Suppose Bigfoot was real and I had the proof?

[Blue Mountain]

So, I'm out there in wilds of Canada, toting about my trusty digital camera and GPS unit. Movement catches the corner of my eye. I turn and look, and to my side many yards off a pair of distinctly hominid eyes peers back at me from the foliage. Quickly I snap a picture, then engage my camera's zoom and take two more. When I lower the camera the eyes are gone.

This scenario is fictional (I enjoy my computer too much to spend time tromping about wilds in search of either recreation or wildlife. :) ) But suppose I had the camera and GPS with me. Realizing I need to have the picture on my camera's memory card looked at by a professional, how do ensure that a chain of custody is established between my picture (and the current location) and the person who eventually examines the photograph on the memory card?

I understand that a person skilled in digital photography can tell if I attempted to alter the picture that I took with a program like Photoshop or the GIMP. So obviously I wouldn't do that. But I would like to ensure that skeptics here would be unable to say, "Sorry, you can't prove you were where you said you were when and where you took the picture." To me, that's a pretty tall order.

(No, I'm not going to mysteriously show up here this coming September with a bigfoot picture for sale :D)

[kosai]

Well a basic way to see if a picture has been altered would be to check it's EXIF data. You can read more about that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif

As far as "chain of custody" goes,not really sure I understand the question, but if you are concerned about it... ummm... Armored car?

[sthomson]

You have a camera, and a GPS. To validate your position, take a picture of your GPS unit.

That's about it. Preserve the memory card, don't mess around with the original photos in Photoshop.

[athon]

And what evidence would there be that this is not faked on another level? Photographic manipulation might be one thing, but there'd always be the notion that it's merely clever modelling or makeup. The arguments would start afresh over whether a certain crease or wrinkle, or the spacing of eyes, or the detail of pores were capable of being faked.

In all honesty, as science progresses, the demand for evidence which cannot be faked goes up. All in all I feel that short of a specimen or remains, DNA is the only thing which could be accepted as worthwhile evidence of a such a new species. Snap away, by all means, but the age of photographic evidence has passed.

Athon

[Blue Mountain]

Well a basic way to see if a picture has been altered would be to check its EXIF data. You can read more about that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif

As far as "chain of custody" goes,not really sure I understand the question, but if you are concerned about it... ummm... Armored car?
Thanks. I'm familiar with EXIF. As a professional programmer, I'm also aware I could probably fiddle with the data to cover up an attempt to doctor the photo, were I so inclined.

To me, chain of custody means everyone involved knows what's happened to the memory card from the moment I took the photograph to the moment the picture is posted to the Internet as proof. Unfortunately, since I'm alone at the moment I took the picture, barring some sort of sworn affidavit I don't see how it could be well and truly established that I really was at the position the GPS says I was at the moment I claim to have taken the picture.

Chain of custody could also be established by generating an MD5 or SHA1 sum of the picture's data. If I give a copy of the picture to someone, I can accompany it with the sum. If there are any questions, the first thing to do is compare the sums. If they match, we can be assured we're both talking about the exact same file.

You have a camera, and a GPS. To validate your position, take a picture of your GPS unit.

That's about it. Preserve the memory card, don't mess around with the original photos in Photoshop.
That would go a long way, I think, especially if the picture also included some identifiable landform. Hopefully, too, the GPS will display a time of some sort, which can then be matched to the time and date in the photograph's EXIF data--provided it could later be demonstrated how far off the true time my camera's clock was. I was also thinking it would be a good idea to take additional photographs of the foliage and the surrounding landscape to provide a pattern of EXIF data that would be difficult to fake.

Another thing I can think of doing is setting the read/write switch on the memory card to read-only. Perhaps even something as drastic as gluing it into that position. At the very least it would prevent accidental erasure!

[Blue Mountain]

In all honesty, as science progresses, the demand for evidence which cannot be faked goes up. All in all I feel that short of a specimen or remains, DNA is the only thing which could be accepted as worthwhile evidence of a such a new species. Snap away, by all means, but the age of photographic evidence has passed. Athon
Hmm, so in addition to getting a picture, I need to go to the foliage to see if anything has been left behind by the supposed animal. I can see a forensics expert having a field day describing all the ways *I* could contaminate any sample I picked up :) (Although I guess if I contaminated the sample, it would merely show my DNA and not bigfoot's.)

[athon]

Hmm, so in addition to getting a picture, I need to go to the foliage to see if anything has been left behind by the supposed animal. I can see a forensics expert having a field day describing all the ways *I* could contaminate any sample I picked up :) (Although I guess if I contaminated the sample, it would merely show my DNA and not bigfoot's.)

Of course this would be the next dilemma. Geneticists would only be able to say it was a specimen of unknown source. It wouldn't necessarily qualify as a big-foot. We could possibly hope for a 'non-human primate' result from such an analysis, I guess.

This is what a lot of paranormalists don't get. There's really no such thing in science as a single, one-off discovery of anything. There's the initial finding and then a whole lot of supporting finds or experiments (which is often hidden or missed on reflection in the future). Without subsequent information the discovery is close to useless.

This is why every person who steps up with a crypto discovery of some sort I treat with good humour in lieu of there being follow-up finds.

Athon

[mangler]

Change your fictional scenario so that you are gunman instead of a camera man. Kill the beast and chop it's head off. There is no other way.


m :bike:

[sthomson]

Of course, a GPS unit can be tampered with to display a fake time and location (as trivial as printing up a clear sticker). This sort of tampering would be very difficult to prove.

[Tokenconservative]

Let's get together and make some money...lots and lots of rubes out there who'll believe that a guy in a monkey suit is Big Foot!

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

And what evidence would there be that this is not faked on another level? Photographic manipulation might be one thing, but there'd always be the notion that it's merely clever modelling or makeup. The arguments would start afresh over whether a certain crease or wrinkle, or the spacing of eyes, or the detail of pores were capable of being faked.

