Scientific discussion on stick structures

This is a scientific discussion from a friend of mine. Dr. Chuck is what I will refer to him as. But he makes some valid points concerning Bigfoot, and the making of structures.

I believe that it is useful for us to do what we can to create as “dependable” a history as possible of
the “unwrapping” of the Bigfoot history, and that includes associated phenomena such as
stick/branch/tree-structures and related figures regardless of size. Perhaps Janice and Robin can comment
on how far back they were aware of such constructions which may predate their mentioning them to you.

As you know, some of the current “authorities” cast a “jaundiced” eye on the suggestion that the existence
of stick/branch/tree structures is due to creative activity by forest creatures, rather than by wind, snow and ice
weight, or other natural but inanimate sources. However, establishing the reality of branch structures as
creations by forest creatures is a far more scientific task than just a matter of “acceptance” or “rejection” by
self-proclaimed authorities.

If a construct involves “imported” branches, then, automatically, intelligence or purposeful action, must be
involved. The “purposeful” constructions of muskrats and beavers are well known and follow characteristic
patterns. They are famously located in association with ponds and streams, and rarely involve more than
basic interweaving, if at all. Gorillas, are not renowned for spontaneously producing such structures, despite
having the intelligence to do so, (as they have displayed in the learning of sign language in Gorillas and
laboratory talk” in Bonobos), as well as the weaving of sleeping nests in nature and having been observed
to tie simple knots. Fortunately, there are no known native primates to consider in the U.S., Russia,
Australia, Canada and the British Isles, and many structures are simply outside the physical range of larger
birds such as the Sarus crane which is quite common in the U.S. Bears will sometimes move branches into
simple piles for a hibernation nest but real interweaving is not known.

It will be generally harder to prove that only humans or Bigfoot can build the small scale structures. On
the other hand, for the very large-scale structures, the potential list of perpetrators is quite small, especially
on continents where elephants are not endemic. So that leaves only Humans and ‘Squatches as suspects
for the several types of stick/branch/tree structures that have been so widely documented. The possible role
of humans has to be evaluated both psychologically and practically, (such as considerations of tree weight,
frequency of structures, and wide distribution in both common and truly unlikely places).

For too long, we have fallen for the “UNSCIENTIFIC” fallacy that if the origin is not yet proven, an unusual
phenomenon must be man-made. Currently, if the source has not been documented in the act of producing
the structure, or the source is unproven, then the commonly “accepted” “scientific default” position is
erroneously believed to be either “Human” activity or misidentification. However, such a “supposedly scientific”
position IS NOT a valid scientific conclusion! Unknown” scientifically, MEANS “unknown,” period.

Many of our well known phenomena were once jeered at by “pseudo-scientifically thinking but ‘professional
scientists,'” (e.g. “rocks” “falling from the sky); the sun being a mass of molten lead powered by colliding
meteors (until “nuclear power” was accidentally discovered); the glowing filament of a light-bulb which did not
develop by gradual improvement of the candle but the reproduction of a natural phenomenon once outside of
our understanding or control.

So far, every so called “skeptical” explanation I have read is “scientifically invalid” since the suggested
“solutions” have never been tested. Why is it that the only skeptical “retort” to a (so-called) ‘Foot running
across the road in 3 strides is a “misidentification” of a bear. (A first hand eyewitness may have excellent
observational conditions and abilities, i.e. daylight and a highly experienced bear hunter.) Can’t the
“skepdeniers” be creative enough to at least claim them to be Humans in costume? And if so, where are
the “skeptics'” scientific experiments featuring humans in costume crossing a normal 30 foot wide roadway
in 3 steps as is frequently reported for ‘Squatches? Can a bear or hoaxer duplicate such ability?

It is scientifically invalid to propose such an hypothesis without CONDUCTING an experiment proving that
the “skeptical proposal” is a valid alternative, yet the “so called” “skeptical journals” fail to provide the
required experimental evidence. Even though our current scientific consensus offers rewards for such
“pseudo-scientific explanations,” they have never presented a critical paper denying a phenomenon, that
included the scientifically required experiments! Additionally, rewards are given to “skeptics” who weren’t
even there and therefore are in no position to criticize a detailed report from an experienced observer with
a clear view for observation! Why do we continue to let them get away with “non-sense” and “non-science?”

