What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[Guest exnihilo]

I don't think I would suss out the probability quite that way. Then again, I'm no expert in statistics. But I think you have to consider more than simple reports. I think you would have to consider the potential opportunities to observe a particular hypothetical creature based on things like population, geographic distribution, availability and quality of cover, temperament, cultural and economic practices, and the geographic range of each creature or social group. Since we have a ready comparison with non-hominin great apes, the potential for observation of this sort of creature (BF as ape) has to be considered significantly higher than with a hominin that is culturally resistant to contact.

The irony of this observation is that the more anthropomorphic the hypothetical creature becomes, the more it resonates with the human psyche, and I think this tends to skew witness reliability downwards for a variety of intentional and unintentional reasons. But, when we take account of the possibility of ridicule or unwanted attention, it can also lend credence to the idea that the phenomena is under-reported, and that witnesses that do come forward are extremely sure of what they have seen and willing or inclined to face the heat for it. So it seems that if BF was a physical hominin, reports would fall into two opposed classes: 1) extremely unreliable or hoaxed reports and 2) reports that are somewhat more reliable than the norm, but that represent some fraction of potential reports which are suppressed due to the fear of ridicule. And, in a general sense, this is my impression of the data. There are crackpots and hardheaded free thinkers on both sides of the argument.

Art1972, didn't see your post before replying but it sure made a nice intro into mine!

[Guest]

It just happens to be my opinion that in some instances, the people shouting the loudest about what they've done, and what they've seen are unfortunately some of the least credible.

You find the quiet folks that arent blowing their own trumpet, and dont want to talk about what they've seen- those are the ones I find more believable.

Art, many don't talk about what they've seen for various periods of time (sometimes years), and it eats away at them. When they finally do, i don't consider any of them trumpet blowers. The ones that never talk... no one but them, will ever know the experience (whether actually.. true, or false). Credibility, is always something that has been somehow judged by those reading behind their computer screens here on the BFF (both versions). There would be absolutely nothing here worth reading, other than the latest BF blab that i can read through many other sources, if not for these folks coming forward.. both new members, and long time members. To hear someone come forward and post (no matter how often , or how many times) means zippo to me, on that persons credibility. A personal eye to eye witness interview, is a whole different matter. Just my own opinion, as always.

No, I'm not taking you the wrong way.. and do respect and understand your opinion.

edited for spelling errors

Edited February 13, 2012 by imonacan

[Guest]

I was once in the field with a biologist - a respected raptor researcher who spent years doing eagle and osprey counts on the Chesapeake Bay. We were investigating an old house on a barrier island (we were there doing an island-wide shorebird survey) and we found a dead bird in the house. He picked it up and explained it to me as a young Bald Eagle. (It's in his hand at this point, and I'm standing right next to him, looking at it.) The only problem is that he was wrong. It was a Turkey Vulture. There was no hooked beak like an eagle's and no talons on the feet. In that moment, one of us was dead wrong.

I was young, and he was an eagle expert. Still is, btw. I didn't push it other than to say "I think it's a vulture" but he said, "No, it's an eagle." So either I was hallucinating or he was - judging from the fact that Turkey Vultures often nest and roost in abandoned houses, I suspect he was.

If we reported this as an eagle, it wouldn't have been questioned by anyone, given his credentials and our combined 30 years or so of field biology experience. But that doesn't mean it was an eagle; it was a vulture.

No one was drunk or crazy or hoaxing or lying, but in that moment, this eagle expert's brain provided him with inaccurate information about something in which he was expert, and he was holding the dang thing in his hand.

Yes, the human brain is fascinating, and deserves further study.

[Guest spurfoot]

The expert probably knew it was a vulture and was testing you.

[Guest exnihilo]

Maybe you were hallucinating, Saskeptic.

[Guest]

The expert probably knew it was a vulture and was testing you.

See what you just did there? You applied critical thinking to develop an alternative explanation that is potentially more likely than the explanation I provided in my account. You cannot prove that your explanation is more accurate than mine, but it plants a seed of doubt in your head such that you at least see that my version of the event may not be reliable. This is the identical process I use when considering an anecdotal bigfoot account: I consider alternate explanations and weigh their likelihood.

