Creature Suit Analysis - Part 9 - A Study of Probability

[Bill]

BFX:

"Anywho, can you tell us how much your 'belief' in the PGF has changed since you began looking into it?

(I was more or less told here that I couldn't use the 'b' word without quotes around it, haha.)"

Well. going in, I had doubts about a suit, from the fur, but as my analysis has progressed to more fundamental aspects of the film, subject size, body proportions, etc. I personally got to the point that I believe, whatever the He** it is, it's real , and not a guy in a suit.

On the larger issue, the whole Bigfoot phenomenon, I am still mystified. I cannot explain it, only wonder about it.

Bill

[Guest BigfootXists]

Once again- those are amazing comments. I have never heard it phrased quite that way. I sometimes despair because my interest in the PGF is on par with my interest in finding more recent Bigfoot individuals and, that level of PGF fascination is often frowned upon here, even by some of the higher-ups. (I personally don't want the Big Guy showing up at my campsite unannounced. If I understand correctly; it can be extremely terrifying to see one.

The closer I look at the PGF, the more un-suit-like it seems to be. Would that <~ opinion, if proven to be true of most PGF researchers, not also lend itself to further validation of it being a real creature? I.e., isn't it a rule of thumb that any decent footage of a costume or recreation ever in history could be scrutinized to the point of determining, without a reasonable doubt, after say 42 years, if it was a staged event? ttyl,

BFX (Daniel- Memphis, TN)

[Bill]

BFX:

Every film of photo has a varying degree of potential for analysis, and most have so little data to work with, it's hard to really arrive at any conclusions. The amount of image data we have in the PGF itself, and all the other Bluff Creek site visits, filmed and photographed, makes it a truly unique case, in terms of the potential for analysis. Plus having a 42 year old film is nice because image manipulation of that is so hard, for any technology of the time, that we can have a much higher degree of confidence that what we see is what Roger's camera captured.

Bill

[Guest Tontar]

I think that I was at least one of the individuals that said that the study of probability was not convincing to me. I stand by that. You may consider that to be stubborn, or unwilling to learn, but I think that you can "believe" whatever you care to "believe". So, while it is true that I have definite problems with the probability study, or rather some of the elements or questions posed within the study which I think unfairly influence and compound the outcome of the whole probability theory, I did not say that I think that Patty was a fake. Quite the contrary. The more I look at the film, the more I study it, the more I speak with esteemed people who have spent incredible amounts of time peeling away the layers of the film, the more credible I think the subject in the film is an authentic individual, and not a person in a suit. One does not have to buy into every form of argument or theory in order to accept the result that is trying to be proven. One does not have to try to prove mathematically that a chicken is a chicken, for one to accept that a chicken is indeed a chicken.

Bill's work on the film, which I had the personal pleasure of listening to in person at the Roundup, is nothing short of amazing work. There's no question that Bill has dedicated an incredible amount of time and personal resources to studying the film, and I fully respect that. I think I am far more comfortable now than ever with the idea that Patty was the real deal. Some of my suspicions have been quashed. Not all, but a good many.

Bill refers to the bigfoot phenomenon. I am not sure what he means, but if it is the same as what I think it means, it is indeed interesting. On the one hand there seems to be these beings out there in the woods. Which explains some of the photos, videos, and footprints. But there also seems to be a huge following which is dedicated to the "belief" in almost anything bigfoot oriented. Just as there seems to be plenty of individuals willing to cater to those more gullible among them. In other words, a lot of people will believe even the most crudely executed hoaxes, and a lot of people willing to stage such hoaxes. I think that all of the non-authentic stories and the people that would blindly believe virtually anything regarding bigfoot is what I would consider the "phenomenon". I don't know if that is what Bill was referring to, but it is something that troubles me all the time. Hard to be on board with what still amounts to belief in something such as Patty, when faced with some of the more radical elements of the culture. Bill's work clearly falls on the most respectable side of the line. There is some research that, like the Fonz, has jumped the shark.

[Bill]

Tontar;

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks.

On the probability thing, I look at it simply as an exercise in seeing the issue from a certain perspective, that of a sequence of events with a cumulative probability. But as I noted in it, other people can, of course, put their own list of variables into it and get an entirely different result, so the intent was more to inspire a fresh perspective than to prove Patty's real in any definitive way.

As to the Bigfoot phenomenon, as i call it, some of what you perceived is correct. But in essence, I look at the phenomenon as a curious delimma I like to call "The lesser of two improbabilities".

1. It is highly improbable that a large primate species can inhabit this land in a sustainable population, and successfully elude the scientific documentation we have for every other large mammal species in this country.

2. It is highly improbable to me that every sighting, every footprint, every photo and film, every eyewitness account, is faked, hoaxed or just a mistaken event of normal circumstances. Some are, but unless all are, 100%, there is something real out there, in that remaining percentage, however small it may be.

Usually, if all explanations are totaled up, they may total 100%, and of course, the one with the biggest percentage of credibility or evidence tends to be the likely truth. But here, we have the first improbable, with maybe a 1%prospect "It's real" and the second improbable, with maybe a 1% chance "It's all faked" and i can't figure where the other 98% is?

So I see two answers, and both are astonishingly improbable, and neither is something i can endorse with confidence. And now, i look at patty, and I just don't see something faked. But the larger Bigfoot thing, a viable population, is still improbable in my head, so all I can call it is a phenomenon, and i continue to try and figure out this bizarre "lesser of two improbabilities".

