What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[Guest]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out just what UFO sightings have to do with the existence of Bigfoot.

Who cares whether or not the sightings "map" or not? They're two different things.

Edited March 3, 2012 by grayjay
GG2

[Guest]

Yes, thankyou for bringing it back to BF discussion. Perhaps I shouldnt have replied to the BF/UFO sightings thread in such detail as I am want to do. Thing is that there could be as many statitics of people encountering BF as UFO, squirrels, cats on roofs, non dried out KFC and purple flowers each year. In the graph logic, we should discount squirrel sightings and purple flower sightings because they are in the same number of reports each year as BF. The logic there is if they are the same proportion as BF sightings, then this links them into social constructs (which apparently according the graph makers only exist for BF and UFO sighters rather than all of society as sociologists would testify) - and apparently such social constructs are delusions or imaginations not as real as the social constructs of brick house sightings. It actually is the witch weighs the same as a duck argument shown in the Monty Python video earlier.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest]

@mulder: I believe the relevance is that the distribution map for bigfoot is nothing like that for an actually rare and rarely encountered creature, but very much like that of other purely social/cultural phenomena like sightings of ghosts and flying saucers.

Edited March 3, 2012 by grayjay
removed response to material found in rules violation.

[Guest]

Just a question but wouldn't those maps of sightings also correspond with where most people live. Like I don't know population centers. So wouldn't it also be obvious that there would be more sightings of a lot of things in those areas.

[Guest]

@Sasskeptic - You say it is to show that it is different to the graph of rare and rarely encountered species - do you think perhaps it might be more of a graph of sightings of real species that through habbit and human habit will eventuate in so many sightings each year?

Edited March 2, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest]

Um, what?

Sorry, that's probably too vague. Could you please rephrase your question? I'm not clear on what you're asking.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Guest]

OK more clearly, apologies - couldnt your graph of sightings be a graph of actual sightings? OR, couldnt your graph show the proportions of likely reports of BF each year simply due to the fact that such proportions of people will see them each year. You have used a graph of sightings to somehow show they are not sightings because, as I understand your logic rare animals wouldnt have such reports. How can you know how many reports a BF should have? It might not be the same as the rare animals for which apparently you have other statistics.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Encounter

[indiefoot]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out just what UFO sightings have to do with the existence of Bigfoot.

Who cares whether or not the sightings "map" or not? They're two different things.

I see it as a strawman argument. What it loooks like they are saying is "See BF reports look just like UFO reports on our map so they must be the same and everyone knows that UFO aren't real"

[Guest]

@Encounter: I think we're talking about distribution maps that Kitakaze posted upthread a bit.

The distributions of bigfoot, UFO, and "haunted house" reports are quite similar and you're right, they correlate well with human population centers. In contrast, he also presented a map for the Kermode bear, a rare subspecies of American black bear that probably numbers no more than 1000 individuals. The Kermode bear map is spatially explicit, and reflect a distribution of a rare species that is restricted to a rather small corner of the world (although somewhat ironically, in the heart of bigfoot country).

The point Kitakaze was trying to make - and in my opinion did so beautifully - is that when species actually are rare and actually do live in rugged, isolated places where humans seldom go, their distributions look like that of the Kermode bear: isolated and tightly clustered. Bigfoot is supposed to be really rare and live in rugged, isolated places where humans seldom go. If anything, bigfoot must be quite a bit more rare and live in even more rugged and isolated places than Kermode bears, which were described in the literature way back in 1905. Yet the bigfoot sightings map doesn't look anything like that of the Kermode bear, or for that matter Florida panther, mountain beaver, Northeastern beach tiger-beetle, pigtoe mussel, etc. Instead, the bigfoot distribution map indicates a creatures that is cosmopolitan in distribution. Heck, forget Kermode bear - bigfoot's distribution is even broader than that of American black bear, i.e., the full species! It's a distribution that matches best with a cultural icon than it does any other large mammal.

That isn't to say that a broad distribution means that there can't be some authentic encounters recorded in that distribution, there can. But taken as a whole, the spatial data are incongruous with a creature so rare that it continues to evade detection by techniques that were sufficient to document the existence of creatures in the same places centuries ago.

[Guest Strick]

As usual, I think Saskeptic is completely right, though a fairly large chunk of me hopes that he's completely wrong (as usual).

Bigfoot can't be everywhere and nowhere. It seems highly unlikely that the most cryptic of North American mammals, and probably the largest, can be represented in every state except Hawaii and yet remain unknown to science.

The only way Bigfoot can have the distribution curve that it's credited and remain hidden is to assign to it a 'human avoidance strategy' that would appear to go above and beyond that of any other known mammal species. This is why so many have had to attribute paranormal aspects to this creature's nature - to wallpaper over the cracks known and accepted mammal behaviour. I suppose it's not impossible and, to tell you the truth, it's that little ray of possibility that keeps me coming back to this forum for more.

There are, after all, examples of rare animals that, partly on account of their ability to remain hidden, have recolonised habitats from which more obtrusive mammals have become extirpated. I was lucky enough to go hiking in the Santa Cruz Mountains in CA last year, an area that used to contain a large population of Grizzly and Black Bears. The former are long gone and so, sadly, are the latter. Almost. There is now only the tiniest of remnant populations of Black Bears in these mountains. However, Cougars are on the up and up, despite the fact that they too were virtually at the point of extinction only a few decades ago. You are now far more likely to run into a Cougar in the Santa Cruz mountains than a Bear. It is well known that these cats have already recolonised much of their former range by stealth.

