What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[Guest]

OK, well I'm sure we can agree that bigfoot has been investigated (there're 106 pages of speculation on just one such investigation elsewhere on the BFF). How vigorous is vigorous has also been explored in other threads as well.

[kitakaze]

What a strange derail for this thread: bigfooters objecting to having their phenomenon lumped in any way with the UFO phenomenon. There has even been a charge (led by a guy who uses a gray alien for an avatar) that the mere comparison of the similarity in geographic distribution of reports from the two phenomena amounts to a logical fallacy in the argument from ridicule, because we're serious about this bigfoot stuff but everybody knows UFOs are a woo-woo fringe topic.

It's quite sad (and frankly, a bit laughable) that RayG's perfectly middle-of-the-road "these things are similar" post has been met with such opposition. His statements in that post are dispassionate, and demonstrably true. In addition to the unreasonable response to Ray's post, there's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy at work here too: bigfoot has often been reported in concert with UFOs, orbs, and other stuff. There very much is a segment of the bigfooter community that associates bigfoots with aliens/interdimensional beings. While Ray did not address that segment in his post, I find it rather disingenuous of those rebutting Ray to ignore that segment.

Billy D clap...

[indiefoot]

Now does the UFO phenomenon have any bearing on what the statistical probability is that all BF sightings are false or is it just a distraction? I still say the only logical probability, given the evidence on hand, would be 50/50, flip a coin, I don't know whether they are all false or not. Arguments aren't evidence. The weight of evidence is equal.

I suppose the same would be true of UFO sightings.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Go back to Ray's comparison and substitute "UFOlogy" with "Black Holes". It works out just the same. Does it mean there is a cosmic correlation to bigfoot? Or does it mean that the people who think there is a bigfoot are as smart as theoretical physicists?

Edited March 5, 2012 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest]

Saskeptic

I would consider vigorous, being funded and equiped by the government or a big museum, the Komodo dragon expedition was funded by the American Museum Of Natural History. What BF expedition can claim to have that type of backing?

[salubrious]

I'm new here...

OK- back in the early 90s I had an encounter. At the time, I did not spend a lot of time watching or reading about Bigfoot, and the internet was still 2 years off. I was on vacation in Colorado. I was not *expecting* to see a Bigfoot at the time I did, in fact my mind was on the activities that I was going to be doing the next day. But it happened anyway.

I was close enough that there really was no doubt about what I saw. 15 feet is plenty close, for real.

Now, given that its possible that I saw something else and was somehow hallucinating about **this specific thing**, does someone have a reasonable explanation of what I saw? It was not a fleeting glimpse BTW, I had enough time to think "what the hell is this?? Where is its snout?" and so on. Quite honestly I would love it to not be real. It was 5 or 6 years before I told anyone about it, and then easily 10 years before I told anyone else. In a way, its a pain in the butt- now that I know they are out there, its altered my view of what it means to take a stroll in the forest! Any debunkers care to help out?

[Guest]

@Caesar: So does "vigorous" equate to a dollar amount, a minimum number of people working on something, or the name of the institution affiliated with the work?

Again, I don't want to get into a big derail here because this stuff has been discussed at length elsewhere. The short answer is that these comparisons between our inability to find bigfoot in North America and the search for rare species that were relatively recently described are never as clear as people like to think. For example, I just did a search on the discovery of the Komodo lizard. P. A. Ouwens from the Zoological Museum in Buitenzorg, Java sent the first expedition to Komodo to document tales of the giant lizards, and they collected some (from which the species was described) on their first try. That's called "batting 1000" in the vernacular, and it's quite the opposite of the search for bigfoot.

You mentioned that the AMNH funded an expedition shortly thereafter. Well, sort of:

"I'd like to catch a dragon," is perhaps how W. Douglas Burden broached the subject of organizing an expedition to Komodo Island with Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History. Burden, a wealthy, young adventurer and hunter, had already lent his services to the museum on several occasions to shoot exotic and dangerous animals for the museum's collections. . . .