As for stick structures, even some highly respected ‘Foot investigators still claim that they are all “natural
accidents.” However, valid science has to respect the scientific method.

While some Ph.Ds. would consider these constructs to be “coincidental,” the true scientific method says
otherwise. A scientific fact must be statistically valid. That is, “what are the chances of this occurring at
random?” If the chances are smaller than 1 in 20 or p < 0.05, (equals 5/100 or 1/20), and a discernible characteristic of interest is present, in this case the geometric figure called an asterisk, something other than random distribution, (the Bell-Shaped curve) is at play. Anything outside of 95% of the population is considered "abnormal" and requires an explanation other than pure chance or coincidence. Even more so if the phenomenon is regularly duplicated as above. Notice that in each case above, the 3 main components of each structure overlap within their respective branch diameters. This is an extremely small target with a length/width consisting of only a small fraction of the total lengths of each of the 3 branches, 2-3 inches for the thickest of the branches. In both of these structures, the individual branches are approximately 6 feet or more in length. For convenience’s sake, lets use 3 feet which would provide 3 x 36” or 108 inches. Conveniently by my choice of a conservative example of 3 feet in length and a target width of 3 inches, this provides 12 chances of 3-inch target areas per branch. However, since the geometric shape requires overlap at the center only, there is actually a preferred central target-area-in-waiting of 3 inches on the first branch which would be achieved by a second branch landing at the center of the first regardless of wherever it was on the second. An overlap of the centermost 3-inch segment of a second branch anywhere on the first would establish a random, (equals non-target) geometric figure with a likelihood of only 1 times 12 but would only form a geometric figure such as a cross or "X" by overlapping the centermost 3-inch segment. This likelihood would be 12 times 12 or 1 in 144 chances. While the chance of pulling an Ace of Hearts out of a deck of cards is 1/52, if this is the pre-announced target, and that is what is pulled, then it is statistically significant. After returning the Ace to the deck, pulling it out a second time at random would only happen 1 in 2,704 times! Clearly, pulling the Ace of Hearts 3 times on demand would be so extremely rare that science would presume that there is some mechanism other than chance at work. (True, every card has a 1 in 52 chance of being drawn, however, collectively, drawing a non-Ace of Hearts would provide a likelihood of 51/52 or p = 0.98, far greater than 0.05 or 5% considered as the “normal” cutoff.) Similarly, having 3, three-inch central areas of branches overlapping exactly at the center would be far more rare than even this. The overlapping of the 3 would have only a p = 1/12 x 1/12 x 1/12 or an 1 in 1,728 chance. This allows us to accept slightly imperfect examples and still be far beyond the p < 0.05 level for statistical significance. Also, the previous calculations do not even take into account the additional factors of the 3 components overlapping in the same plane and making contact. The scientific method indicates that statistics is the only way to determine the chances of an occurrence. The insistence that "professorial judgment" is the final "determiner" is nullified by the scientific method. While keeping each kind of data in its place, let's no longer fail to recognize when the scientific method proves the criticism of the "skeptics," or even academic Bigfooters, wrong. Furthermore, since many scientific discoveries were not even dreamt of before being recognized, let’s not arbitrarily decide what we will or will not “accept." Rather, with suspended judgment, let us await new, totally unpredictable, "scientific discoveries”. Certainly, some categories such as repeated eyewitness reports of physical subjects by skilled observers under excellent conditions have a greater likelihood of eventually being raised to the level of scientific fact when appropriate evidence becomes available. However, it is not scientifically defensible to "dismiss,” out of hand, reports of other phenomena being responsibly reported but not yet scientifically verified to exist. Sincerely, Chuck Gabriel Heiss Fri, Aug 23, 1:23 PM (2 days ago) to Gumsho, RA, Bob, Бурцев, me, David, Phil, adelehayes32357@gmail.com Yep, heard about that one. I was at Mammoth Cave like 15 years ago, but wasn't even thinking about Boogers. We saw a coyote on the riverboat ride, and the guide said there were no bears in Kentucky. He was either mistaken, or black bear have moved back in since then. Interesting.Very cool!Wow. Reply Reply all Forward

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *