robot (in 1967, a robot fully selfcontained could not walk bipedally without falling over) and not some other living species in a suit (I mention that because I have created suits and costumes for animals to wear to appear as another species of animal, and the figure is too large to be a chimp in a suit and the anatomy rules out a gorilla in a suit, if a trained one existed, which is speculative at best.)

From here, it's all probability, and each person can give weight to the probabilities as their personal hypothesis.

I personally do not see any reason to give a suit more inherent probability than a unknown species probability, as a general default presumption. I choose a level playing field whereby either argument must be proven, and the opposing one disproven, for one to prevail.

You may choose to specify your hypothesis with your own foundation presumptions.

And you may respectfully point out what you feel are flaws or factors not fully considered in my hypothesis, as I may do so with yours. I'll always be pleased to listen to what you have to say, and try to answer you with respectful reasoning as I see the issue.

Bill

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point then (though my post was addressing Soarwing's possible misinterpretation of my meaning - I understand why wanted to respond).


Edited for typo & stuff

I've always had these questions. I've looked around here a bit but there is too much info. Maybe somebody could give me the short answers.

In the time that the footage was shot, wasn't the creature known as the Sasquatch Monster rather than a species of primate? Meaning one immortal being. What I'm getting at is, most "Hollywood creatures" up to that time were male. Why choose a female if it's a hoax?

And since they were on horseback, why not chase her and get minutes of film instead of seconds?

Please help me with these.
Thanks

Well to be horseback, the horse has to cooperate, that was a big negatory, when the horse lurches up and falls pinning the riders leg gets up and trys to run off and the other rider has to hold both horses while the film agent chases on foot, I'll let others answer the other parts

Furious

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on Hollywood standards. If you recall, during that time frame, every western film had at least one sequence where a horse would nearly unseat a rider because there was a rattle snake crossing the trail! It's a wonder there are any rattlesnakes left considering the wholesale slaughter of the reptiles that occurred on the silver screen! Imagine how the horses would have reacted to "Bigfoot Meets Roy Rogers?"

From a mere imaginative standpoint, the addition of breasts could be considered near genius if artistic license is being considered. It lends credability to the creature. But, was it artistic license, or a real creature? My real question is, IF it was a hoax, why was it the first? I know, someone has to be first, but why a rodeo cowboy and not someone with a little more Barnum and Bailey background?

I go back and forth. One time I'll look at it and say, it simply cannot be! Then, I'll look at it and have a near visceral reaction, and I'll get chills!

K

Sure, we know that suits exist, but we also know that creatures quite a bit like what is shown on the film also exist - outside of the PGF footage - The question is whether or not these types of creatures STILL exist as living animals. In that sense, upright walking "man-ape" creatures are just as much of a reality as anything else.

Are there known animals that exactly match the PGF creature - assuming that it's genuine? Hard to say because we can't examine the PGF creature in great enough detail and some fossil evidence is just to incomplete to know for sure. For example, Gigantopithecus might be a match. Plus, the PGF animal could share characteristics from several evolutionary "lines". Just like we see in other and more complete fossil "ape-man" examples.

Surviving "ape-men" would be highly surprising to science to be sure, but what additional "extraordinary" evidence supporting the existence of animals LIKE the PGF subject would be required, when we already have that factual evidence? If the PGF depicted a mammal with six limbs or with feathers, then I think we'd get to the level of exotic.

It's not as if with "bigfoot" we'd have to re-write the textbooks to allow for some new form of life or bizarre morphology, as we would for extra-terrestrials or a feathered fish. Descriptions of Bigfoot are what one might expect if an animal LIKE Giganto or A. Bosei - or some further evolved offshoot/hybrid - were alive today.

If the PGF shows a real "ape-man", what it shows is only extraordinary in the sense that the existence of these types of creatures - in 1967 at least - is scientifically unexpected. So I don't look at the PGF depicting a real creature as all that "exotic" of an explanation - However unexpected or unlikely it may be.

I think people - when considering the idea of "bigfoot" - tend to attack the tabloid version of bigfoot more than they factor in the existing and factual evidence that ape-men, while they may be extinct, are certainly real. I think the word "bigfoot" arouses similar reactions in people as do the words "leprechaun", "fairy" and "aliens".

How so?

We know that bipedal apes have existed in the past, and we also know that apes as large as sasquatches have been described to be have also existed in the past.

The improbabilities that sasquatch presently exists are the unlikelihood that there has been no corpse delivered to science yet, and that the PG film is the only such film yet produced that is even remotely convincing.



I think Bill did a good job of outlining those odds above. There are only two possibilities with regard to the PG film: it is either a man in a suit, or it's a sasquatch.

Every bit of evidence that makes the man-in-the-suit possibility weaker makes the living, breathing, unclassified, bipedal, fenalie, hairy creature possibility more valid.

You describe the above exchange as circular reasoning, but I think it does a good job of showing the denialist's position.

I posted this in another thread, but after reading some of the discussions here, I felt it might have some significance.

Matt K.



Scientific skepticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (British English spelling: scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term is most commonly applied to the examination of claims and theories which appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than to the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our right to claim knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Scientific skepticism utilizes critical thinking and attempts to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis.

Characteristics
Like a scientist, a scientific skeptic attempts to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability rather than accepting claims on faith, anecdotes, or relying on unfalsifiable categories. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. This distinguishes the scientific skeptic from the professional scientist, who often concentrates their inquiry on verifying or falsifying hypotheses created by those within their particular field of science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favour before they could be accepted as having validity.



Pseudoskepticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term pseudoskepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) denotes thinking that appears to be skeptical but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularised by Marcello Truzzi, through his Journal of Scientific Exploration, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'"
Characteristics of pseudoskeptics
While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.[3]

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]
Double standards in the application of criticism [5]
The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'[9]
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]


Pseudo-skepticism and scientific method
It is normal scientific practice to posit alternate explanations (or theories) for observed phenomenon, to experiment, and to adopt the theory that best predicts the behaviour. Scientific evidence is often indicative rather than overwhelming, and many theories are based not on any single piece of evidence, but on accumulated weight of evidence, or simply on accumulated lack of evidence to the contrary.

For example, if a test is performed that shows apparent evidence for ESP, most scientists will suspect a flaw in the test. Scientific practice does not require every scientist to fully vet every experiment performed by every other scientist. Rather, scientific reports are reviewed by a number of peers, and where an experiment has produced interesting results, other scientists will try to reproduce it. If their results match, the evidence is accepted. If not, the original result is agreed to be an anomaly and it does not affect the acceptance of the dominant theory.

However, it is common for protoscientists to apply the label pseudoskeptic to anyone who is not prepared to either investigate the test or accept its conclusion. This is a misunderstanding of scientific method. To actually state that ESP does not exist and therefore there must be a flaw in the test is pseudoskepticism; taking a position on the validity on the test requires accepting a burden of proof. Simply choosing to ignore the test is not pseudoskepticism, however frustrating it can be to those who welcome the apparent result of a test.

OklahomaSquatch:

Very nice piece of research.

Thank you.

Bill

I don't think you'd have to worry about the helium or the hot air once the mothership hovers over the sasquatch, the research area, the researchers, and the research platform and beams all of the above up
Couldn't resist, thats a heck of an idea though Bill, except for density of tree canopy, one of those pinchpoints up near Easterville in Manitoba around the lakes might be
friendly to such an endeavor, maybe Wally Hersom would bite on the aerial approach or a Canadian benefactor