Jump to content


Photo

What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?


  • Please log in to reply
379 replies to this topic

#341 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 06:19 AM

I have said many times, that BIGFOOT can't be rare and elusive, AND be seen in casino parking lots, rest areas, campgrounds, dirt driveways, trailer parks, and crossing 8 lane highways. A 9' tall beast on the open plains of OKLAHOMA, is very conspicuous, for it to elude verification for all these years, means one of two things. Bigfoot sightings are not real, OR, they are being dropped off by supernatural air assault transport like Air Cav troopers from a Huey in a rice paddie. Only to proceed to a dumpster, or dairy queen parking lot, and then be extracted by similar methods.

Which is it? The sightings can't be true if Bigfoot is rare and elusive, or they must be Airmobile.
  • 0

#342 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,281 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 06:27 AM

No it's sad that he'd resort to such a ploy to attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand and splash a little tar on the reputation of the BF argument.



Why does the distribution of Bigfoot reports and UFO reports being so similar need to be tar? Why do the so many reports featuring both to the point of direct interection need be tar? Can we not face the reality of what is reported without being dismissive of what does not fit our level of comfort and preconceptions? Bigfoot sightings distribute just like UFO sightings do. Many sightings feature both. Are these the weird uncle of Bigfootery that no one wants to talk about? I'm a skeptic of both. I want to address the connection and how that connection affects the statistical probability that all those reports are the result if humanity, specifically a social construct.

I have said many times, that BIGFOOT can't be rare and elusive, AND be seen in casino parking lots, rest areas, campgrounds, dirt driveways, trailer parks, and crossing 8 lane highways. A 9' tall beast on the open plains of OKLAHOMA, is very conspicuous, for it to elude verification for all these years, means one of two things. Bigfoot sightings are not real, OR, they are being dropped off by supernatural air assault transport like Air Cav troopers from a Huey in a rice paddie. Only to proceed to a dumpster, or dairy queen parking lot, and then be extracted by similar methods. Which is it? The sightings can't be true if Bigfoot is rare and elusive, or they must be Airmobile.



Exactly. What's the filtration, Bigfootery? What's the threshold of tolerance? Is a Bigfoot sighting in Iowa out the door? Do Bigfoot migrate through the delicious cover of corn? Are glowing green eyes on my Vancouver Island OK? Talking "samurai chatter" in the Gifford-Pinchot OK? Stealing propane tanks out of the back of DriverOperator's truck in the parking lot of an Oklahoma campground parking lot not OK? 15 people watch a UFO fire on two Bigfoots not OK? Where's your filter at? Can we deal with the monster we've created?

Posted Image

Edited by kitakaze, 06 March 2012 - 06:35 AM.

  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#343 Caesar

Caesar

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 06:52 AM

the evidence for alien visitation vastly outwieghs and is of a far superior nature to that of Bigfoot. Their physical specimens, their footage, the eyewitness accounts leave Bigfootery in the dust. The snobbery many Bigfooters show for Ufology is stange given the phenomena manifest themselves so similarly.



Kitakaze.

I don't feel like your making the best argument here. I feel like the evidence Ufologists have produced is pretty much on par with the evidence BFers have produced. Nor Ufologist or the Government(though i'm sure they have one) have produced a physical specimen or even a piece of any craft for that matter, that is known to the general public. I personally believe in both phenomena (100,000 year old gold mines, but this isn't the place for that). I'm not trying to be dismissive, there are a lot of pictures of pretty lights in the sky. You need to be open to the fact that a lot of those sightings could be non-alien prototypical military craft, which are still classified as UFOs but aren't necessarily alien. You keep bringing up the point of a social construct. Case and point, the more people that live in an area or even in the areas surrounding an area, the more sightings there will be of a particular thing, if that thing does in fact exist in those areas. More sets of eyes=more sightings. I don't think the reason i've given for both the increase and similarity of sighting maps is flawed. As i've told you before both maps you have been repeatedly using to try and prove your social construct hypotheses, are almost identical to the population density map of America. Another member pointed out that all three maps are eerily similar to the sale of Dr.Scholes gel inserts. As another member had pointed out, those maps reflect the density of population. More eyes=more sightings. That should be fairly simple for everyone here to understand.

