Leaderboard

From your Q, I’m sure my answer will fall pretty short. I’ll try to answer the best I can esp since I tend to like your posts: For each dot on a map there was a report, the dot for a single report in same area as a dot from 10 reports on some area area. One dot could mean 1 or 100. Also, there is no way to distinguish 2 similar dots on quality. You could have a dot representing 2 Park Rangers and 3 campers seeing a Bigfoot in Washington state. Some other additional single dot in Des Moines, Iowa might be from a 90 year old man seeing Bigfoot at night while forgetting his glasses. One dot should be weighted much higher the other but the map doesn’t show that. A single dot might mean multiple reports but instead appears as a single report. Not sure about the “science” angle. I’ll just say a map like this in style or spirit (on an unrelated matter) makes more sense to me:

That sow and cubs have staked a claim.

I'm not an expert in stats and numbers but it sure seems to me maps like these are full of errors. How many of these reports would be scored on the same level credibility? Maps like these (and I have seen them on TV shows) make it seem like bigfoot is everywhere. These reports are just that- reports but shouldn't be weighted the same. If we had a map showing all the spots where Bigfoot was thought to potentially photographed or filmed, this map would look pretty spotty. If we had one showing any PGF-level film or video or Bigfoot, you could count the spots on one hand.

I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical of Mike's claims. I'm skeptical of those claiming he's hoaxing. I'm skeptical of the guy claiming to hoax him. There's a fundamental principle we can apply if we are going to be rigorous instead of being knee jerk ... fools. Until we know, we don't know. Until we know what is, we don't know what can't be. Certainty of opinion does not equate to knowledge .. that's a form of narcissism. I think we need to allow this to be an unanswered question, something that may be uncomfortable to those who need an answer even if it is wrong more than they need the truth. We don't have the truth. So IMHO we need to let this stay a question, neither accepting nor rejecting, just watching .. then see what unfolds. Gotta remember how many people believed the so-called debunking of the PGF simply because they had an emotional need for it to be a hoax. Yet it has never been debunked. It has not been proven, either. Lack of a viable means of hoaxing does not eliminate a hoax any more than lack of proof of bigfoot is proof of lack of bigfoot. We need to let this be a question. As they say, 'just sit with it', and not try to force an answer where there isn't one.

They are now trying to put you in jail for refusing to say that a biological male is a woman, so they obviously don't care one bit about science, or facts. Scotland's new hate crime law comes into force (bbc.com) In regards to how classifying BF as an endangered species would help them or not, I find it curious that their habitat is so completely random based on reporting data. They have been spotted everywhere from dense forests in Canada, to agricultural fields and neighborhoods in the Midwest. If you want to get BF listed as an Endangered Species, fine. But how do you define it's habitat and range? If you base it off of sightings, then you are dealing with a massive area in which restricting habitat destruction based on a listing would be devastating economically to tens of thousands of communities.