Osborn was delighted by the idea, especially since Burden was willing to pay the costs, and approved it as an official museum expedition." (emphasis mine)

[kitakaze]

If we are ever going to seriously try and establish beyond guesstamation what the statistical probability is that all sightings are false, Bigfootery needs to come to a place and deal with itself where we sincerely and in earnest dispassionately address and examine in detail why Bigfoot sightings don't look like this...

But rather we have seriously come up with this...

Which looks just like this...

And this...

We need to not emotionally freak out and wring our fists because we believe someone is undermining the great fundamental legitimacy we prescribe to Bigfoot and try and understand why so many people claim to see something that was never there. The emotional response to having our sightings compared to UFO's and ghosts needs to be set aside. For every believer that reels at having Bigfoot sightings compared to that of UFO's and ghosts, I can show you a person who with absolute conviction to the point they can pass polygraphs who swears they were abducted by an alien or saw a ghost and would pitch a tire iron if you mentioned Bigfoot to them. I can also show you people who swear they saw both UFO's and Bigfoot, separately and together...

This is a part of Bigfootery that it needs to sincerely look at without scoffing and denialism. How quickly believers become everything they project in skeptics when someone starts talking about also seeing aliens and ghosts. What needs to be asked is...

1) How accurately do we think the Bigfoot sightings map above reflects the actual distribution of a breeding population of actual huge living mammals?

2) How much of it is a result of our desire to perpetuate belief in Bigfoot in a manner that is actually counterproductive to that desire?

3) What factors go into place for resulting in false sightings shown on that map? Hallucination, self-conviction and strong desire to believe, and hoaxing are not everything. People can genuinely misidentify Bigfoot. So how does this occur? Bears and stumps do not account for all of this.

In Bigfootery we can find someone fleeing from the woods from a porcupine in a tree convinced they just encountered Bigfoot...

But I also think that hoaxing is far more prevalent than we account for...

And we must address, too, the problem in Bigfootery of those who tenaciously cling to proven hoaxes as if they were really Bigfoot...

But in the end, what we have to account for, is what is our filtration system? What do we accept as genuine sightings and how do we do that? Who is the arbiter of what is real concerning Bigfoot sightings? There are people making claims with complete sincerity that involve high levels of detail. The disparity in the detail is vast as are the bahaviours and bilities accorded to the Bigfoots they say the saw. Is Bigfoot really maintaining breeding populations in Texas, New York, New Mexico, Iowa, Prince Edward Island, etc?

(snip)

...Maybe 1 minute after I lost sight of the birds the sound was becoming much louder and apparent of what it might be. My first instinct was that another hunter was walking through the forest. However, to this day I will never forget what I saw in the coming moments. The sound with an almost steady rythym reminded me of what it would sound like if I were walking on dry leaves in the forest. There was not a drop of wind on this morning and I believe the valley might have been echoing the sound. A few moments later I caught sight of it. Maybe 50 yards to my left coming into view on the bottom edge of the valley. At first I thought it was a hunter in a gilly suit. But upon closer examination I realized this was no human wearing a camo outfit. It continued to walk up right on two feet down the valley towards my right. When the creature got to the bottom of the hill out cropping I was sitting on it stopped dead in its tracks and remained perfectly still momentarily. I think it was as this point I truly realized what I was seeing. When it stopped and stood still it became nearly invisible in the forest. It seemed an eternity passed while I sat against this tree uncontrollably shaking. I was scared out of my wits even with a 10GA shotgun propped on my knee pointed in the direction of the creature. What happened next scared me so bad I would have bet my life on it that was going to have a heart attack. The creature turned its head and looked directly at me. I stared directly into the eyes of this creature for an unkown amount of time. It made no sound, it did not move, only stared at me. I was in full camoflauge including a facemask so maybe it was not sure what I was?? Shaking so bad at this point the only thing I could think of was to defend myself. I clicked the saftey off on my shotgun. When I did this the creature went into an almmost crouching position only it seemed more like it was in a position that would allow it to move quickly. The stare down went on for what seemed forever. I readied my shotgun not afraid to move anymore since it was apparent I had been seen. When I positioned my left hand under the forearm of my shotgun the creature sprang up nearly causing me to pull the trigger. It continued its walk though the forest with its head turned watching me. I continued pointing my gun at it. I never pulled the trigger. I was so afraid I didnt know what to do. Eventually I lost sight of it. I jumped up as soon as it was gone and I ran back to my truck without stopping to rest once. To this day I will never forget what I saw or the feeling of absolute terror that overcame me. I do not want to be famous nor do I want my story posted all over the internet. I just thought I should tell somebody my story.