Edited by Caesar, 06 March 2012 - 06:55 AM.

  • 0

#344 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,281 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:00 AM

Excellent, Caesar. So remote and rare is just gobbledy-goop, yes?
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#345 Saskeptic

Saskeptic

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,701 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:12 AM

The Okapi is a great example of failed expeditions to find a cryptid no more elusive, just more rare then your average gazelle or deer. They weren't "batting 1000" there.



Is it a great example? Wiki: "The animal was brought to prominent European attention by speculation on its existence found in popular press reports covering Henry Morton Stanley's journeys in 1887. Remains of a carcass were later sent to London by the English adventurer and colonial administrator Harry Johnston and became a media event in 1901.[2]"

That's 14 years from the first widespread dissemination of it's possible existence to Western science and its confirmation to Western science - and we're talking 19th Century technology to access a creature that still lives wild only in one of the most remote and difficult to access places on the planet. According to the AMNH, Stanley's report did not occur until 1890 - they consider the gap from first report to the West and confirmation to be just 11 years. The 1890 date for Stanley's report is reiterated at this site, with the following item of interest:

"Rumours of this strange, ass-like animal reached Sir Johnston, which spurred him to make a journey into the Congo in 1899. After winning the confidence of the Wambutti, Johnston was able to learn more about the mysterious atti - including its real name. After hearing its description - a dark brown animal resembling a donkey with striped legs - Johnston was sure that the o'api was a species of forest zebra still awaiting a scientific description. Later that year, in the Belgian Fort at Mbeni, Johnston was able to obtain two headbands, made from the striped pieces of okapi skins, which he sent to the Zoological Society of London in 1900."

(emphases mine)

I've checked three reputable sources. None of them describe any attempts to collect an okapi between Stanley's first reports and Johnson's successful expedition. The third account describes how Johnson did not begin his expedition until 1899, and it reports 1900 as the year he sent the skins to London. So by my reckoning, it took ONE expedition less than ONE year to confirm the existence of a species over 100 years ago that today still lives in a really remote and isolated part of the world. Looks like batting 1000 to me.

More to the point though, how could any of this narrative compare to our inability to get a piece of a bigfoot after all these years? Just considering the Colonial period in North America, we've had people living with bigfoots for centuries, and we've got nothing but stories to show for it. For crying out loud, we are the Pygmies when it comes to bigfoot - we're the natives that live with them in our backyards. That's like a perpetual expedition that started in earnest in the early 16th Century.
  • 0

#346 MikeG

MikeG

    Yeti

  • Banned
  • 2,554 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:21 AM

Sadly, the okapi hasn't been seen in the wild for about 25 years, although bushmeat hunters have produced some skins etc in that time, and some footprints and trail-cam vids have confirmed that it still survives. They are a mightily impressive beast, and one of only two mammals on the planet with the ability to lick their own ears.

There, you didn't know that, did you?

Mike
  • 0

#347 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,281 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:27 AM

MikeG, I have been this week enjoying every episode of David Attenborough's Life of Mammals 2002 BBC series, and the number of mammals that can lick their own ears and that I in fact watched do just that simply floored me. Particularly, I found that the number of mammals evolved to eat ant and termite colonies, as well as high-sprouting folivores, that can do just hilarious things with there tongues was a singular sort of entertainment.
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#348 Caesar

Caesar

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:52 AM

The Okapi is a great example of failed expeditions to find a cryptid no more elusive, just more rare then your average gazelle or deer. They weren't "batting 1000" there.

Saskeptic

You need to stop trying to pick apart the examples i've chosen. Start paying more attention to the points i'm attempting to make. I was attempting to use the Okapi as an example of a failed expedition, i was not trying to use the Okapi as a gauge to how many years it should take for an animal to be discovered, from the time it's discussed as possibly existing, to the time it's proven to exist. If you were to study this data, and i have briefly, you would find there is no clear pattern. Thus you can't determine how many years it should take for BF to be found, from the time it was discussed as possibly existing, to the time it's proven to exist. The gorilla was talked about as far back as i can remember, as wild men in the forests of africa. Though natives knew these creatures were real, the world did not believe until 1902, when the body that everyone wanted was produced. So how many years was that Sas? At the end of the day the Okapi proved to be no more elusive, nor harder to track then your average deer, it's just a heck of a lot more rare, and in a much more remote less populated area of the world. Deer aren't as hard to track as an ape, BF seems to be harder to track then even an ape specifically mountain gorillas. The terrain the Okapi inhabits is not as dense or hard to traverse as the mountainous forests and swamp land that BF is said to dwell in. The date you provided as your starting point for interest in the Okapi can also be argued, the creature dubbed "the african unicorn" was spoken of well before 1887, but that's besides the point i'm attempting to make.

Edited by Caesar, 06 March 2012 - 07:55 AM.

  • 0

#349 maddog23

maddog23

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 174 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:55 AM

Back to the original question. I find the distribution maps to be very interesting " evidence" (please let's not argue about that word). All the kooks and hallucinators can't live in the same places. I think there's a very small chance that all sightings are false.
  • 0

#350 kitakaze

kitakaze

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 6,281 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:10 AM

Saskeptic

You need to stop trying to pick apart the examples i've chosen. Start paying more attention to the points i'm attempting to make. I was attempting to use the Okapi as an example of a failed expedition, i was not trying to use the Okapi as a gauge to how many years it should take for an animal to be discovered, from the time it's discussed as possibly existing, to the time it's proven to exist. If you were to study this data, and i have briefly, you would find there is no clear pattern. Thus you can't determine how many years it should take for BF to be found, from the time it was discussed as possibly existing, to the time it's proven to exist. The gorilla was talked about as far back as i can remember, as wild men in the forests of africa. Though natives knew these creatures were real, the world did not believe until 1902, when the body that everyone wanted was produced. So how many years was that Sas? At the end of the day the Okapi proved to be no more elusive, nor harder to track then your average deer, it's just a heck of a lot more rare, and in a much more remote less populated area of the world. Deer aren't as hard to track as an ape, BF seems to be harder to track then even an ape specifically mountain gorillas. The terrain the Okapi inhabits is not as dense or hard to traverse as the mountainous forests and swamp land that BF is said to dwell in. The date you provided as your starting point for interest in the Okapi can also be argued, the creature dubbed "the african unicorn" was spoken of well before 1887, but that's besides the point i'm attempting to make.


Okapi...

Posted Image

Bigfoot...

Posted Image

Are we prepared to sincerely face and address the nature of this problem?

Back to the original question. I find the distribution maps to be very interesting " evidence" (please let's not argue about that word). All the kooks and hallucinators can't live in the same places. I think there's a very small chance that all sightings are false.


What size of chance does this give you for alien visitation in spacecraft to the Planet Earth?...

Posted Image
  • 0
Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. LTC8K6 on the JREF

Bigfooters are like Mets fans. There's always tomorrow. Furious George on the old BFF

You don't have to believe it's real to love Bigfoot. Me

My brain is swimming. Louise (Graziella Granata) Slaughter of the Vampires 1962

#351 Mulder

Mulder

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,412 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:43 AM

You have. of course, just ignored a report of 15 multiple witnesses watching A not only interact with B, but A to actually fire upon B...


I have ignored nothing. I have stated (correctly) that they are irrelevant. There is no requirement that a BF proponent accept and/or use ALL reports of BF on an equal basis as part of their argumentation.

To attemtpt to insist that I do so is a logical fallacy on your part as I have stated. To wit: it is 'kitchen sink" argumentation, and presumes that all claims must be considered of equal value. The only reason you wish us to do so is so that the BF case is tainted with the scorn reserved for UFO proponents.

It's nothing more than a debating trick. I'm not falling for it, no matter how many times you try it.