In all honesty, as science progresses, the demand for evidence which cannot be faked goes up. All in all I feel that short of a specimen or remains, DNA is the only thing which could be accepted as worthwhile evidence of a such a new species. Snap away, by all means, but the age of photographic evidence has passed.

Athon

Indeed. This is what has caused the entire UFO mythos to crumble...it was based around photographic "evidence" to a large degree.

Now, most of the old standbys when subjected to advanced photographic analysis have been found...wanting.

Worse for this religion is the advent of cheap, advanced, very portable imaging capability by everyone from 6 yr-olds with camera cells to folks with small, ever-present digital still and vid. cameras.

When half the population of the world is carrying one of these things virtually every hour of every day we should be seeing a flood of very good, very real photos of UFOs, shouldn't we?

But we aren't.

We also aren't seeing a flood of very good, very real photos of Nessie, Big Foot, Yeti (how many people climed Everest last year...10,000? 15,000?). As for Big Foot, in the 60s and 70s, far fewer people ventured into the deep woods. Now, with so many small, inexpensive ATVs that can take you deep into any place on the N. American continent--with your camera cell and digital imaging device--we should be seeing thousands of Big Foot photos, shouldn't we?

But no...we are not.

In fact, we are seeing far fewer signs of Big Foot than we were when the technology was not there to get us into the deep woods and not there to provide us with lots of very high-quality photos and vids of the big hairy lug.

As much fun as all that stuff has always been, and as much as I dislike seeing that bit of wonder taken away from the world, the ice cold reality is that the lack of evidence for all of these things, from UFOs, to Big Foot and Yeti, to Nessie and other lake monsters, to Mongolian Sandworms and Underdwellers is proof that they simply don't exist.

Tokie

[historian]

Still photos are worthless.* There is no chain of custody unless you had an officer of the law, standing next to you when you snapped the photos and immediately turned your entire camera and card over to the officer, for his safe keeping.* That ain't goin to happen.* But there is a 100% chance that your camera will come up missing.* A location also means nothing.* By the time you get back there with witnesses you will be lucky to find prints.* When you don't, then you just opened the door a lot earlier to your being made into a liar.* If you bring the photo here, you will instantly be made into a liar.* If you post it to the pro-bigfoot chat rooms, then it will be classified as a "bear with mange".* If you send it to a TV station, then it will also be a "bear with mange".* The public cannot deal with Bigfoot, anymore.* They have put too much effort into turning Bigfoot into a myth over the last 40 years, to let you turn that effort into so much smoke.* So you will be inevitably destroyed, one way or another.

[Locknar]

Still photos are worthless.* <snip>
So in essence your profile pic (the potentially photoshoped pic at that) that you claim is a "BF" orb", as well as the other photographic/video evicence you claim to have, is worthless by your own admission.

[madurobob]

As much fun as all that stuff has always been, and as much as I dislike seeing that bit of wonder taken away from the world, the ice cold reality is that the lack of evidence for all of these things, from UFOs, to Big Foot and Yeti, to Nessie and other lake monsters, to Mongolian Sandworms and Underdwellers is proof that they simply don't exist.
<my bolding>
Agreed. They were done in by global warming ;)

What is interesting to me is the lengths to which people will go to cling to their fairy tales in the face of the mounting case for fraud & fakery and the lack of new and credible evidence. My favorite from this forum is the straight-faced statement that bigfoot is invisible. That is something my 5 year old would have invented when confronted with his assertion that someone else ate the cookies from the jar.

As to the OP: you can copy the files from the memory stick and play around with them as much as you want on your computer - but leave the original image files intact on the stick and also have unaltered copies on your HD. The files themselves contain header and footer data to identify them as original.

But photos alone, as already noted, will never be believable evidence. Your photos could, however, be one of several pieces of credible evidence that when combined are difficult to refute. Take notes of everything you saw, heard and felt. Look for footprints, photograph them, then note the coordinates so you can return and make casts. Look for hair, scat, anything else that could be used for DNA testing.

Oh, and be sure to have bear spray. Bears don't like being hunted and will sometimes hunt back.

[historian]

So in essence your profile pic (the potentially photoshoped pic at that) that you claim is a "BF" orb", as well as the other photographic/video evicence you claim to have, is worthless by your own admission.

My still photo is CAPTURED from a live video with dozens of moving orbs that have been photographed both very close and very far. It would be quite impossible to fake that kind of video, since the orbs are often opaque or translucent that varies as they move. I could capture any orb off of that video, and they all would have a high level of credibility, because of the supporting evidence. Ordinarily, a still photo has no supporting evidence, like a second camera photographing the same object from a different direction and distance. My photo is still a BIGFOOT IN SPIRIT/ORB PHASE.
And there is also an apparent PORTAL in my video. PORTALS, have only been photographed in HUNT FOR THE SKINWALKER, that I am aware of.

[Earthborn]

Choose a tree that is in the original bigfoot photo. Make an identifiable mark on it, and take a photo similar to the original, in which the mark is visible. Perhaps with the GPS in the foregound. Light and weather patterns will show that both photos very likely have been made shortly after eachother, and can be checked against astronomical and meteorological data. Anyone who doubts that you were at the location you claimed you were can use your GPS data to find the spot and the mark on the tree proves you were there.

[aggle-rithm]

Still photos are worthless.* There is no chain of custody unless you had an officer of the law, standing next to you when you snapped the photos and immediately turned your entire camera and card over to the officer, for his safe keeping.* That ain't goin to happen.* But there is a 100% chance that your camera will come up missing.* A location also means nothing.* By the time you get back there with witnesses you will be lucky to find prints.* When you don't, then you just opened the door a lot earlier to your being made into a liar.* If you bring the photo here, you will instantly be made into a liar.* If you post it to the pro-bigfoot chat rooms, then it will be classified as a "bear with mange".* If you send it to a TV station, then it will also be a "bear with mange".* The public cannot deal with Bigfoot, anymore.* They have put too much effort into turning Bigfoot into a myth over the last 40 years, to let you turn that effort into so much smoke.* So you will be inevitably destroyed, one way or another.

