What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

I came here because I want someone to show me some evidence that will blow my mind. Would love for such a creature to exist but you have to look at everything and try to explain it logically. If anyone can prove the existance then my message box is waiting.

[kitakaze]

^{I have a quick question: Why are there BF non-believers on this site? Don't you have better things to do with your time than battle people who do believe in the subject?}

Hi, CT Seeker and welcome to the BFF. Your intolerance isn't...

Just a few posts ago I mentioned enjoying examining evidence of Bigfoot regardless of not believing Bigfoot exists. I enjoy examining specific claims of evidence. It's my thing. Some people here think Bigfoot is a more distantly related ape such as gigantopithecus. Some people think Bigfoot is an ape within our genus Homo. Some people think Bigfoot is from another dimension or another planet. Some like me think it's a fun myth. We have a broad spectrum of viewpoints here. That's why the BFF is as successful as it is and that's why many of the intolerant mutual backpatters society broom closet forums have vanished.

Enjoy the forum. I know I will.

I think that's a fine guideline. Why would a skeptic want to be a part of a website that they don't believe in? I don't believe in Scientology yet you would never find me on a Scientology website trying to tell believers that they shouldn't believe--you know what I mean?

You'll be hard pressed to find any skeptic here telling believers that they shouldn't believe. Other people believing in Bigfoot is perfectly fine to me and not something I feel obligated to try and take away. You believing in Bigfoot doesn't interest me, only examining specific claims.

The only time I object to people believing in Bigfoot is when they try and put those beliefs on kids too young to know better and freaking them out about boogeymen in the forests. I find messing with someone's enjoyment of nature to be highly objectionable...

Edited March 1, 2012 by kitakaze

[Drew]

I have detailed Parnassus' chart a little bit. As you can see the ratio of reported sightings to confirmed sightings is a division-by-zero error.

But the gap between reported and confirmed sightings is getting larger.

On to some statements:

There has never been proof Gorillas exist (what we now call Gorillas)

Something which has not been proven cannot be sighted

Therefore all sightings of Gorillas are false.

I have never said that Bigfoot can not be sighted, the OP said "what is the probability that all sightings are false?" That has clearly been answered.

Let me portray it mathematically thanks to: http://www.mathsisfu...s-infinity.html

So instead of trying to work it out for infinity (because we can't get a sensible answer), let's try larger and larger values of x:

x---------------------------------------------- 1/x

1---------------------------------------------- 1.00000

2---------------------------------------------- 0.50000

4---------------------------------------------- 0.25000

10---------------------------------------------0.10000

100------------------------------------------- 0.01000

1,000---------------------------------------- 0.00100

10,000---------------------------------------0.00010

Now we can see that as x gets larger, 1/x tends towards 0

We are now faced with an interesting situation:

• We can't say what happens when x gets to infinity
  
• But we can see that 1/x is going towards 0
  

We want to give the answer "0" but can't, so instead mathematicians say exactly what is going on by using the special word "limit"

The limit of 1/x as x approaches Infinity is 0

And write it like this:

Edited March 1, 2012 by Drew

[Guest CT Seeker]

I came here because I want someone to show me some evidence that will blow my mind. Would love for such a creature to exist but you have to look at everything and try to explain it logically. If anyone can prove the existance then my message box is waiting.

I agree with your take in general. But that's the problem oft times with the "skeptic's stance". "Unless I see a body in person, blah blah blah!" Uh, yeah...we get it. If we all had that much proof in front of us we'd be discussing other things. So, what we do have to discuss would be things like what experts have to say like Jane Goodall, for example who is a believer. She might be considered an expert in a related field, no? I'd also like the skeptics to address Jeff Meldrum's findings which include footprint casts depicting dermal ridges and mid-tarsal breaks. Do you find Meldrum to be less than lucid or perhaps he may not be terribly smart? I see him as entirely credible and extremely intelligent and well-thought out.

[Drew]

Kit, you should start a new thread on the comparison of the maps. That is fantastic.

You could interchange the maps with the titles, and no one would even know the difference.

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

If meldrums casts were so good why doesn't he use them to write a paper scientifically proving Bigfoot?

[Drew]

If meldrums casts were so good why doesn't he use them to write a paper scientifically proving Bigfoot?

He wrote one attempting to prove the footprints exist...

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf

[Guest CT Seeker]

If meldrums casts were so good why doesn't he use them to write a paper scientifically proving Bigfoot?