The formal statement of the fallacy is in response to arguments from authority (terms substituted by me):

While the authority witness is an expert has made a claim, his opinion claim is unrepresentative of expert opinion body of claims on the subject. The fact is that if one looks hard enough, it is possible to find an expert a witness who supports virtually any position has made any claim that one wishes to take. "Such is human perversity", to quote Lewis Carroll. This is a great boon for debaters, who can easily find expert opinion on their side of a question a witness who has made a certain claim, whatever that side claim is, but it is confusing for those of us listening to debates and trying to form an opinion.

http://www.fallacyfi...g/authorit.html


Put another way: if you were to show me a claim about BF made by a person with a long documented history of mental illness who was on drugs who said that he saw a dozen BF in pink tutus dancing Swan Lake, I would be well within my rights to exclude that claim from the body of claims I use to bolster my argument without affecting the validity of my argument one single iota.

You want it both ways, Kita. You ask for BF proponents to be more discerning when it comes to excluding evidence you don't like, but now you're asking us to blindly include ALL claims made about BF.

Why?

Simple: it makes our case look bad by contaminating the argument with loaded and controversial and irrelevant side-issues, in this case UFOs.

Too bad for you I ain't falling for it, nor I suspect is anyone else around here except for your supporters.

UFO Digest's Regan Lee sums up the close-minded Bigfooter intolerance...


And a nice little ad hom (accusation of "intolerance").



You don't have a single confirmed Bigfoot hair or even one that is confirmed as coming from an uncatalogued species [emphasis added]



We have the Pinker results as well as the results from Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Ellis R. Kerley and Physical Anthropologist Dr. Stephen Rosen of the University of Maryland, as well as Tom Moore, the Supervisor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Laboratory.

We also have DNA derived from a hair sample in 2001 that was analyzed by professor Malcolm Sykes of Oxford University, who

was not able to match the DNA to any known animal. "We have never encountered any DNA that we couldn't recognize before," said Sykes, a pioneer of DNA identification as the first genetist to extract DNA from archaeological bone specimens.

http://www.bigfoot-l...ot_evidenc.html (under "Hairs")



Sweet Tony Danza, what a whopper. We only had the man hours to build three highly industrialized nations here.

Just wow.


And there are still 100s and 100s of 1000s of square miles of undeveloped and in many cases virtually unvisited wilderness.

The simple fact is (as is shown by Census data) that the overwhelming majority of the US is NOT developed by man.

http://news.heartlan...ural-open-space

More than two out of three Americans live in urbanized areas. These areas collectively cover 2 percent of the nation’s land area. Counting urbanized areas and urban clusters together, nearly four out of five Americans live in an urban setting. Urbanized areas and urban clusters cover 2.6 percent of the nation’s land.

Remaining “places” account for just 4.4 percent of the U.S. population, but they cover 2.8 percent of the land. Their density is far lower than the density of urbanized areas and urban clusters. The average urbanized area has nearly 2,700 people per square mile, and the average urban cluster has close to 1,500 people per square mile. But the average place (outside of urban areas) has just 133 people per square mile.

In many cases, this is because small towns have large corporate boundaries, only portions of which are occupied. This is most noticeable in Alaska, where many cities have legal boundaries that include thousands of square miles of unoccupied land. As a result, the density of Alaska’s non-urban places averages just 7 people per square mile.

Non-urban place densities in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming average between 30 and 100 people per square mile. In all other states except Nebraska, non-urban place densities range from 100 to 500 people per square mile. Nebraska is the only state whose non-urban places approach urban densities: 805 people per square mile.

So are places “developed”? The Census Bureau counts them as “rural.” Only people living in urbanized areas or urban clusters are counted as “urban.” At the same time, a town of 1,000 people is obviously not “rural open space.” Conservatively, only those areas outside of any “place” can be considered rural open space. But it is clear that large portions of the rural places are also rural open space.

Together, urbanized areas, urban clusters, and rural places occupy 5.4 percent of the nation’s land, while urban areas alone cover just 2.6 percent. Rural open space thus covers between 94.6 and 97.4 percent of the land in the United States.


US average population density is ~84 people/square mile ( http://www.infopleas...a/A0934666.html ), clustered in just 5.4% of the landmass as noted above.

Canada occupies 41% of the N American continent's landmass ( http://en.wikipedia....raphy_of_Canada ).It's average population density is just 9 people/square mile (same source as US average), most of which live within 100 miles of the US border ( http://www.nationsen...cas/Canada.html ).

