What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?

[Guest]

Footprints typically last for months or at least weeks and can last for years under the right conditions. Known to exist animals leave thousands of foot impressions each day.

Not here they don't, it's either wet enough they make holes in the mire, which close up, or dry enough that it sets like rock... in between sometimes you get a nice fine silted mud puddle that something is nice enough to walk in, but more often around, the only thing that marks with much frequency/reliability is deer, and that's because of the PSI.

[Explorer]

Excellent Post, Willinyc.

Thanks for bringing to our attention your own investigation stats and also those of Peter Byrne.

They are indeed pretty sobering.

Did Byrne publish his stats or kept them private within his staff?

One important issue that you raise regards the definition of an “Excellent†investigation.

We should only pay attention to reports that have been conducted with the highest standards of investigation quality (or at least that meet a minimum standard).

You state that a thorough investigation should include professional visual trackers.

You might very well be correct, but I don’t think everybody agrees on what defines an “Excellent†investigation or what are minimum “Standards†of evidence.

Do all the available databases (and I not familiar with all) provide some ranking of quality of investigation?

If not, then you are absolutely correct in that that number of sighting reports in databases is a meaningless metric.

Quantity does not trump quality.

Yet you look at any database of bigfoot encounters (BFRO, TBRC, Oregon bigfoot, etc.) the actual visual sightings of the supposedly elusive bigfoot vastly outnumber the footprint reports. Is that more likely the result of bigfoot spending 15 hours a day consciously attempting to hide it’s sign, or because faking footprints requires significantly more effort on the part of the hoaxer than does making up a “I just saw bigfoot story�

Excellent point, but I would add:

That hoaxing a story is easier than hoaxing footprints, and hoaxing footprints is easier than hoaxing a visual BF encounter (man in suit).

Thus, the focus should be on the cases with least likely evidence for a hoaxed visual. Of course, these could still be misidentification or hoax, instead of a real BF.

If bigfoot is real, the footprint finds should outnumber the visual sightings significantly. That simply is not the case with bigfoot.

Another excellent point:

But, isn’t the context of the sighting important?

What was the eyewitness doing when he saw the footprint or the visual BF?

Was he actively looking for footprints or simply hiking/minding their own business?

Most hikers don’t pay attention to the trails and are not looking for footprints and they will only wake up when they see an animal.

Maybe footprints were there and they did not see them.

I am guilty of this with regard to bears.

I have hiked in bear country and didn’t look for footprints or cared to, but then suddenly see a bear.

On the other hand, if the eyewitnesses are intentionally looking for footprints in known BF country and they find none, then your point is well taken.

[Guest]

On the other hand, if the eyewitnesses are intentionally looking for footprints in known BF country and they find none, then your point is well taken.

Well I had heard Meldrum had been out in the areas of Idaho with soil conditions conducive to taking good prints (Loess clay if I recall) and also that had suspected BF activity and found some, however this is decried as "too convenient" of course.

[gigantor]

The real question is: should we stop looking?

I guess one could argue that there is a probability that all sighting reports are false, so we should give up. There is no BF, it's all a farce.

If that is your stance, go ahead, give up the search. Why are you here? go home and don't worry about it.

Edited November 10, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

Does anyone know (a wild guess) how many sighting have been reported/recorded?

I've been doing a research project. In my county alone (in Oregon) over the past 40 or so years I've come up with 96 distinct sightings gleaned off of a half dozen websites that keep records of reports (I've eliminated duplicate reports to the best of my ability).

That number doesn't count mine. Or all those unreported, and having spoken to three researchers from three different organizations, I can tell you there are dozens more that are kept private with these researchers - one was even trying to guess which specific troop my interactors came from, because several were well known in the area.