What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[indiefoot]

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.

Appeal to probability

Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

[Guest WesT]

I think the statistical probability that all of these alleged sightings of Bigfoot are in fact false is about 99%...

Then according to your statement that means 1% are true.... It's like being a little pregnant, either one is, or isn't.

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.

You said a mouthfull of truth here and I've witnessed it myself firsthand. Without opposing viewpoints in a discussion, it runs it's course and dies rather quickly, without anything of value ever put forward or learned from.

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.

Raises eyebrow like Spock : "fascinating". Link please.

[kitakaze]

WesT, you slightly misunderstand what my 99% is referring to. It's not that I think 99% of all sightings are false while the other 1% are real, it's that I feel 99% certainty the probability that all sightings are false. The 1% is the chance I allow that any of them might actually be Bigfoot. My door is not shut and I do allow that Bigfoot could possibly exist. Reliable evidence will immediately make me revise that percentage to go vastly in favour of Bigfoot.

The link you ask for is already up. I'll let someone else specify more because it's just Meldrum taking a petty personal swipe at me. I find it unprofessional, but he's welcome to his opinion. He's technically a member here although he's never posted. Much of his Sasquatch Summit presentation was in response to material I've presented about the Blue Creek Mountain Rd hoax from August 1967 by Bluff Creek.

[slabdog]

(whistle tweets)

Time out folks:

Firm but gentle reminder to not derail this topic.

We have had to deal with multiple reports and mod actions from this thread over the last couple days.

Keep it on topic or it will be closed and action will will taken against violators.

(whistle tweets)

Edited March 2, 2012 by slabdog
to prove I said it...and it happened

[Guest]

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.

Kita has demonstrated time and again he cannot even accurately determine the position of an elbow in a picture or properly outline limb proportions, so I don't see how or why we should give his "rebutttal" (assuming he attempted one, link please) any consideration whatsoever.

kitakaze wrote:

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.

Boggy Creek is obviously a docudrama and features reinactments, and never tries to portray itself as actual footage.

Love or hate the PGF, neither you nor any other Skeptic has demonstrated any proof that it is hoaxed, and scientists like Dr Meldrum and associates have demonstrated valid observations that support it's authenticity.

Next Fail?

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.

Nice not-so-subtle ad hom on the proponent community.

Who exactly keeps demanding a "slab monkey"? That would be Skeptics. First your side tells witnesses and proponents that absent a body their experiences are all either the result of mental illness, stupidity or fraud, but when some of them set out to procure your all important "type specimen" they become "dangerous" (YOUR word)...do you want the cake or do you want to eat the cake? You can't have it both ways.

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:

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

Captain Skeptic: "Helm, hard over! Evasive to starboard!"

The entire post is essentially an attempt not to answer the question by declaring the question unanswerable.

[Guest WesT]

kitakaze, I understand. But no matter how you splice it, dice it, julianne it, if only 1% are true then...

Is everyone mistaken/lying etc.? I'm not qualified to make that call nor am I clairvoyant. At least you give a 1% chance. I've seen skeptics say 100%, which is quite laughable. Good job on navigating the waters in that regard. Someone such as yourself probably realizes that bi-pedalism is nothing new or unusual in primates, and from what we've learned from the fossil record, not an attribute exclusive to us humans. Because of that I'll throw a dart and give it a 30% chance.

Thanks for the link!

[Guest CT Seeker]

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:

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.

You guys speaking for all of the "believers" out there is something I find insulting and again, a falsehood.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Sightings by a scientist are called "observations". Sightings by lay people are called "anecdotes".

Ya, lol'd ...but, scientists/biologists out in the field need quite a bit more than just sightings/observations. It's a start for that body of evidence you hope to accumulate.

That being said, I do get what you're saying.

Anyways, just comes down to that body of evidence.

[Guest CT Seeker]

Sorry, I missed this.

How exactly does one believe in a website?

Mike

You really didn't understand what was (poorly) attempting to be communicated? Why would one want to be a part of a forum discussing something they don't believe in? To take jabs at people who believe? That's what I see a lot of thus far.

[Drew]

The entire post is essentially an attempt not to answer the question by declaring the question unanswerable.

Hardly, I am merely showing that the number of reported sightings as it approaches infinity, divided into the number of confirmed sightings, whose total approaches zero, indicates a result which approaches zero. The entire area between the blue line and the red line, on the graph, represents all unconfirmed sightings throughout history.

[Guest CT Seeker]

Hardly, I am merely showing that the number of reported sightings as it approaches infinity, divided into the number of confirmed sightings, whose total approaches zero, indicates a result which approaches zero. The entire area between the blue line and the red line, on the graph, represents all unconfirmed sightings throughout history.

Regarding the "unconfirmed" part, can you include in the graph the part where the purported nature of the creature is to be mostly nocturnal, intelligent and incredibly elusive as a key means for its existence? I am awful with graphs! Thanks!

[Guest CT Seeker]

Appeal to probability

Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.

What is your feeling about the fact that many of the casts depict dermal ridges? Dermal ridges are finger or footprints which show the grooves in the skin. What is your take on the depth and conditions of the cast which are shown (in purported non-hoaxed casts) to show good ground depth? A wooden (or other) block would act like a snow-shoe and actually make it more difficult to sink into the ground than if it were a bare (large) footed hoaxer. Also, by which method of hoaxing would you think they could depict a mid-tarsal break? The theorized foot of a very large, bi-pedal animal wouldn't have a ball of the foot like we have--instead it is thought they would have a break in the foot towards the middle in an effort to more easily accommodate the heavy weight of the creature. Casts that are deemed to be authentic have these properties.

[Guest]

Why would one want to be a part of a forum discussing something they don't believe in?

Just this week, we had yet another thread started on this very topic.

[Guest CT Seeker]

Just this week, we had yet another thread started on this very topic.

Just read through it. Thanks for the link. I just couldn't imagine going to a forum where people believe in something and spend my time shooting down their ideas and thoughts. Edited March 1, 2012 by slabdog

[Guest]

^post 253: Yes, you have done a good job here of parroting Jeff Meldrum's opinions of certain footprint casts, none of which hold any more water than a single layer of cheesecloth.

There are pages and pages here and elsewhere addressing specific aspects of putative bigfoot prints such as dermal ridges, mid-tarsal breaks, the apparent weight of the thing that left the prints, etc. I recommend you do some research into some of those specific ideas rather than expect someone to respond to each in turn in a thread devoted to an entirely different topic. The SEARCH function takes a bit of practice, but you will get the hang of it quickly.

When expressing disagreement is equated to bullying . . .