So much for that argument.

Edited by Mulder, 06 March 2012 - 09:45 AM.

  • 1
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." - Michael Chrichton

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." - Michael Chrichton

#352 Cotter

Cotter

    Bigfoot

  • Steering Committee
  • 4,119 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:53 AM

@Kit

I do understand the point you are trying to make, also the counter-point Ceasar is trying to make. 2 sides to the coin for sure.

However, there is one exception to the maps that I was hoping you could provide an explanation of.

If BF and UFO sightings correllate b/c of the reasons you suggest. Then why no BF sightings in Hawaii? It has always been the one state where no sightings have occurred. This portion doesn't fit into the model you describe. Any suggestions as to why that is?

Thanks.
  • 0

 "It was on Harry & the Hendersons. It has been scientifically proven." - The Huntster

 

"Ok, try this--I'm bored with the conversation and wish to move on  ;)" - AaronD


#353 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:19 AM

Please note regarding the OKAPI

The Okapi lives in the wild, and is not considered endangered. The game cam photo we saw a couple years ago, was the first time a WILD OKAPI HAD BEEN SEEN IN VIRUNGA NATIONAL PARK since 1959. It is not the first wild Okapi in the world seen since 1959. The news outlets misinterpreted the information and said that it was the first OKAPI seen since 1959.

http://animaldiversi..._johnstoni.html
The okapi was not recognized by western scientists until 1900, when Harry Johnston sent two pecies of "zebra-like" skin to London (Kingdon 1979). More recently, the okapi has been extirpated from Uganda and, since 1933, protected by law in Zaire. Despite its patchy distribution, the okapi is common in much of its current range and is therefore not listed as a threatened species by international agreement. However, habitat loss due to deforestation as well as poaching continue to restrict the range of the species and take their toll on the population. Another great danger to the okapi is lack of knowledge about it outside of zoos. Little field research has been done on the species due to its inaccessible habitat and reclusive nature (Bodmer 1992).

Okapis are found only in the tropical forests of northeastern Zaire. They prefer altitudes between 500 and 1,000 m, although they may venture above 1,000 m in the eastern montane rainforests. One sighting occurred at 1,450 m on Mt. Hoyo, in the upper Ituri. The range of the okapi is limited by high montane forests to the east, swamp forests below 500 m to the west, savannas of the Sahel/Soudan to the north, and open woodlands to the south. Okapis are most common in the Wamba and Epulu areas (Bodmer 1992).


  • 0

#354 indiefoot

indiefoot

    Yowie

  • Members
  • 1,827 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:17 AM

Kitakaze,
The op is "What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?" yet you continue to turn it around to "What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are True?" by pointing out the most fringe of sightings reports. You ignore the more straight forward descriptions of an unknown animal and build a case for the monsters that inhabit your "social construct". The only real evidence that you have that BF is a social construct is your opinion and your attempts to compare it to another phenomenon that is, in your opinion, also a social construct. Repeating your opinion often, loudly, or with lots of pictures does not magically turn it to fact.

You have stated your opinion on the original question.

I think 99% based on the evidence showing the manner in which Bigfoot acts like a social construct.


  • 1

#355 tsiatkoVS

tsiatkoVS

    Booger

  • Members
  • 66 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:24 AM

If BF and UFO sightings correllate b/c of the reasons you suggest. Then why no BF sightings in Hawaii? It has always been the one state where no sightings have occurred. This portion doesn't fit into the model you describe. Any suggestions as to why that is?


Nice point. I'm guessing Hawaiian culture isn't all that different from the mainland for the relevant issues, and I assume they have roughly the same proportions of liars, hallucinators and too-credulous types.

Given the mile wide (and, yeah, some would argue "and an inch deep") evidence out there, all I know is, is that if Sasquatch doesn't exist, then something truly weird is going on.
  • 0
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
Jerry Garcia

#356 JDL

JDL

    Yeti

  • Sésquac
  • 2,245 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:28 AM

Skeptics are believers too. They just believe something different.

They demand proof of your position, but cannot prove their own.