I agree that an actual Bigfoot carcass would be much better evidence. Shouldn't be too hard to find, if they exist.

Failing that, a single Bigfoot hair with DNA. Scientists could easily verify that it's an unknown species of primate. However, it would be more difficult to determine its physical characteristics to the extent that we could say how big its feet were.

There should be Bigfoot hairs all over the place. Or do they conveniently biodegrade?

[aggle-rithm]

My still photo is CAPTURED from a live video with dozens of moving orbs that have been photographed both very close and very far. It would be quite impossible to fake that kind of video, since the orbs are often opaque or translucent that varies as they move. I could capture any orb off of that video, and they all would have a high level of credibility, because of the supporting evidence. Ordinarily, a still photo has no supporting evidence, like a second camera photographing the same object from a different direction and distance. My photo is still a BIGFOOT IN SPIRIT/ORB PHASE.
And there is also an apparent PORTAL in my video. PORTALS, have only been photographed in HUNT FOR THE SKINWALKER, that I am aware of.

Really?

[historian]

I agree that an actual Bigfoot carcass would be much better evidence. Shouldn't be too hard to find, if they exist.

Failing that, a single Bigfoot hair with DNA. Scientists could easily verify that it's an unknown species of primate. However, it would be more difficult to determine its physical characteristics to the extent that we could say how big its feet were.

There should be Bigfoot hairs all over the place. Or do they conveniently biodegrade?

Sure bigfoot hairs have been found.
Sure the hairs have been analyzed for DNA.
Sure they have come back as "similar to man but diet contained no chemicals from prepared foods, but it's diet did consist of deer meat and plant roots. Also the hair contained no cut ends. Also the hair did not match any known primate.

Go to talkshoe - bigfoot, and bring up the William Draginis interview.

[Tricky]

My still photo is CAPTURED from a live video with dozens of moving orbs that have been photographed both very close and very far. It would be quite impossible to fake that kind of video, since the orbs are often opaque or translucent that varies as they move. I could capture any orb off of that video, and they all would have a high level of credibility, because of the supporting evidence. Ordinarily, a still photo has no supporting evidence, like a second camera photographing the same object from a different direction and distance. My photo is still a BIGFOOT IN SPIRIT/ORB PHASE.
And there is also an apparent PORTAL in my video. PORTALS, have only been photographed in HUNT FOR THE SKINWALKER, that I am aware of.
Pah! Photos! That's nothing. I have evidence that is not only photos, BUT INTERVIEWS (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2691506.html). Turns out he's looking for a girl friend.

[athon]

Pah! Photos! That's nothing. I have evidence that is not only photos, BUT INTERVIEWS (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2691506.html). Turns out he's looking for a girl friend.

That's nothing! In Australia, our version - the yowie - hosted a current affairs program.

His DNA was analysed and came back 'does not use normal brill cream'. We suspected all along...

Athon

[DavidS]

To me, chain of custody means everyone involved knows what's happened to the memory card...
<bolding mine>

That's fine if you are the one you're hoping to convince, but in the scenario you describe that shouldn't be a tall hurdle to clear. If it's proof you're claiming, the important issue would seem to be what evidence of authenticity is important to the people you're trying to convince.

Still photographs (photosensitive chemistry) are weak enough evidence; digital photos are weaker still.

I think you'd be kidding yourself to categorize any digital data -- which is all the image you describe is, and for which the memory card is nothing more than a holder -- as "proof" against challenges to its authenticity. There's simply no way for something that's neither more nor less than a collection of bits to definitively validate how those bits came to have the values they have.

"Chain of custody" for the memory card might be persuasive but it wouldn't quite qualify as proof, not least because digital images are the easiest to manipulate. Perfectly provable custody control of the card supports only that image data on the card has not been modified while the card has been in custody, which doesn't address such challenges as:

1) Proof that the image data was not on the card beforehand.
2) Proof that the image data reflects the scene before the camera
3) Proof that the scene before the camera is what it is claimed to be

Hoax: Shoot a woodland scene. Paint in bigfoot by bit-editing the file in detail -- including timestamp and ID data for intended "photo time". Take witnesses to woods so see you use disabled camera to "snap photo" and take custody of "unmodified" memory card.

Hoax: Shoot woodland scene, edit image to paint in bigfoot. Present optically or electronically within camera body to be recorded in lieu of scene before camera. Take witnesses to woods to see you use modified camera to "snap photo" at any time, recording whatever timestamp and ID data would be appropriate for that camera at that time.

My point is that because even a perfect custody chain for a digital image file on a storage medium would still leave holes a hoaxer could drive a truck through, it's not what a skeptic would call proof that the image isn't a hoax.

[Locknar]

My still photo is CAPTURED from a live video with dozens of moving orbs that have been photographed both very close and very far. It would be quite impossible to fake that kind of video, since the orbs are often opaque or translucent that varies as they move. I could capture any orb off of that video, and they all would have a high level of credibility, because of the supporting evidence. Ordinarily, a still photo has no supporting evidence, like a second camera photographing the same object from a different direction and distance. My photo is still a BIGFOOT IN SPIRIT/ORB PHASE.
And there is also an apparent PORTAL in my video. PORTALS, have only been photographed in HUNT FOR THE SKINWALKER, that I am aware of.
Blah blah blah...everyone has heard it before. From a earlier post:

There is no chain of custody unless you had an officer of the law, standing next to you when you snapped the photos and immediately turned your entire camera and card over to the officer, for his safe keeping.*
So I assume you can provide us the Officers name? Location? Date and time? You could prove me wrong; how about posting the video the still is from, or a higher res version that was asked for earlier?

