Leaderboard

Should a mathematical or statistical question start out with the preferred result (proving non-existence) selected in advance? They are? Since 1977 (40 years ago) there have been 633 reports in the northeastern United States (north of the Mason-Dixon Line) and Canada east of the St. Lawrence Seaway. I'll give you 1,000 to account for uncatalogued reports in that time and space, which gives one encounter (not necessarily sighting) every two weeks in 170,000 square miles - and throw in 10,000 square Canadian miles for that eastern portion of Canada. So - where are you going two weeks from now to photograph that bigfoot?

"This is really a mathematical or statistical question and designed to provide hard data for the case against existence." Good luck. These animals are apparently far more intelligent than any other animal that we know of and they are obviously at risk from humans (who can be very stupid.) It's really no wonder that they evade detection so effectively.

Are you familiar with the Drake equation? A formula can be designed, it's assigning values to the variables that becomes problematic. Of course, anyone with easy access to a sassy clan in Chicago could just bypass the discussion and provide proof or some really good pictures...

The whole premise misunderstands the nature of probability and statistics. How would you go about putting this into a formula? How do you account for the individual reactions of human and sasquatch in an unexpected sighting situation, the quality of the camera the human may or may not have around their neck or on their phone, and do they even remember they have it? These are not excuses! These are the multitude of real world variables at play that take this way beyond the realm of quantifiable odds. The fact that sasquatch are almost always aware of our presence in their woods, and that these are almost unanimously the type of encounters we achieve as 'researchers,' and why we should never expect photos from such encounters, is probably something that's been suggested to you many many times, and isn't really the point here. I have an odds question for you: Given the popularity, interest, and alleged money to be gained from creating a convincing hoax photo or video, and considering the advances in costume and special effects technology, what are the odds that BY FAR the best hoax comes from 1967? Better or worse odds than whatever factors led to the genuine video? Take a crack at working out an actual formula for any of this, I'll be back to poke a thousand holes in your assumptions.

Hopefully there will be a follow up investigation... (Link)

Well, there are a lot of 'rumblings' about how folks have good pics and videos, but don't share them. I think it is obvious why they don't share them (especially on forums, FB, etc). Also, I think folks that DO get good pics that are not involved with the subject matter prior to snapping a shot/vid call the wrong people. And subsequently, again, they never get shared on forums, FB, etc. Occam is oft trotted out in a situation like this. But ends up concluding different things depending on the route and assumptions made.