“I noticed how long it’s tail was to its body which was nearly the same size.From my vehicle I would describe the size from ground to shoulder as 2 – 3 feet and length 5-6 feet …”

One North American mammal fits that description, the melanistic version of which we are talking about here.

And since you were in North America – in prime cougar country – odds are that, if you saw what you describe – that is what you saw.

To me it is far, far less of a stretch to say one saw a mountain lion under your circumstances – color be damned – than to say one saw a leopard. And from the photos I have seen of leopards – many – I wouldn’t note the tail as prominently as you, and many mountain lion eyewitnesses – do.

On closer inspection I noticed there was no cattle in the field maybe due to being to dry so that took out the possibility of being cattle.I witnessed what i believe was some kind of big cat,it was by this time zig zagging down this steep bank when I noticed how long it’s tail was to its body which was nearly the same size.From my vehicle I would describe the size from ground to shoulder as 2 – 3 feet and length 5-6 feet and jet black in colour.My gut feeling was that it was a panther or leopard but it seemed to thin to be either as it more resembled a cougar or mountain lion but I’m unsure if they come in black.
I got a good 10 to 15 seconds look at it and I alerted my wife but she never saw it.The thing that really intrigued me was it was walking like it didn’t have a care in the world and it was in broad daylight in clear conditions.I live in England and never see big cats unless you go to a zoo or country park so I was quite surprised and shocked on seeing this animal.I own 3 cats and I know my wildlife quite well so I know it couldn’t be anything other than a big cat.

Good ending. We are in agreement.

Of course, the very dark cat with slate grey underside has to otherwise conform to the description of a puma. But there is certainly room to be mistaken…and room to say: some of them, possibly, might be right.

Which we can only know for sure when we have a specimen.

It is not up to me to prove anything. I have no dog in this fight. I just help people understand how to deal with evidence, an important skill in the hard sciences.

It IS, however, up to EACH entrant of a thesis in a scientific discussion to defend that entry. Including the ones whose entry is: that doesn’t exist.

Because “that doesn’t exist” appears to prove a negative, it is imperative for anyone advancing that thesis to show POSITIVE evidence for it, such as: every single “melanistic puma” sighting has been PROVEN to be something else.

Has it?

What is your evidence?

If one cannot defend that thesis, with evidence and no, “they’re probably wrong” is not evidence, one is best off refraining from entering the fray until the proponents have proven theirs. Brickbats are simply obstructing knowledge, and why do that? An open mind is essential. If one can’t defend one’s thesis one must keep an open mind.

This lack of understanding of how to deal with evidence cripples the discussion and blunts the spear of scientific inquiry.

Now I’m done. Any issues, simply refer back.

Sloppy logic is presuming there are only two kinds of evidence: proof and bad evidence.

And presuming “negative evidence.” There is no such thing, the precise reason one cannot prove a negative. One requires evidence to prove something. If one has evidence, one can prove something. If one cannot prove a negative, it is because there is no such thing as “negative evidence.” A lack of results speaks of nothing but the inadequacy of the effort. One cannot blame an animal’s nonexistence on the people searching for it.

Clean logic? My posts, which stand unaltered.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence. If unaddressed, it stands to be addressed.

And now, clean logic restored, it really is time to move on here.

Peace.

DWA responds:
September 16th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Um folks?Here is what IT chooses to mean:
This question is unsettled, with the preponderance of the evidence on neither side.

Wrong….thats a basic logical fallacy
I cannot prove a negative.
The preponderance of negative results(no body)= melanistic pumas do not exist
The preponderance of positive results(no body)=melanistic pumas do not exist
Or do you sincerely believe that no body makes both “arguments” valid.????

Where Occam starts and stops?
1) People are mistaken in their observation.
Thats one assumption.
People do make mistakes observing things sometimes.
2) People are not mistaken in their observation.
Thats one assumption.
People can correctly observe “things” sometimes.
Done.

Wrong.
Your confusing a broad generalisation using Occams Razor(which leads absolutely nowhere) with using Occams razor in this specific discussion.
I showed an example of multiple assumptions required in this specific topic.
Not one.
Both “sides” don’t have ONE assumption.
Or..disregard my specific identification points..
Witnesses are mistaken=1 assumption
Period
The witness is correct in their observation=1 assumption
Thats one assumption…which now requires..(there is no choice)
An animal..unknown to science.=2nd assumption
Period
If you try and use Occams razor in this specific topic/thread..to support your contention of the existence of melanistic pumas..you negate your own idea.
Its beside the point if you don’t understand this.

There is likewise no case against melanistic pumas, as it constitutes an effort to prove a negative. One must show that the eyewitnesses are seeing something else. Where is that case being made?

What the..
In the real world..and on this page..there is a case against melanistic pumas.
I cannot prove a negative..so i don’t know why you think that makes your belief more probable.
“one must show..”..
I have..
But..in the real world..I don’t have to try and prove what the witnesses are seeing..how could I..or anyone in multiple cases..
Misunderstanding Occams razor in specific cases,using appeals to authority and sloppy “logic” is not “showing” anyone that melanistic pumas exist.
Its up to you to prove the positive..
peace brother

“The idea that a melanistic form of pumas exist..from a scientific sense..requires a body on the table.”

“The idea” is irrelevant. They exist, or don’t, irrespective of “ideas.” Reality doesn’t sit around waiting for us.

“Anything less..is just ex cathedra like assertions which keep falling back on logical fallacies to try and “strengthen” the belief.”

No, it’s either: they exist, or they don’t. Reports are evidence that they do.

“I can presume the witnesses are wrong.”

What’s your evidence?

“In all cases, its highly likely they were wrong.”

What’s your evidence?

“A ,ot [sic] of people claim to see Bigfoot yet there’s no case for it as a living creature until we find faeces, or a carcass.”

Not true. As those who are familiar with the evidence can easily point out, it is the case AGAINST the sasquatch that appears lacking. Footprints and eyewitness accounts alike are (1) voluminous and (2) consistent. Frequency and coherence are the only two requirements for a “case” to be made. So a very substantial one exists, substantial enough that one scientist has already come out for the sasquatch as a scientific discovery, just one that the mainstream hasn’t gotten its arms around because the mainstream remains ignorant of the evidence. (John Bindernagel’s The Discovery of the Sasquatch, 2010, is required reading for anyone who wants to understand this.)

There is likewise no case against melanistic pumas, as it constitutes an effort to prove a negative. One must show that the eyewitnesses are seeing something else. Where is that case being made?

Here is what IT chooses to mean:

This question is unsettled, with the preponderance of the evidence on neither side.

Period.

Where Occam starts and stops?

1) People are mistaken in their observation.
Thats one assumption.
People do make mistakes observing things sometimes.

2) People are not mistaken in their observation.
Thats one assumption.
People can correctly observe “things” sometimes.

Done.

Although Occam would tend to postulate a native cat over an introduced one, there being no proof that there are black leopards running about the US.