Of course you won't/can't do any of that...you'll rant, talk of liability, munch corn dogs, but never provide anything other then blather. Just more made-up (and obviously false) claims of yours.

[Blue Mountain]

<bolding mine>

That's fine if you are the one you're hoping to convince, but in the scenario you describe that shouldn't be a tall hurdle to clear. If it's proof you're claiming, the important issue would seem to be what evidence of authenticity is important to the people you're trying to convince.
I fully agree with you. The word "proof" is a tip of the hat to Creekfreak's thread "Bigfoot is real and I have the proof", wherein he tried to pawn off a a doctored photo as proof. Part of the problem was there is no good chain of custody for the photograph.

It's probably impossible to prove that the picture on my flash card captured the light that came through the lens.

[kosai]

<bolding mine>

I think you'd be kidding yourself to categorize any digital data -- which is all the image you describe is, and for which the memory card is nothing more than a holder -- as "proof" against challenges to its authenticity. There's simply no way for something that's neither more nor less than a collection of bits to definitively validate how those bits came to have the values they have.


I find this statement a little surprising considering digital photography, while it may have started a little shaky, has been good enough for court rooms for a while now. I'd think it would be good enough in a case like this:

http://www.veripic.com/

As I said earlier, a person skilled in photo examination could tell you if the EXIF data matches what one *should* find in the scene. People have made a living on telling if a photograph is authentic using shadows, light, rules of perspective, etc. They've been doing this long long before digital photography.

Can a skilled manipulator exist that is able to fool everyone all of the time? Sure, of course it's possible... is the bar set that unrealistically high to prevent it being used as evidence? No.

If a "believer" were here, ready to send a digital photograph taken in RAW mode with fitting EXIF data of an unknown creature, I'd give them every benifit of the doubt in that case... I think it speaks many more volumes that those who do come here are not familiar with any of these technologies that would help further their story. Also, just getting them to post a few fames of video or a clear shot from their camera that would be sufficient to even begin to verify authenticity is near impossible.

[halofish2000]

I don't believe a still photo will ever work. Don't think video will work unless you have BF doing something beyond the scope of a human. I agree with a previous poster that substituting a gun for a camera will erase all doubts. I don't believe it exists. If he so happened to walk into my yard I can assure you it will be a rifle and not a camera I shoot.

[manofthesea]

I posted this step by step guide at BFF. It will help prove the existence of sasquatch. A reliable database of 'close to human' determinations will prove it. No body needed. And you can do it in your 'flip-flops'.

It's at BFF, In the field, "O.K., I'm Going Camping, Now What?"

Fame and Fortune anyone?

[aggle-rithm]

Sure bigfoot hairs have been found.
Sure the hairs have been analyzed for DNA.
Sure they have come back as "similar to man but diet contained no chemicals from prepared foods, but it's diet did consist of deer meat and plant roots. Also the hair contained no cut ends. Also the hair did not match any known primate.

Go to talkshoe - bigfoot, and bring up the William Draginis interview.

I would be more impressed by the DNA evidence than a chemical analysis of the hair. It is possible for a human to have no chemicals from prepared foods. It is also possible for a human to have hairs that have never been cut. But it's NOT possible for a human to have the wrong number of chromosomes.* This is the sort of thing that would allow us to definitively identify the species as something we don't already know about.

*Other than known genetic anomalies, of course.

[Locknar]

Sure bigfoot hairs have been found.
Sure the hairs have been analyzed for DNA.
Sure they have come back as "similar to man but diet contained no chemicals from prepared foods, but it's diet did consist of deer meat and plant roots. Also the hair contained no cut ends. Also the hair did not match any known primate.

Go to talkshoe - bigfoot, and bring up the William Draginis interview.
What is the cite/reference for this DNA analysis; surly such a find would be published? When was it done, where were the "hairs" found, who collected them, what lab did the test, what was the chain of custody, etc.

If you can't/won't provide a cite, then you can't support the claim...in other words it didn't happen.

[DavidS]

I find this statement a little surprising considering digital photography, while it may have started a little shaky, has been good enough for court rooms for a while now.
<snip>
Can a skilled manipulator exist that is able to fool everyone all of the time? Sure, of course it's possible... is the bar set that unrealistically high to prevent it being used as evidence?

I'll admit to overstating the position beyond what might be practically acceptable, and that such an image file would be persuasive. However, I stand by my position that a digital photo image file validated only by chain-of-custody protocol covering its storage media could ever rise to the level of proof needed to overcome skeptical objections to its authenticity.

In particular: The EXIF data mentioned amounts to no more and no less than public agreement that "to record this message these bits should have these values". There's no question that's a handy facility when all involved play by the rules, but anyone with power to manipulate the image data bits would also be able to manipulate those EXIF bits. The "RAW mode" and EXIF data expected for a valid picture are knowable a priori... which means they can be manipulated to present that message.

So I assert that validating the image file's content may be a necessary component of "proof", without some validation that the content was in fact produced by the method claimed the image file (and its media) is not sufficient proof.

That is: Any evidence for Bigfoot will have to overcome an expectation that it's a hoax, and I don't think integrity of a digital file can overcome challenges to its source.

[uruk]

You could also try to make MD5Hashes of the picture files in the memory card. (have to hook it up to a computer though. If any of the photos were altered in any way the Hashes will not match up.

Although there are ways of bypassing that.

[Blue Mountain]

You could also try to make MD5Hashes of the picture files in the memory card. (have to hook it up to a computer though. If any of the photos were altered in any way the Hashes will not match up.

Although there are ways of bypassing that.
Actually, I suggested that back in point 5. Unfortunately, all the MD5 hash will tell us is that a copy of the image in someone else's possession is the same as the one currently on the memory card. It can't prove that I didn't pre-load a faked image on the card.

What's needed here is something that will either demonstrate or even prove that the picture on the memory card was created by the light that came through the lens of the camera I claim to have taken the picture with. And not even that will be sufficient, because I could have taken a picture of some guy in a gorilla suit :)

[kosai]

What's needed here is something that will either demonstrate or even prove that the picture on the memory card was created by the light that came through the lens of the camera I claim to have taken the picture with.

No need for MD5 hashes which will prove nothing, please read the FAQ here as I posted in #25. This software already does precisely what you are saying. It's function is to allow digital photography to be used as evidence in courts.

http://www.veripic.com/faq.htm

5. We use software from another company that claims to do authentication. Why is VeriPic® different?

VeriPic® is the ONLY software on the market that authenticates the photos from all brands of digital cameras by examining the photo itself for authenticity. If somebody tries to sell you some other software and claims to have authentication ask them about the following points. Competing software other companies sell falls into 2 categories.

1. One kind Secures the photo by making sure that once a photo is entered into their system it can't be changed. This isn't good enough because anyone can enter a falsified photo into the system at the start. There is no technology used to examine the photo itself and thus no assurance of authenticity. Sales people from these companies will call their method "authentication" but it is really only Securing of the photo. You will still need VeriPic® system on the front end to check for authenticity. (Call us for more information on systems that do Securing of photos if you're unsure.)

2. Another kind of software keeps History information on a photo (also known as History Tracking). What this software does is Secure a photo (see above definition) when it enters the system and then allows you to enhance the photo and save second, third or fourth, etc. copies of photos under different names. These companies will tell you that this History Tracking actually "authenticates" the photo because their software knows the history of the photo and the enhanced photos derived from the photo entered into their system. While this record keeping is nice (and the VeriPic® also happens to have this feature too!) this is not true authentication. Their system never examined the original photo entered into the system to know whether it was authentic. Anyone could have entered a fake photo into this system and it will claim this fake photo is authentic! You will still need VeriPic® system on History Tracking of photos if you're unsure.)

The VeriPic® software authenticates the photos from all camera brands.
This is something that nobody else does!

[blutoski]

Photos would not be acceptable. It'd just degenerate into more squinting arguments: "It's a zipper! No it's not!"

We'll need a live or dead specimen.

I don't even think that microscopic fragments would be acceptable, since it's impossible with current technology to extrapolate a phenotype from a DNA sample. Two scenarios come to mind: human remains, or remains of an obscure animal not in the testing database (eg: we wouldn't normally test for platypus. We have to test for each species one at a time. With 8 million species...)

[kosai]

So for anything to constitute as evidence you will need a living or dead specimen that is half-man and half-monkey?



Seems we're not as different from the creationists as I wished to believe.

[blutoski]

So for anything to constitute as evidence you will need a living or dead specimen that is half-man and half-monkey?

I would say that the specimen would have to plausibly explain sightings, is all. Eyewitness reports may have exaggerated its shape, locomotion, &c. The creature may not actually be as hominoid as reported.

[blutoski]

Seems we're not as different from the creationists as I wished to believe.

Skeptics are asking bigfoot supporters to produce evidence of something that they do claim exists (a hominoid).

Creationists are asking scientists to produce evidence of something we don't claim exists (the fictional missing link).

We're different because we don't revel in strawperson arguments.

[kosai]

Just a (joking) observation.

However speaking seriously, depending on how you are using the word "proof" clear photographs from multiple people would serve as enough evidence for many. If a deep sea research vehicle came back with a photo of some new species, one which there is no physical specimen yet available, I'd have no reason to doubt them. The fact that so little Bigfoot evidence exists on film makes the creature ***less*** likely. Arguing that you won't believe it even if you see it, to me, makes us as skeptics seem unnecessarily hard headed.

[blutoski]

Just a (joking) observation.

However speaking seriously, depending on how you are using the word "proof" clear photographs from multiple people would serve as enough evidence for many. If a deep sea research vehicle came back with a photo of some new species, one which there is no physical specimen yet available, I'd have no reason to doubt them. The fact that so little Bigfoot evidence exists on film makes the creature ***less*** likely. Arguing that you won't believe it even if you see it, to me, makes us as skeptics seem unnecessarily hard headed.

I actually don't think this is true. One of the problems with photographs is that you can only really verify whether the photograph has been tampered with. You can't be certain if the object in the photo was tampered with.

An example of photographs that skeptics reject are the famous creationist photos of dinosaurs, such as the picture of a small pleiosaurus caught by fishermen. The giant skeleton and civil war pterodactyl photos make the rounds every few years.

There's also the Paluxy photos of human footprints in dinosaur tracks. The photos themselves are completely legitemate, but we know the subject matter was forged because of physical inspection.

[kosai]

An example of photographs that skeptics reject are the famous creationist photos of dinosaurs, such as the picture of a small pleiosaurus caught by fishermen.

These are the same photographs which also helped to indentify the findings later as a decomposing shark.


The giant skeleton and civil war pterodactyl photos make the rounds every few years.

These aren't really examples due to the fact that they are hoax photos. Giant skeleton was Photoshopped, therefore not relevant. Same with the Civil War Pterodactyl. Not only that, their popularity in email forwards consist of a rewritten story different from the original context.

There's also the Paluxy photos of human footprints in dinosaur tracks. The photos themselves are completely legitemate, but we know the subject matter was forged because of physical inspection.

This is like a photo of a bigfoot track. Nobody considers a picture of a track evidence. A photo of a creature should have something with which you could begin to consider the anatomy of the animal. This should begin to give you an idea if it's a man in a monkey suit or not. As I said before, would you think it's a likely hoax if a deep sea vehicle were to film an undocumented species? Would you consider that encounter as evidence that more should be done to research the unknown creature?