There's a lot of presuming there. I can't speak for Meldrum regarding what his goals are and whether or not a paper can be written to scientifically prove that BF exists by using these casts as examples. Have you looked at the data which Meldrum has put forth? Because what these eyes are seeing in your posts is someone who isn't looking at available data and then is assuming the worst. That is the kind of "skepticism" which doesn't serve a purpose that I can imagine. However, if you looked at his plethora of data, watched his interviews and then came to a different conclusion than mine--well, THAT I could respect. Ignoring available data is well, you know the word--ignorance. I mean that respectfully as a newcomer trying to fit in. Thanks

[kitakaze]

If meldrums casts were so good why doesn't he use them to write a paper scientifically proving Bigfoot?

Did it...

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

I wouldn't say he intended it as final proof. Regardless, it's loaded with hoax stuff, particularly from hoaxers Ray Wallace and Paul Freeman. Meldrum, out of the various proclaimed Bigfoot "experts", has misidentified and been tricked by quite a bit by false Bigfoot evidence...

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/crypto.html

Drew beat me to it. Morning guy.

Edited March 1, 2012 by kitakaze

[Guest CT Seeker]

What Meldrum writes about and what you linked, in no way line up with my view on reality regarding that same evidence. It is a shame that it is so easy to besmirch a Professor in Anthropology and Anatomy by a lay person with much lesser credentials and no visible expertise in the field.

Edited March 1, 2012 by slabdog
to better reflect the posters intent

[Drew]

Drew beat me to it. Morning guy.

EST bonus

[Guest parnassus]

CT Seeker might be surprised to learn that kitakaze's (and others) extensive research into and rebuttal of Meldrum's "data" was so effective that Meldrum publicly attempted (unsuccessfully) to answer it. I'm sure kit has the links.

kitakaze wrote:

The only time I object to people believing in Bigfoot is when they try and put those beliefs on kids too young to know better and freaking them out about boogeymen in the forests. I find messing with someone's enjoyment of nature to be highly objectionable...

I agree. Unfortunately, this is part of bigfootery, Believers feel the need to prosyletize, and entrepreneurs find it profitable. Finding Bigfoot has become a kind of lottery, with the best tall tale winning 15 minutes of fame. I love the PG film as a hoax, and the Legend of Boggy Creek as a campy horror movie, but I dislike the fact that they are used to convert credulous young people.

Further, I would add that the fact that people are now shooting-to-kill at things they see walking on two legs in the woods, with the explanation that they were collecting a specimen for scientific purposes, strikes me as reprehensible. I find it astonishing that a substantial number of people see that as acceptable conduct. To me, that is a signal that belief in a flesh and blood bigfoot has reached a dangerous stage. l

Lastly, I think that the subversion of science is a bad thing.

p.

[kitakaze]

CT, allow me to assist you as a new member in recognizing the difference between besmirching and critical scrutiny.

This is critical scrutiny...

Meldrum has been wrong in his support of a number of hoaxes and misidenfications as being from Bigfoot.

Meldrum before he went to the source on Snow Walker...

Meldrum supporting an elk lay as Bigfoot body print...

Meldrum supporting a Wallace hoax...

Meldrum says that this left foot...

Made this BCM impression overlaid with the Wallace stomper that actually made it...

Meldrum supporting this Vision Realm $75,000 CGI animation...

"With this animation now, I'll be able to not only visualize, but more importantly quantify these aspects of this peculiar bent-kneed gait on a flexible flat foot. I've also noticed right away that there's a interesting rotation of the leg and foot that is not typical of a modern human gait." - Jeff Meldrum

Meldrum on floppy breasts in the Memorial Day Footage...

“Also discernible were unmistakable breasts that gyrated with each running step.†- Jeff Meldrum

Jeff Meldrum supports all of the following as being from real Bigfoot creatures...

You see, saying someone is wrong is not besmirching them. I encourage you to become familiar with the distinction. You are asking people if they are familiar with Meldrum's work and his evidence regarding Bigfoot. I am very familiar. I have discussed various pieces of evidence with Meldrum personally on multiple occasions. Meldrum has been wrong about a lot of Bigfoot evidence. he is not a Bigfoot expert. No one is. Scientists are not above making mistakes or having tunnel vision looking at evidence. Meldrum was a Bigfoot believer since childhood. It is only natural that he can make the mistakes he has. It doesn't mean he is a bad professor or shouldn't do the work he does. All it means is that habving the Meldrum stamp of approval is going to mean absolutely nothing to the informed skeptic of Bigfoot.

Edited March 1, 2012 by slabdog

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

If 1 cast can be hoaxed they all can. Just because there is a lot of casts doesn't mean the probably that 1 is real increases. Back to square one with the sighting probabilities. Doh.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Bipedal Ape

[Guest MikeG]

Why would a skeptic want to be a part of a website that they don't believe in?

Sorry, I missed this.

How exactly does one believe in a website?

Mike