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 needs a bit of expanding as it touches upon cell phone cameras. I feel that there is extreme overconfidence placed in 'everyone has a camera'. Nowadays, who even carries around a camera? Hardly anyone, they carry around a phone that has a camera. Now, I haven't been everywhere, but I've yet to see someone walking around with their phone around their neck with the camera activated. Most folks, if they see something they want to take a picture of will do the following steps. 1) dig camera out of pocket or purse (do folks still use the belt clip-on deals for their phones?) 2) swipe, or otherwise unlock the screen from their phone 3) access/open the camera app 4) point camera in direction of subject 5) Hope it doesn't auto-focus on something closer 6) take pic or vid The ability to take a picture, unless you have continuous rolling video is much slower than it was years ago. I find myself in discussions about photos. With the same "everyone's got a camera, why no pics?" argument. I do the same thing every time when I hear this (try it sometime! It's fun!). I announce that I will be getting up and leaving the area, please take a picture of me that is clear before I leave. I get up. I walk slowly out of the room/area. There have been no photos of me taken. Does that mean I don't exist? Do I still have to pay taxes? :-) Sadly, the time frame of sightings, especially at the range needed, simply is not conducive for good evidence. Now, a good friend of mine had an extended sighting and you guessed it. No camera at all. He wasn't out looking for BF, BF found him. 30 yards, over several hours (night into morning). He watched the BF get up from his 'hiding' spot and simply walk away. Well, visual observations/reports are valid if certain criteria are met. If one is a scientist, observing an already known creature, sightings and reports are extremely valid and will be considered as scientific fact. But I know what you are getting at. However, does it simply mean that, since something isn't recognized, reports are all hoaxed/faked/mis ID'd? That's what some skeptics suggest, no?

Wait, you want a dashcam video? That exists, from a police vehicle no less. Ohhh you wanted a clear dashcam video, well now we're adding a lot more variables into the equation again! I'd put a pretty huge majority of published reports as likely genuine (>95%), and even with that factor about as high as possible, the odds of any given sighting leading to a clear photo or video are still going to be vanishingly small. What would your estimates, confidence intervals, evidence, and reasoning for the following parameters be: 1) Proportion of sightings where sasquatch is unaware of human presence at first sight 2) Average length of time for sasquatch to become aware of human presence 3) Average length of time for sasquatch to flee into cover 4) Factor by which (3) is reduced if human reaches into pockets or for some device 5) Factor by which (3) is reduced if human makes any movement 6) Proportion of sightings within 20-30 feet (any further and we're no longer talking convincing photos, or at least diminishing returns - substitute this for some kind of distance:quality scaling factor if you can figure out how to make that make sense) 7) Proportion of sightings by humans that actually have some type of camera accessible 8) Average length of time for human to be aimed and ready to shoot with thumb on the button (phones in pockets will increase this dramatically) 9) Proportion of people who actually remember they have some type of camera accessible (careful overestimating this one) 10) Proportion of people who remember, and actually still care about taking that photo plus anything a professional photographer would consider, the particular technical specs of the camera, type and time to focus, resolution, lighting, you name it. So that's me taking a stab at the "Drake equation" approach suggested by ohiobill, but it's an especially apt approach because Drake clearly didn't mean to gain any actual statistical insight into the question; rather, it was meant as a thought exercise for scientists. Overuse and misapplication of statistics and modeling is a plague of scientific reasoning right now, and that's the take home message of both these thought exercises for me.

Well, MIB, that's just a right nasty little post you've got going for yourself. Yeesh.