(description of the creature)

The creature was well over six feet tall, and was extremely broad shouldered, but was not deep chested. It's arms were way too long, larger than they should have been. It was filthy, and had a bad smell. He could smell it well after it went away. Witness could not tell if the creature had hair or fur. In the low light the color of the creature was a dark gray.

http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=29125

Does that report get the boot because it happened here?...

And if we accept that as a real sighting as well as the Bigfoot sighting map as being accurate, can we seriously continue to behave as if the rare and remote argument has anything to do with the reality of the Bigfoot phenomenon?

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Whaaat? No proponent green plusses for the black hole thing? I'm done arguing for the proponents. Do you think it's easy taking on Ray, Kit, and Saskeptic? Especially when they band together on a subject?

Okay here it is again.

The left half is from Ray's original. The right half in bold is a new comparison.

Bigfootdom has an organization that investigates bigfoot reports and sightings, and maintains a bigfoot database (BFRO) - The study of black holes has an organization that investigates black hole reports and sightings, and maintains a black hole database (I'm sure there is a link somewhere).

Bigfootdom has bouncy, blurry, hard-to-see-anything-clearly videos -- The study of black holes has bouncy, blurry, hard-to-see-anything-clearly videos.

Bigfootdom has many books written on the subject -- The study of black holes has many books written on the subject.

Bigfootdom has a handful of scientists who think the evidence for bigfoot is compelling -- The study of black holes has a handful of scientists who think the evidence for black holes is compelling.

Bigfootdom has thousands of anecdotal accounts -- The study of black holes has thousands of anecdotal accounts.

Bigfootdom is occasionally subjected to hoaxes -- The study of black holes is occasionally subjected to hoaxes.

Bigfootdom has witness accounts, like those of Roe, Ostman, and Beck, that are considered 'classic' bigfoot reports -- The study of black holes has witness accounts, like those of blah blah blah and such.

Bigfootdom has no definitive proof of large, hairy, undiscovered creatures inhabiting the forests of North America -- Black holedom has no definitive proof of black holes, only theories. Since black holes emit no light, there is no photo of one. Only surrounding evidence that suggests one is nearby. Sound familiar?

Both groups have conferences, websites and forums. Both must be the same apparently.

If you don't green plus this.... there is no bigfoot. Okay?.. yeah I said it.

Edited March 6, 2012 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest]

@Caesar: So does "vigorous" equate to a dollar amount, a minimum number of people working on something, or the name of the institution affiliated with the work?

Again, I don't want to get into a big derail here because this stuff has been discussed at length elsewhere. The short answer is that these comparisons between our inability to find bigfoot in North America and the search for rare species that were relatively recently described are never as clear as people like to think. For example, I just did a search on the discovery of the Komodo lizard. P. A. Ouwens from the Zoological Museum in Buitenzorg, Java sent the first expedition to Komodo to document tales of the giant lizards, and they collected some (from which the species was described) on their first try. That's called "batting 1000" in the vernacular, and it's quite the opposite of the search for bigfoot.

I think all three factors you have mentioned equate to the term vigorous. As proper funding, supply and staff are required to conduct a vigorous expedition in my opinion. Researchers should be simultaneously camped in these same remote locations for years if necessary and resupplied on sight. That's vigorous, an operation of that extent would be expensive but would yield the best chance of success in my opinion. I do not know of any such expeditions ever being put forth to find BF, i could be wrong. Staying in one location for a night or two, or even a week or two for that matter is not enough.

Regardless of where the funding actually came from the name used to back an expedition can have a great impact on the credibility of the evidence put forth. Why was the komodo dragon found on the first try? I think this boils down to the animals general habitat, the lizard is not as hard to track and capture as an ape. A lot was known about this crytid prior to that expedition. Research was being done but was interrupted by World War I and resumed upon completion of the war. The Okapi is a great example of failed expeditions to find a cryptid no more elusive, just more rare then your average gazelle or deer. They weren't "batting 1000" there.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Caesar

[Guest RayG]

The study of black holes...

But the study of black holes is ridiculous. Absurd even. Why the people that search for black holes are nothing but kooks.

There, I said it.

RayG

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

haha lol I busted a gut on that one.

Okay, there may be something to the comparisons and the maps. But there might not be. It's hard to say for sure. I guess they would be a proper attempt to classify an event that is arbitrary and put into a context where there is meaning. It's a good attempt. It might be so.

People often ask me what a person from the city knows about bigfoot research. The answer is what they thought, little or nothing. What I do know is that living in a city, people try to sell me stuff every three minutes of my life. There is a reason I do not own a broken Zolex watch and why I need to see proof.

The map comparison is the same as the list. Oddly enough, the map for the Dr. Sholls Gel Inserts 2011 sales is nearly identical. Maybe I never had an encounter because I'm so not gellin. It's not a flawless theory however.

[kitakaze]

Whaaat? No proponent green plusses for the black hole thing? I'm done arguing for the proponents. Do you think it's easy taking on Ray, Kit, and Saskeptic? Especially when they band together on a subject?

Okay here it is again.

The left half is from Ray's original. The right half in bold is a new comparison.

Bigfootdom has an organization that investigates bigfoot reports and sightings, and maintains a bigfoot database (BFRO) - The study of black holes has an organization that investigates black hole reports and sightings, and maintains a black hole database (I'm sure there is a link somewhere).

(snip)

If you don't green plus this.... there is no bigfoot. Okay?.. yeah I said it.

ROFLcopter!

That was fine fishing.

Bigfoot and black holes - they both have blurry pictures...

I'm not sure if there have ever been any black hole hoaxes, however, or how you hoax super massive objects in the universe sucking up light , stars, nebulae, and belching out x-rays.

Also, has anyone ever been abducted and violated by a black hole as with Bigfoot and aliens?

...wait for it...

That would suck.

I'll be in the lounge until 7pm. You guys stay fancy.

[Guest]

Yes, and bigfoot have nothing to do with the validity of UFOs.

However, I wasn't attempting to validate either one. I was pointing out similarities, which you apparently took to be some form of ridicule. As I suspected, you have no reasoning for why the comparisons fail, only excuses for why you don't like the list.

RayG

Still not biting, Ray.

BF has nothing to do with UFOs and I refuse to be drawn into debating your "comparison", which is nothing but a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to infect the BF topic with the perceived "fringe" status of UFOs.

I guess what I'm trying to compare is the 'phenomenon' of bigfoot as compared to the 'phenomenon' of UFOs, and how both phenomena have similarities.

If people choose not to see them, so be it, but it won't make them false comparisons.

RayG

And here's the "hook" folks. Start discussing BF as a "phenominon" and you are drawn away from the real subject and bone of contention: the reality of BF as a flesh and blood critter that people see, that leaves hairs, tracks, is photographed, etc.

Start down the road of "discussing the 'phenominon' " and you end up discussing the psychology of "hoaxing", "social constructs", etc.

Don't fall for it. Don't take the "phenominon" detour because it cannot take us to the desired destination (documentation of the BF species).

Just a point but aren't UFOs/aliens the subject of more interest, ponderings and outright belief around the world than hairy bipedal man-apes?

I would have thought more people are interested in UFOs/Aliens and believe in them than either Bigfoot or the Yeti.

Haven't there been many polls done where the percentages of belief or possibility of UFOs/aliens is actually quite high?

Most people I know are open to the possibility/probablity that there is extraterrestrial life and that they might be visiting us.

I've read that too...which I find odd because of the two BF is by far the more apt to "really be" than ETs (never mind that I KNOW BF "really is" after having seen one).

That said, see above for why I think this whole "discuss the 'phonominon' " notion is a great big trap, one which I have no intention of springing.

[Guest RayG]

I'm not fishing, but you just brought up another interesting similarity...

Bigfoot and UFOs are both often perceived as 'fringe' topics, especially by mainstream science.

If anything, I was attempting to stay away from 'fringe' comparisons, but hey, if you're going to walk the batter with the bases loaded, I'll take the run.

RayG