What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[Guest]

^http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/10261-did-saskeptic-have-an-encounter/page__fromsearch__1

[Guest]

Ostman begat Roe, begat Wallace, begat Patterson, begat Modern Bigfoot Reports. Hmmmm........... Now what to do with all those pesky footprints...........A trackway just turned up near Eugene Oregon, with over 60 prints cast showing variation. Maybe Greene begat Patterson, begat Freeman, begat Meldrum/Chillcut............hmmmmm.

[indiefoot]

At this point I would suggest that the statistical probability that all sightings are false is 50/50. There is as much proof that they are all false as there is that they are not all false.

[Guest MikeG]

^http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/10261-did-saskeptic-have-an-encounter/page__fromsearch__1

Thanks. Interesting.

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

The BIG problem is this:

This creature is supposed to be the most elusive creature on the planet that goes out of its way to avoid humans at all costs YET 50000 people claim to have seen them. And in a lot of these cases they are doing ridiculous things that an elusive creature wouldn't do like stroll along a road, or run towards them etc.

Another BIG problem is that in all these cases the person doesn't have a camera.

When someone does have a camera on them then conveniently they never appear.

Massive contradictions in behaviour.

[dudeman]

^^^ @ BA ^^^ For the people who just happen to come across one why would they have a camera? I was doing something i have done many times before and since. I just happened upon one. I wasn't looking, in fact didn't think about it. At the time the only thing I knew about the big guy was watching the In Search Of episode when i was about 9. Didn't think they were in Fl. This is the reason I really don't like to talk about it.

I'm not crazy or delusional. But have had many people call me that over the years. There is no way I mistook what i saw. Tried to rationalize it w/ bear, hog, or whatever other animal I could think of. As far as I know there isn't another animal in florida that would fit the description of what I saw. So through deductive reasoning I came to the only conclusion I could.

[dudeman]

And to add. If anyone finds themselves in the central florida area. I would be more than happy to take you to the area where my sighting was. Even though it happened 29 years ago there are more recent sightings in the area. Give me a shout if y'all are interested. The thing abut florida is that if you go a mile off the beaten path you are in an area where people normally don't go.

[Guest parnassus]

^

In general, I suspect that it's because folklore is an important component of cultures all over the world. People have been telling tall tales for various reasons for as long as there have been people.

Specific to bigfoot folklore, I suspect that the reason we have a BFRO is because we had a Roger Patterson. I suspect that the reason we had a Roger Patterson was because we had a Ray Wallace. We had a Ray Wallace because we had Albert Ostman. We had Albert Ostman because he most likely encountered bits of Native American/First Nations folklore either directly or from old-timer miners and trappers, etc.

Why did Native American/First Nations have such folklore? I suspect it's because such folklore was widespread in their ancient ancestors in the Old World. It's entirely possible such stories could be traced all the way back to a time when real Homo sapiens were still encountering H. s. neanderthalensis, but this is more dorm lounge discussion material than anything I can can really engage from an informed and mature understanding. Note there are some who view bigfoot folklore as not at all associated with ancient cultures in the Americas, but rather something made up whole cloth by white folks and clumsily tied to certain traditions among Native Americans and First Nations peoples. Note that such traditions could emerge even without a physical organism serving as the "bigfoot" model being contemporary with H. s. sapiens for many thousands of years.

A very interesting discussion. Let me take a shot at advancing the framework a bit.

You have listed the evidence finder/creators. There are other important roles in this chain, or, really, a matrix.

One is that of collector, the generalizer; the person who takes local folklore and the publishes it, supplies/applies it to the world. With bigfoot, that role was filled by Ivan Sanderson, and John Green, until the advent of cable and the internet diffused this role somewhat. Kathy Strain falls into this category. Matt Moneymaker is the current unchallenged principal collator/drum banger. (Of course there are innumerable echoers/amplifiers, aka leeches who simply recycle old stories for adults and/or make up fictional accounts for children.)

Then there are the validators: those who provide some sort of scientific patina: they may collect some evidence, or publish a little, but those are not their crucial function: they serve the particular role of permitting persons to enter the field with less stigma attached. Rene Dahinden facilitated this process early on, recruiting the Russian homologists, others were Krantz, who passed the torch to Meldrum, and now Ketchum is competing for leadership in that role.

Not to neglect those who report an encounter (initiates), and those subscribe without having having experienced an encounter (novices). They make up the crucial element which might be termed the social milieu.

p.

Edited February 25, 2012 by parnassus

[indiefoot]

parnassus,

By using terms like 'initiates' and 'novices' are you implying that the Bigfoot phenomenon is a religion?

[JDL]

One of the inconsistencies I find with the skeptical argument is that when pressed, they will acknowledge that they cannot prove bigfoot does not exist. By definition, therefore, they cannot say with 100% certainty that there is no bigfoot. So they acknowledge that they can't prove the probability of bigfoot's existence is zero. Shift to the statistical argument, however, and they insist that it doesn't matter how many reports there are, they can all be wrong if bigfoot does not exist, because you have to start out with the assumption that the probability that bigfoot exists is zero.

This is an example of something that they insist that you accept, even though they cannot prove it.

Edited to add: For those who have not personally encountered a bigfoot, the proponent/skeptic debate comes down to nothing more than opposing belief systems.

Edited February 25, 2012 by JDL

[Guest Jodie]

The problem is that the legends go further back than the Native American culture and encompass the world. That fact can not be so easily dismissed as just idle story telling for convenience. It's a matter of disagreement on how much weight you want to give each element in the matrix of multiple legends.

[Guest]

Shift to the statistical argument, however, and they insist that it doesn't matter how many reports there are, they can all be wrong if bigfoot does not exist, because you have to start out with the assumption that the probability that bigfoot exists is zero.

Not at all. The issue is that with any - and EVERY - anecdotal account, there are possibilities to explain the event that do not necessitate an actual encounter with a real, live bigfoot. You have multiple, competing explanations for every account. This is why you can't make the statistical argument that bigfoot must be real once you reach some threshold number of anecdotal accounts. It doesn't matter if there are 100, 1000, or 100000 people who have claimed to see a bigfoot if possible explanations for every one of those events include - in addition to an encounter with a real bigfoot - that the witness is lying, was mistaken, suffered from a hallucination of some kind, etc.

I'm not making a statistical argument when I say there is no bigfoot, I'm making an argument based on the lack of a bigfoot specimen in a museum somewhere. Until that happens, there is nothing statistics can do to prove bigfoot exists, and no use of statistics that can prove it doesn't. (Have you seriously encountered skeptics claiming to prove the negative that bigfoot does not exist? That'd be a neat trick!)

Edited February 27, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Guest]

Insert Ivory Billed Woodpecker for bigfoot, and study the differing response. Granted Ivory Bills did exist, but one sighting would not cause funding to be appropriated for a search. Ten thousand sightings might be a completely different story.

edited for fat finger typing

Edited February 27, 2012 by John T

[JDL]

Not at all. The issue is that with any - and EVERY - anecdotal account, there are possibilities to explain the event that do not necessitate an actual encounter with a real, live bigfoot. You have multiple, competing explanations for every account. This is why you can't make the statistical argument that bigfoot must be real once you reach some threshold number of anecdotal accounts. It doesn't matter if there are 100, 1000, or 100000 people who have claimed to see a bigfoot if possible explanations for every one of those events include - in addition to an encounter with a real bigfoot - that the witness is lying, was mistaken, suffered from a hallucination of some kind, etc.

I'm not making a statistical argument when I say there is no bigfoot, I'm making an argument based on the lack of a bigfoot specimen in a museum somewhere. Until that happens, there is nothing statistics can do to prove bigfoot exists, and no use of statistics that can prove it doesn't. (Have you seriously encountered skeptics claiming to prove the negative that bigfoot does not exist? That'd be a neat trick!)

Actually, skeptics are generally forthcoming in that they say it is impossible to prove something does not exist. My point is that since that is the case, someone who cannot prove bigfoot does not exist is acting on nothing more than their own belief system when they maintain that all reports can be false.

[Guest parnassus]

At this point I would suggest that the statistical probability that all sightings are false is 50/50. There is as much proof that they are all false as there is that they are not all false.

you can suggest whatever likelihood you wish based on your beliefs, but you cannot say that it's a statistical probability... not if you care about being accurate.