My argument isn't that a (as in one) photo is definitive "proof" in the it's proven sense, but in the... "Finally, we have at lease some proof that this animal could exist" way.

[Correa Neto]

I think photographic evidence can be reliable evidence, in some cases. If the person who filmed or photographed the animal is a well-known professional whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax, photos or footage could still be considered reliable evidence, even if the chain of custody can not be validated.

If more pics or films can be obtained, preferentially by different crews (as one would expect with real animals), I think photographic evidence can even be raised to the level of proof.

[Darat]

Just as an example of photographic evidence being "good enough" in a sense: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4501152.stm

[aggle-rithm]

I think photographic evidence can be reliable evidence, in some cases. If the person who filmed or photographed the animal is a well-known professional whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax, photos or footage could still be considered reliable evidence, even if the chain of custody can not be validated.


I think if a well-known professional started babbling about Bigfoot, his career would be over.

[aggle-rithm]

Just as an example of photographic evidence being "good enough" in a sense: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4501152.stm

This just makes you wonder why people spend so much time and effort trying to validate their belief in something imaginary when there are REAL unknown species being discovered. Scientifically, why would the discovery of a new ape species be more exciting than that of a new lemur or dolphin species? Is it because they don't resemble us enough? They're not sensational enough? It's actual science, so it's boring?

[Cainkane1]

Proof would require either a capture or a body. Films don't cut it.

[Cainkane1]

This just makes you wonder why people spend so much time and effort trying to validate their belief in something imaginary when there are REAL unknown species being discovered. Scientifically, why would the discovery of a new ape species be more exciting than that of a new lemur or dolphin species? Is it because they don't resemble us enough? They're not sensational enough? It's actual science, so it's boring?


A bigfoot would be a creature we could perhaps talk to. Thats the allure of a bigfoot. I think humans want to talk to something outside of their species. Some people go the alien route, some people go the bigfoot route.

[Piscivore]

A bigfoot would be a creature we could perhaps talk to. Thats the allure of a bigfoot. I think humans want to talk to something outside of their species. Some people go the alien route, some people go the bigfoot route.

With a lot of people beginning to see the failure of "The Church" (or any human authority, religious or otherwise) as a font of reliable "wisdom", and honest scientists and skeptics saying they don't have any uncontestable wisdom either, is it possible that this is why they look for aliens, or bigfeet, or psychics? They are looking for someone, or something, that has all the answers?

Do they want their daddy back?

[Correa Neto]

I think if a well-known professional started babbling about Bigfoot, his career would be over.
Babbling, yes.

But if he/she presented reliable evidence, it would be another story.

Since reliable evidence is missing, as well as good methodology...

[Correa Neto]

Suppose a zoologist finds a (real) bigfoot group, clan, tribe, pack, herd, whatever. He/she manages to obtain several pics and footage. He/she invites a NG team to shoot a documentary on them. The team arrives and manages to get more footage and stills. Note that the men-in-a-gorilla-suit possibility would become very unlikely in this case.

OK, in such case, chances are at least DNA evidence would be already available. But even in the unlikely case of hair and poop failing to provide good DNA material, I think the images could be considered "proof", even if a specimen is not available.

[kosai]

Just as an example of photographic evidence being "good enough" in a sense: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4501152.stm

I think this is a great example. It's "proof" enough to me that the animal pictured exists as there is no reason for me to doubt it. It's not an outlandish claim and the picture serves as enough evidence to convince me it's likely. Also, it follows the rules I said earlier, it's from a reputable source, there is enough detail to make it distinctive, and through study of the picture some anatomy of the animal can be learned from it.

Perhaps there is no right answer to the question being presented here, it seems the line of "proof" is not in the same place for everyone. Some would be convinced from solid photographic evidence while others aren't convinced until they have one in a cage.

My main concern is the "cage" type skeptics put a lot of the general population off as I think *most* of the population would consider that a little unreasonable.

[kitakaze]

Babbling, yes.

But if he/she presented reliable evidence, it would be another story.

Since reliable evidence is missing, as well as good methodology...Absolutely agreed. A problem that we continually have with bigfoot enthusiasts who bemoan the demand for a type specimen. This is why we take great care to differentiate between what is proof where bigfoot is concerned and what qualifies as reliable evidence. I personally consider reliable evidence to be that which is unreasonably difficult to account for without a living species of giant upright bipedal primates roaming the North American continent.

As Correa pointed out visual documentation could certainly cut it in terms of getting serious scientific consideration given the proper circumstances such as the ones he mentions. (Bigfoot enthusiasts- If you try to tell me Meldrum qualifies as serious scientific consideration, I'm just going to give you a quote on him seeing boobs on the MDF subject.)

What bigfootery can't come to terms with is the pitch it's trying to throw. You get guys like Meldrum talking about the PNW and Inter-mountain West meanwhile we have guys here swearing up and down about the bigfoots picking through their trash in suburban Florida.

[William Parcher]

I think this is a great example. It's "proof" enough to me that the animal pictured exists as there is no reason for me to doubt it. It's not an outlandish claim and the picture serves as enough evidence to convince me it's likely. Also, it follows the rules I said earlier, it's from a reputable source, there is enough detail to make it distinctive, and through study of the picture some anatomy of the animal can be learned from it.

This is probably not a photograph of a "new species". It is now regarded as a representation of the first "in the wild" photos of an elusive flying squirrel in Borneo. This animal has already been described by science.

‘New Bornean carnivore’ is most likely a little known flying squirrel (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2006.00089.x)

Comparisons of the features seen in the photos with morphological features of 17 similar-looking species from the region suggest that the animal is not a new species of carnivore, as had been widely speculated, but is most likely a rarely seen species of flying squirrel, probably Aeromys thomasi.

[NobbyNobbs]

(how many people climed Everest last year...10,000? 15,000?).