Wildlife examples are not relevant to bigfoot. What is relevant is what fate has befallen every kind of primitive culture that has been "found" by western "civilization." We sell them religion, we take their land and shove them on reservations, we give them smallpox. 90%+ mortality rates. Look what our missionaries do to indigenous people in the tropics. Look what us enlightened Americans did to our own indigenous people. Same for Australia. We ram religion down their throats, we shove them on reservations, destroy their cultures, and we give them nice presents like smallpox with a 90%+ mortality rate. What the heck is wrong with you? Can't learn from past genocide, you have to find another primitive people and wipe them out, too? Really? MIB

Hiflier, in regards to the case you mention: I actually work in San Bruno (and live next to San Mateo). I can look in the San Bruno public library for that paper. I am traveling this week but will be back next week. I can look then.

Hi Bill! I do personally feel that there is photo/video evidence that CAN be shared. But won't be. I don't want to offend any of the folks at BFF, but this simply isn't a place that, I feel, anyone would post excellent photographic or video evidence. Would you trot it out to be blasted by a bunch of internet strangers? I think if someone were to get the goods, they would call either the police (thinking they would be able to help), or an expert such as a professor or scientist. In both scenarios, one resounding theme would prevail - don't tell anyone what you have. Let the 'professionals' handle this. Most, if not all, folks would look to make a buck and try to sell it (no doubt with some sort of NDA in tow). Depending on the avenue chosen, there is a time frame here. If a professor/scientist got a hold of it and was genuinely going to try and make the case for existence, it would take years to get their act together to be accepted. If it ran through the law enforcement chain, well, IMO, it would never be released and gag orders would abound. In the end, unless we have a sasquatch invasion, this phenom is going to be out there a long while. I think a HUGE mistake folks make in this modern world is that an assumption is made that it would make it to the internet.

From what I can see (other than Redbone's posted link) folks seem to be skipping a step and going straight to discussion instead. Instead of what? you may ask. Why instead of digging in and trying to find examples of photos that have long since fallen by the wayside. Not that any examples of photos will settle this issue but photos were taken of these creatures before this digital/pixelated age began. The problem is researching when and where those photos were taken. For instance, it may be easier and faster for someone living in a certain state to access their library archives than it would be for someone who is not a resident of the state. One example of this is a newspaper called the San Mateo San Bruno Herald in California (around the San Francisco area). There was a photo of a supposed Bigfoot printed in that paper back on July 13, 1979. So the job is really two-fold: Research to find incidents where and when photos were taken of an alleged Sasquatch then, after that, finding where and when the photo was submitted to a public outlet like a magazine or newspaper- or even a TV news broadcast. This is where the real work is folks should anyone want to avail themselves in the effort of running this stuff to ground. Not everyone has seen all there is to see about this subject nor knows everything there is to know. But some time taken out to dig up some things might just be time well spent. Now, I've done research which is how I know about that 1979 photo submission. But finding the actual newspaper article and bringing it here is the issue. I can't seem to pull that part of it off. Anyone care to take the ball from here? It would be greatly appreciated.

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.

300-400 yard throw? How can one tell in the dark of what the distance could be of a throw. 300-400 yards is a long way of a throw and to be in the bush where the subject has to see what it is throwing at. Well that just adds to it ability. I would say that this creature was well within eye site of the cabin and had every chance to commit a violent encounter wen ever it wanted too. The camera guy was out side of the cabin and was never once hit by a rock, when the creature had the means to hit him/her. I believe that they did some knocks and later the rocks came flying after they went into the cabin. Was this a tactic used to flush it's proponents out of the cabin? Maybe, but of all the times I have heard from people of having rocks thrown at them they have never been hit. When I sat in my ground blind they threw some thing at my blind. But now that I have had time to reflect on it. What they threw was not meant to hurt me but to flush me out of my blind since they could not see in side the blind. It was not until I popped out of my ground blind that I heard the knocks and the feeling that I needed to leave came over me. So they do use tactics that work for them when they need to gain information yet they stay hidden. They are hunters and have perfected the art of hunting. They have a brain and they know how to use it for the purpose of hunting game when need be. Their stealth is used when they are unsure about a subject and they need to gain information about them. Just like what our recon do to our enemies they act the same way. When they are sure about the subject is not a threat then they may reveal them selves to that subject.