I suppose that main difference between Sasquatches and Cougars is that the latter do not remain undocumented and, though cryptic, are well represented in zoo and museum collections all over the world.

But perhaps there's just the tiniest opportunity to hope.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Strick

[Guest RayG]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out just what UFO sightings have to do with the existence of Bigfoot.

Forget about the maps, there are other similarities. Here's a few:

Bigfootdom has an organization that investigates bigfoot reports and sightings, and maintains a bigfoot database (BFRO) - UFOlogy has an organization that investigates UFO reports and sightings, and maintains a UFO database (MUFON).

Bigfootdom has bouncy, blurry, hard-to-see-anything-clearly videos -- UFOlogy has bouncy, blurry, hard-to-see-anything-clearly videos.

Bigfootdom has many books written on the subject -- UFOlogy has many books written on the subject.

Bigfootdom has a handful of scientists who think the evidence for bigfoot is compelling -- UFOlogy has a handful of scientists who think the evidence for UFOs is compelling.

Bigfootdom has thousands of anecdotal accounts -- UFOlogy has thousands of anecdotal accounts.

Bigfootdom is occasionally subjected to hoaxes -- UFOlogy is occasionally subjected to hoaxes.

Bigfootdom has witness accounts, like those of Roe, Ostman, and Beck, that are considered 'classic' bigfoot reports -- UFOlogy has witness accounts, like those of Betty/Barney Hill, and Kenneth Arnold that are considered 'classic' UFO reports.

Bigfootdom has no definitive proof of large, hairy, undiscovered creatures inhabiting the forests of North America -- UFOlogy has no definitive proof of aliens or the spaceships they supposedly use to visit our planet.

There are probably others, but that's a start.

RayG

[gigantor]

yes Ray, but BF is a plausible animal, extraterrestrial UFOs are not because they defy the laws of physics, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

Edited March 3, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

That isn't to say that a broad distribution means that there can't be some authentic encounters recorded in that distribution, there can. But taken as a whole, the spatial data are incongruous with a creature so rare that it continues to evade detection by techniques that were sufficient to document the existence of creatures in the same places centuries ago.

In my opinion techniques used to track and observe different species are greatly varied. BF clearly behaves like no other creature we've encountered before, or i do believe we would have a lot more evidence of it's existence. To put it simply certain techniques used to track a certain species may not work to track another. I hope that notion is generally agreed upon. Though it is improbable that there is a large population of BF out there, it is possible. I personally believe there population is rather small, in comparison to other large mammals in North America. I've herd another member of the forum suggest the reason we've never been able to capture this creature may be as simple as them knowing your there long before you ever knew they were. I found the thought very intriguing. BF may simply have enhanced sight, smell, hearing, who knows the creature may even be able to pick up vibration through the ground, i mean those are some big feet .

I also read another thread just recently, and one of the members of the BFForums pretty much said that for the most part the general public isn't as in tune with nature as they once were. I believe that to be a very true statement. Tracking wildlife is an art form, a dying art form on this continent if you ask me. There are many people who still posses the ability. but far fewer then there were so long ago.

I think the statistical probability that all sightings are false is very, very, very low.

[Guest RayG]

yes Ray, but BF is a plausible animal, extraterrestrial UFOs are not because they defy the laws of physics, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

You mean like how both apples and oranges are fruit, round in shape, have brightly-colored outer skins, can be turned into juice, and are available in a variety of types at my local grocery store?

Of course they're completely different fruits, but surely you see there are some parallels.

Same thing with our Fortean topics. Although I think there are certainly similarities between bigfootdom and UFOlogy, I'm not attempting to convince anyone that both mysteries are exactly alike in every sense.

If I might ask (anyone), is there a specific item from my list of similarities that incorrectly reflects how the two subjects compare? I'd be willing to make adjustments if necessary.

RayG

Edited March 3, 2012 by RayG

[Guest]

Forget about the maps, there are other similarities. Here's a few:

Bigfootdom has an organization that investigates bigfoot reports and sightings, and maintains a bigfoot database (BFRO) - UFOlogy has an organization that investigates UFO reports and sightings, and maintains a UFO database (MUFON).

Bigfootdom has bouncy, blurry, hard-to-see-anything-clearly videos -- UFOlogy has bouncy, blurry, hard-to-see-anything-clearly videos.

Bigfootdom has many books written on the subject -- UFOlogy has many books written on the subject.

Bigfootdom has a handful of scientists who think the evidence for bigfoot is compelling -- UFOlogy has a handful of scientists who think the evidence for UFOs is compelling.

Bigfootdom has thousands of anecdotal accounts -- UFOlogy has thousands of anecdotal accounts.

Bigfootdom is occasionally subjected to hoaxes -- UFOlogy is occasionally subjected to hoaxes.

Bigfootdom has witness accounts, like those of Roe, Ostman, and Beck, that are considered 'classic' bigfoot reports -- UFOlogy has witness accounts, like those of Betty/Barney Hill, and Kenneth Arnold that are considered 'classic' UFO reports.

Bigfootdom has no definitive proof of large, hairy, undiscovered creatures inhabiting the forests of North America -- UFOlogy has no definitive proof of aliens or the spaceships they supposedly use to visit our planet.

There are probably others, but that's a start.

RayG

None of which has one thing to do with the validity of the sightings.

Nothing in your post but an extended argument from ridicule, as indiefoot pointed out.

Next fail?