/derail/
Actually, only a few hundred each year, but the number is increasing. There's been a bit more than 10,000 in total since 1953.

Cite. (http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2007-06/2007-06-19-voa1.cfm)

Ah, the power of Google.

/end derail/

[blutoski]

These are the same photographs which also helped to indentify the findings later as a decomposing shark.

You're missing my point: that it's a decomposing shark is simply a better explanation, and so skeptics have decided to reject the dinosaur claim. We don't *really* know what that was. This is why creationists still hoist the photo up as proof of a living dinosaur. They still argue about it.

If we had it on the table, we could examine it and debate would end.



These aren't really examples due to the fact that they are hoax photos. Giant skeleton was Photoshopped, therefore not relevant. Same with the Civil War Pterodactyl. Not only that, their popularity in email forwards consist of a rewritten story different from the original context.

So? The point is that merely asserting that we're "pretty sure" picture was Photoshopped does not put the issue to rest.



This is like a photo of a bigfoot track. Nobody considers a picture of a track evidence. A photo of a creature should have something with which you could begin to consider the anatomy of the animal. This should begin to give you an idea if it's a man in a monkey suit or not. As I said before, would you think it's a likely hoax if a deep sea vehicle were to film an undocumented species? Would you consider that encounter as evidence that more should be done to research the unknown creature?

Again, you're missing my point: there are indeed grades of reliability. I'm putting a stake in the ground and saying that I need a photo.

Using a photo to "consider the anatomy of the animal" is just opinions mounted on opinions. There are entire societies dedicated to making sense out of one or two grainy photos and the expert-vs-expert testimony just gets bogged down in details as goofy as a troofer or moon hoax discussion.

Over time, as hoax photos are discredited, the hoaxing technique will continue to improve. It's 2008: we're way beyond rented gorilla cosutmes.

As a counterexample, Steve Zissou's deep-sea photo of an undocumented underwater species would not be sufficient evidence for me to go anywhere, if there's no way in a million years that such a creature could exist in that part of the ocean. I'd assume this hypothetical underwater team was in on the hoax, or being duped by some elaborate scheme.

re: "photoshopped" - there's no proof that any of these were photoshopped. It's just the best explanation. We can find photos without the creatures - they do appear to have been inserted after the photos were taken... or were the photos without the creatures the photoshopped versions? We're going with the most reasonable explanation rather than any actual proof that they were altered.





My argument isn't that a (as in one) photo is definitive "proof" in the it's proven sense, but in the... "Finally, we have at lease some proof that this animal could exist" way.

I think you're confusing proof with evidence. We have a metric assload of evidence, but no proof. Eyewitness reports are evidence. Blurry photos are evidence. A photo wouldn't be any more proof than we already have, although it could add to the body of evidence.

But if I want to pass the threshold of proof for the claim that a hominoid species is dwelling in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, a photo won't do, because it's so incredible to begin with. The best explanation is that the photos are hoaxes.

[NobbyNobbs]

As a counterexample, Steve Zissou's deep-sea photo of an undocumented underwater species would not be sufficient evidence for me to go anywhere, if there's no way in a million years that such a creature could exist in that part of the ocean. I'd assume this hypothetical underwater team was in on the hoax, or being duped by some elaborate scheme.

.

First of all, I agree that nowadays, a photo isn't enough. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a photo hasn't been enough ever since those two sisters faked the fairy-in-the-garden picture.

However, given the above situation, how would you know that there's no way in a million years that such a creature could exist in that part of the ocean? There was a time, I'll bet, when we were quite sure that nothing could live in the deepest parts of the ocean, near those thermal exhausts. But they do. Or that any type of unwanted living organism could thrive in NASA's clean room, but I remember reading about a bacterium that does just that.

Incredulity doesn't discredit the photo. Lack of further evidence might, but lack of belief shouldn't.

[kosai]

re: "photoshopped" - there's no proof that any of these were photoshopped. It's just the best explanation. We can find photos without the creatures - they do appear to have been inserted after the photos were taken... or were the photos without the creatures the photoshopped versions? We're going with the most reasonable explanation rather than any actual proof that they were altered.



No "proof"? There's that word again... Are you not familiar Worth1000? The giants photos were part of a contest there. If we are speaking about the same pterodactyl civil war photo, these were linked to a promotion for a movie. The part you are leaving out here is the photos coming from a reputable source. Not photoshop contests, not movie promotions, and not the bible thumpers who found them and adjusted the stories behind them so they could be used to further their argument. The photos from the fisherman's catch were enough to prove to you they found *something* weren't they?

However, you may be right in the way you are using the word "proof"... The word proof to me is used as "Show me some proof to back up your claims" as in show me some evidence the claim could be true. Rather than "Show me the proof" which would end all argument that the claim is true (I don't hear it used like this often.)

So you are correct if using proof in that way, of course it's not enough to verify the claim completely. I meant that proof is enough to persuade me to think it's more than just a possibility. Existing bigfoot footage/finding isn't enough to do so.

[blutoski]

However, given the above situation, how would you know that there's no way in a million years that such a creature could exist in that part of the ocean? There was a time, I'll bet, when we were quite sure that nothing could live in the deepest parts of the ocean, near those thermal exhausts. But they do. Or that any type of unwanted living organism could thrive in NASA's clean room, but I remember reading about a bacterium that does just that.


We're not talking about "can a creature live in the woods."

We're talking about a hominoid. Ecologically, it makes no sense.

So, the equivalent for underwater is getting a picture of a dog living at the bottom of the ocean. I don't care what the photo pedigree is: it's incredible, and a photo is totally insufficient.

[NobbyNobbs]

We're not talking about "can a creature live in the woods."

We're talking about a hominoid. Ecologically, it makes no sense.

So, the equivalent for underwater is getting a picture of a dog living at the bottom of the ocean. I don't care what the photo pedigree is: it's incredible, and a photo is totally insufficient.

I must be a bit dense today, because I don't get your point. I don't see how a hominid in the woods is ecologically equivalent to a dog at the bottom of the ocean.

As far as legitimacy of evidence goes, I've just learned that up through the 17th century, the existence of the unicorn was proven, beyond doubt. First, there were the stories and written descriptions down through the ages. Then there were the closest relatives, horses, all over the place. Finally, people actually had spiral horns, brought by the Vikings to Europe. Much better than a photograph, it was an actual artifact.

Turns out, they belonged to narwhals (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://members.aol.com/blossom144/narwhal2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://members.aol.com/puffindog/narwhal.html&h=426&w=481&sz=324&tbnid=fwVhzvoN6q0PaM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnarwhal%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1).

(Which, incidentally, I had always thought was a fictional creature until this moment!)

[athon]

I think this is a great example. It's "proof" enough to me that the animal pictured exists as there is no reason for me to doubt it. It's not an outlandish claim and the picture serves as enough evidence to convince me it's likely. Also, it follows the rules I said earlier, it's from a reputable source, there is enough detail to make it distinctive, and through study of the picture some anatomy of the animal can be learned from it.

Perhaps there is no right answer to the question being presented here, it seems the line of "proof" is not in the same place for everyone. Some would be convinced from solid photographic evidence while others aren't convinced until they have one in a cage.

My main concern is the "cage" type skeptics put a lot of the general population off as I think *most* of the population would consider that a little unreasonable.

I should point out that 'proof' in science is more of a layman term; it is generally avoided in science for its overtones of certainty. More appropriately, proof is a mathematical term. Phenomena and the models which explain them are determined on grounds of how confident an individual or community is in its validity, as correlated with the weight of evidence.

This means we can only have confidence in the validity of evidence in a given context. For instance, a photograph of a flying squirrel could be faked as easily as one could for a bigfoot. However, the contexts are different.

For one, the motive for faking a squirrel contrasts with that for faking a bigfoot, which relates to the next point;

Second of all, the consequences are different for accepting that the photo is genuine evidence. One establishes the existance of a new hominid, and adds weight to previous anecdotal accounts of sightings of such hominids all over the world. There is also a greater 'history' with bigfoot which would be seen in a new light. The consequences of the squirrel's photo being accepted would be celebrated by a narrower group and have less of an impact on our knowledge of biology.

Thirdly, the context of surrounding evidence is different for both. It is far more likely a flying squirrel could exist in a remote jungle in Indonesia than a massive hominid could in North American forests, therefore adding weight to the probability that the squirrel's photo is genuine.

In the end, evidence is a subjective description we personally place on an observation such as a photograph. It is never in isolation, but is always described within a larger context of previous observations.

Look at it this way - if I showed you a picture of my cat and then one of a green, bug-eyed alien, you couldn't possibly tell me that both give you equal confidence that I have a cat and that aliens are real.

Athon

[manofthesea]

Still photos are worthless.* There is no chain of custody unless you had an officer of the law, standing next to you when you snapped the photos and immediately turned your entire camera and card over to the officer, for his safe keeping.* That ain't goin to happen.* But there is a 100% chance that your camera will come up missing.* A location also means nothing.* By the time you get back there with witnesses you will be lucky to find prints.* When you don't, then you just opened the door a lot earlier to your being made into a liar.* If you bring the photo here, you will instantly be made into a liar.* If you post it to the pro-bigfoot chat rooms, then it will be classified as a "bear with mange".* If you send it to a TV station, then it will also be a "bear with mange".* The public cannot deal with Bigfoot, anymore.* They have put too much effort into turning Bigfoot into a myth over the last 40 years, to let you turn that effort into so much smoke.*
.

The sugar from the donut will spoil the DNA sample, according to my new methodology. Did you read it?

[manofthesea]

Was out cryptid hunting today (cruzin' at the beach after work) and made a couple of amazing discoveries. While photographing my research partners at work an amazing phenomenon occured. Check hip area of my Siberian Bigfoot Hound. Photo is real.

Posted at BFF, Member's Lounge, 2007-2008 Winter Pics.

[blutoski]

I must be a bit dense today, because I don't get your point. I don't see how a hominid in the woods is ecologically equivalent to a dog at the bottom of the ocean.

Maybe 'equivalent' is a big harsh, but it's as incredible from an ecological point of view.

Also: I said hominoid, not homonid.



As far as legitimacy of evidence goes, I've just learned that up through the 17th century, the existence of the unicorn was proven, beyond doubt. First, there were the stories and written descriptions down through the ages. Then there were the closest relatives, horses, all over the place. Finally, people actually had spiral horns, brought by the Vikings to Europe. Much better than a photograph, it was an actual artifact.

Turns out, they belonged to narwhals (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://members.aol.com/blossom144/narwhal2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://members.aol.com/puffindog/narwhal.html&h=426&w=481&sz=324&tbnid=fwVhzvoN6q0PaM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnarwhal%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1).

(Which, incidentally, I had always thought was a fictional creature until this moment!)

Sounds like what you're saying is that it's important to have a whole specimen instead of pieces of it, like a tooth or tuft of hair. That's agreeing with my point, I think.

[Polaris]

Change your fictional scenario so that you are gunman instead of a camera man. Kill the beast and chop it's head off. There is no other way.


m :bike:

But don't be wasteful and throw the body away, that's a lot of steaks and jerky.

[XBoxWarrior]

Let's get together and make some money...lots and lots of rubes out there who'll believe that a guy in a monkey suit is Big Foot!

Tokie

That works for the christians......I say, "get on with it".

You and me Token.........we will sell the "rubes" with conservative "ideas".

As far as Bigfoot goes, not many folks are tithing the "Bigfoot".

Although, I once had an ex-girlfriend that paid my bills.......(I wear a size 15)