Maybe you were hallucinating, Saskeptic.

I addressed that already.

Note however, that it doesn't matter which one of us made the error: one of us did, and we were both experienced field biologists examining something right in front of us.

[norseman]

I was once in the field with a biologist - a respected raptor researcher who spent years doing eagle and osprey counts on the Chesapeake Bay. We were investigating an old house on a barrier island (we were there doing an island-wide shorebird survey) and we found a dead bird in the house. He picked it up and explained it to me as a young Bald Eagle. (It's in his hand at this point, and I'm standing right next to him, looking at it.) The only problem is that he was wrong. It was a Turkey Vulture. There was no hooked beak like an eagle's and no talons on the feet. In that moment, one of us was dead wrong.

I was young, and he was an eagle expert. Still is, btw. I didn't push it other than to say "I think it's a vulture" but he said, "No, it's an eagle." So either I was hallucinating or he was - judging from the fact that Turkey Vultures often nest and roost in abandoned houses, I suspect he was.

If we reported this as an eagle, it wouldn't have been questioned by anyone, given his credentials and our combined 30 years or so of field biology experience. But that doesn't mean it was an eagle; it was a vulture.

No one was drunk or crazy or hoaxing or lying, but in that moment, this eagle expert's brain provided him with inaccurate information about something in which he was expert, and he was holding the dang thing in his hand.

Yes, the human brain is fascinating, and deserves further study.

But both of you knew it was a bird correct? And not a possum or a chipmunk?

I'll gladly admit that there are misidentifications between black bear and grizzly bear all the time, especially cinnamon colored black bears. And the hunter is punished quite severely for his mistake. Same goes for the Selkirk Woodland Caribou herd and the well meaning Elk hunter. It happens and even with the best of intentions it happens......

But to confuse a bear with a bipedal ape? Especially if you live in bear country? It's not a real easy thing to do. Bears lack the reported shoulders of a Sasquatch and one of the things I immediately look for in a bear is the ears and the spacing between the ears. Bears do not have antlers and they can be tricky to judge from a hunter's perspective, but if the ears appear to sit on top of the head it's a young bear and if the ears are a little more to the sides of the head it's an older bear. It's a good way to gauge the size of a bear.

But an ape's ears appear much lower to the sides of the head and are fur-less, and in the case of a chimp actually look very human like.

It's interesting but in many cases the reports go the other way (away from a bear), with people thinking its a very large human in dark clothes.

I certainly see where your line of reasoning is taking you, and of course this may well account for many misidentifications out there. But a willful mind seeing what it wants to see argument only goes so far before it starts to unravel. And a perfect example is the examples I gave above concerning hunting and endangered species. The human mind is very very capable of also making crack decisions under stress and pressure and being spot on every time. For I have shot Black Bear and Elk and never came home with a Griz or a Caribou, in fact I don't think I have ever mis identified any game animal that I have ever hunted.......not even a whitetail vs. a mule deer, which also has individual differing regulations for each species.

Granted I've never seen a Sasquatch, I guess a mind can play tricks upon us, but I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Edited February 13, 2012 by norseman

[JDL]

I don't think I would suss out the probability quite that way. Then again, I'm no expert in statistics. But I think you have to consider more than simple reports. I think you would have to consider the potential opportunities to observe a particular hypothetical creature based on things like population, geographic distribution, availability and quality of cover, temperament, cultural and economic practices, and the geographic range of each creature or social group. Since we have a ready comparison with non-hominin great apes, the potential for observation of this sort of creature (BF as ape) has to be considered significantly higher than with a hominin that is culturally resistant to contact.

The irony of this observation is that the more anthropomorphic the hypothetical creature becomes, the more it resonates with the human psyche, and I think this tends to skew witness reliability downwards for a variety of intentional and unintentional reasons. But, when we take account of the possibility of ridicule or unwanted attention, it can also lend credence to the idea that the phenomena is under-reported, and that witnesses that do come forward are extremely sure of what they have seen and willing or inclined to face the heat for it. So it seems that if BF was a physical hominin, reports would fall into two opposed classes: 1) extremely unreliable or hoaxed reports and 2) reports that are somewhat more reliable than the norm, but that represent some fraction of potential reports which are suppressed due to the fear of ridicule. And, in a general sense, this is my impression of the data. There are crackpots and hardheaded free thinkers on both sides of the argument.

Art1972, didn't see your post before replying but it sure made a nice intro into mine!

Ex, clearly the statistical model would need to be far more refined than in the simplistic example I laid out, and there are ways to prevalidate data. Point is, though, that unless you assign a value of zero to the probability that bigfoot exists, then the probability that all reports are false diminishes as sample size increases. Sad thing is, this argument falls on deaf ears if the listener insists that the probability that bigfoot exists is zero to begin with.

[BobbyO]

If 1 report can be false then potentially all of them can.

But even if all reports are true up to this point, it doesn't mean that one can't be false tomorrow does it ?

The truth of this, whether you or anyone else want to believe it or not i don't really care, but the truth is that some reports are true, and some aren't and i would bet you anything you want that that is the truth of it.

Just like in virtually everything in life, it comes down to majorities & minorities.

If i had to sway one way with regards to this subject, i would say the majority of sightings would be true & the minority wouldn't be.

I would also so that the majority of Class B reports that we get are not Sasquatch related at all, but the minority were..

[indiefoot]

I know we are not a debate society but the rules of logic have begun to intrigue me. Arguing that because something could have happened it must have happened is an example that I have brought up several times before and will continue to bring up when I think it applies.

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.

[JDL]

Personally I think more bigfoot are misidentified as humans or bears, than humans or bears are misidentified as bigfoot.

[Sasfooty]

See what you just did there? Note however, that it doesn't matter which one of us made the error: one of us did, and we were both experienced field biologists examining something right in front of us.

Assuming that this really happened, & isn't just another little allegory, lets talk about what you just did.

There were two people who saw the bird in question. Not one person who saw it & a group of skeptics who didn't see it, but think they know what it wasn't.

When you are presented with two potential BF witnesses, who disagree as to what they saw, then your "story" will be more relevant.

[Guest]

Sad thing is, this argument falls on deaf ears if the listener insists that the probability that bigfoot exists is zero to begin with.

Do you see that if you begin with the premise of a non-zero probability that your work is not falsifiable? You don't need 100 reports to convince yourself that some reports are real if you begin from the position that some of them are.

Edited to add: By the same token, if I begin from the position of a probability of zero, I cannot prove anything with a mountain of anecdotal accounts either. All I can say is that there are alternative explanations for every single observation - including REAL BIGFOOT - but there's nothing inherent, i.e., no statistical pattern in those accounts, that can prove anything about them, either way. I cannot know which of several possibilities applies to each observation. That's why anecdotal accounts are of limited value.

Sasfooty, my story (which is true btw, though you shouldn't take my word for it) is not intended to be analogous to any particular bigfoot encounter. My intent was only to illustrate that the human mind is capable of being fooled, even when it considers something at arms length, and even when the person examining that thing is an expert in that thing.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Guest exnihilo]

I addressed that already.

Note however, that it doesn't matter which one of us made the error: one of us did, and we were both experienced field biologists examining something right in front of us.

Most likely explanation where two reliable observers are involved: someone's schema got in the way. Unfortunately this phenomenon works against skeptical arguments in the case of BF -- as BF encounters are presumably almost always discordant events, i.e., are not already integrated into a schema. In other words, the mind much prefers to rationalize the encounter away and preserve the schema, than have the schema disrupted or destroyed. Especially when the schema is often emotionally tied to our own 'apex of creation' self-conception.

[JDL]

Sas, I do see your point, and it leads me to the same conclusion I reached the last time we went down this road. The statistical analysis of bigfoot reports cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of bigfoot as long as the underlying assumptions are in dispute.

Edited February 13, 2012 by JDL