Objectively, their position is no more valid than the opposing position.

Using one element of questionable evidence to cast doubt on all evidence is a lawyer's tactic. Establish reasonable doubt. It proves nothing, but does serve to obstruct progress.
  • 1
For those who have not personally encountered a bigfoot, the proponent/skeptic debate comes down to nothing more than opposing belief systems.

#357 Saskeptic

Saskeptic

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,701 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:36 AM

You need to stop trying to pick apart the examples i've chosen.

You're kidding, right? I'm not allowed to do any fact-checking on things you post? Are you running for office or something?

I was attempting to use the Okapi as an example of a failed expedition, . . .

Right, and when I did a little digging on the subject, I found three sources describing just one expedition between Stanley's original reports and the scientific description. That one expedition was Johnson's, and he confirmed the existence of the okapi and provided material for its description on the first try.

The gorilla was talked about as far back as i can remember, as wild men in the forests of africa.

Wow, you must be pretty old. Maybe you are that Caesar!

BTW, you'll find a similar pattern for gorillas too: Robert von Beringe bagged mountain gorillas on his first trek through the Virungas, and he wasn't even looking for them. So again, 1 for 1; batting 1000. Same goes for lowland gorillas: Reverend Thomas Savage was traveling in Gabon (Wiki says Liberia) when he stopped to rest from an illness in the home of another missionary, J. L. Wilson. Wilson showed Savage a strange skull that Savage recognized as something new and different. Savage published a description of the new species in 1847. Again: 1 for 1; batting 1000.

Incidentally, crypto folks love to write about du Chaillu's accounts of gorillas being pooh-poohed by the establishment in Europe. Wiki says that du Chaillu's travels in Africa occurred 1856-1859; basically 10 years AFTER gorillas had already been described by Savage!

The terrain the Okapi inhabits is not as dense or hard to traverse as the mountainous forests and swamp land that BF is said to dwell in.

Do you mean like the parking lot of the Lucky Star Casino in Concho, OK, that kind of more dense and mountainous forest than where those wimpy okapis live?
  • 1

#358 Drew

Drew

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:06 PM

@Kit

I do understand the point you are trying to make, also the counter-point Ceasar is trying to make. 2 sides to the coin for sure.

However, there is one exception to the maps that I was hoping you could provide an explanation of.

If BF and UFO sightings correllate b/c of the reasons you suggest. Then why no BF sightings in Hawaii? It has always been the one state where no sightings have occurred. This portion doesn't fit into the model you describe. Any suggestions as to why that is?

Thanks.

http://www.bigfootha...om/aboutus.html

Bam! Bigfoot in Hawaii.

Seriously though
http://www.bigfooten...bs/aikanaka.htm

Edited by Drew, 06 March 2012 - 12:07 PM.

  • 0

#359 tsiatkoVS

tsiatkoVS

    Booger

  • Members
  • 66 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:10 PM

I'm going to try very hard to work "wimpy okapis" into my conversations, context be damned. Funny. Thanks Saskeptic.

Bam! Bigfoot in Hawaii.


Drat. I suppose we'll have to add those to the Bigfoot they see in Scotland.
  • 0
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
Jerry Garcia

#360 Jeff Albertson

Jeff Albertson

    Wildman

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 01:00 PM

I don't think that that the statistical probability is 100% that all bigfoot sightings are real, I don't think there is a accurate way to find out how many reports are real. We are still trying to prove that one report is real.("If you establish at any point that even one report is accurate then you have an animal. And if you have an animal then you have literally thousands of animals." - John Green)

"Either the most complex and sophisticated hoax in the history of anthropology has continued for centuries without being exposed, or the most manlike and largest non-human primate on earth has managed to survive in parts of North America and remains undiscovered by modern science."
- G.W. Gill - President of the American Boared of Forensic Anthropology

Edited by Jeff Albertson, 06 March 2012 - 01:07 PM.

  • 0
We know almost exactly how many stars exist in our milkway but we have no idea about the number of species living on our planet.Cryptozoology provides the frame work for exploration and discovery.

Prouded member of-
Southern Califorina Amateur Bigfooter