Bill

[Guest]

What I don't understand is WHY probability analysis is rejected as a line of proof of the existence of an actual Bigfoot creature.

PA is used every day by insurance companies, government agencies, marketing firms, even criminal forensics. It is a valid, accepted part of science EXCEPT where something like BF is concerned. Then, suddenly, it somehow transforms into some sort of psuedo-science not worth the investigators' time...

[wiiawiwb]

DNA results are regarded today as absolute proof even though they are never expressed with 100% certainity. Probability does matter and probability does count.

[Guest Tontar]

What I don't understand is WHY probability analysis is rejected as a line of proof of the existence of an actual Bigfoot creature.

PA is used every day by insurance companies, government agencies, marketing firms, even criminal forensics. It is a valid, accepted part of science EXCEPT where something like BF is concerned. Then, suddenly, it somehow transforms into some sort of psuedo-science not worth the investigators' time...

I did not accept Bill's previous PA because of the variables and we discussed it between ourselves, in this forum I think. I didn't slam it, just didn't agree with all the postulates, and from what I gather Bill is fine with my disagreeing with THAT particular set of criteria. Sure, insurance companies use various forms of analysis to come up with their rates. However, they are not interested in "truth" nearly as much as they are interested in protecting their assets. They are not in business to break even, or to be fair. Ever participate in a risk sport, and see how insurance companies spin their numbers? Their results do NOT reflect reality, trust me. they make the numbers work in their favor. PA is not infallible, it is completely subject to what is fed in to it.

Besides, what is the real point of all this PA stuff anyway? To confirm as "truth" what is at best "belief" at this point. To lend more credibility to a belief in an elusive at best animal or person. There are some very compelling bits of evidence that makes it very hard to completely dismiss the existence of such a creature, and just as much evidence to deny the existence. I don't mean to push your hot buttons, or shake your belief systems, we all have our own to deal with. The fact is, I "want" to believe, and I am more and more on the side of believing that Patty was authentic, as well as that there are more of them in the woods waiting to be discovered as factual. But I am not 100% convinced, not 100% a believer, and not so interested in believing that I find it necessary to go along with things that just don't make sense to me, or rub me the wrong way. I try not to be gullible because I still have a side that thinks it all may be a big myth. Until one is actually brought into the light of day physically, live or dead, or bones or in pieces, I will always have doubts. I think that is a reasonable place to plant my perspectives, and so I tend to be a bit more skeptical than some people, who may tend to be more accepting of any and all forms of evidence or arguments which support their beliefs. To each his own.

But one of the best and most convincing things that has come along since the Patterson Gimlin film, has been Bill's analysis of it, and to me that is far better and far more compelling than any study of probability.

Tontar;

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks.

On the probability thing, I look at it simply as an exercise in seeing the issue from a certain perspective, that of a sequence of events with a cumulative probability. But as I noted in it, other people can, of course, put their own list of variables into it and get an entirely different result, so the intent was more to inspire a fresh perspective than to prove Patty's real in any definitive way.

As to the Bigfoot phenomenon, as i call it, some of what you perceived is correct. But in essence, I look at the phenomenon as a curious delimma I like to call "The lesser of two improbabilities".

1. It is highly improbable that a large primate species can inhabit this land in a sustainable population, and successfully elude the scientific documentation we have for every other large mammal species in this country.

2. It is highly improbable to me that every sighting, every footprint, every photo and film, every eyewitness account, is faked, hoaxed or just a mistaken event of normal circumstances. Some are, but unless all are, 100%, there is something real out there, in that remaining percentage, however small it may be.

Usually, if all explanations are totaled up, they may total 100%, and of course, the one with the biggest percentage of credibility or evidence tends to be the likely truth. But here, we have the first improbable, with maybe a 1%prospect "It's real" and the second improbable, with maybe a 1% chance "It's all faked" and i can't figure where the other 98% is?

So I see two answers, and both are astonishingly improbable, and neither is something i can endorse with confidence. And now, i look at patty, and I just don't see something faked. But the larger Bigfoot thing, a viable population, is still improbable in my head, so all I can call it is a phenomenon, and i continue to try and figure out this bizarre "lesser of two improbabilities".

Bill

Bill,

Here I believe we are in complete and total agreement! Very well said.

[Guest BigfootXists]

There are some very compelling bits of evidence that makes it very hard to completely dismiss the existence of such a creature, and just as much evidence to deny the existence.

What evidence could ever deny the existence of Bigfoot? Because people have faked Bigfoot, that makes Bigfoot less likely to be real? I don't follow your logic...

(Also, some Insurance companies do try to be fair, at least in some ways. For instance, "Accident Forgiveness", as I understand it, is a concept created by Allstate which is now being "borrowed" by other Insurance companies).

- edited solely for the purpose of editing -

BFX

Edited June 10, 2009 by BigfootXists

[Guest]

I am in the same position as Tontar, I want to believe, I am more convinced than not that bigfoot exist, but until the capture of one alive or dead as proof positive, I find myself riding the fence.

The probabilities are one of the things that effect my leaning more toward their existence. Like Bill said above "It is highly improbable to me that every sighting, every footprint, every photo and film, every eyewitness account, is faked, hoaxed or just a mistaken event of normal circumstances". That evidence coupled with the examination of said evidence by some respected scientist and determined to be most probably of an uncatalogued animal is hard to ignore.

I'm just to trying to learn out a little more about the world in which we live, and the creatures we may or may not share it with.

Always keep this in mind though - 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot, 50% of the time". :coverlaugh:

Edited June 10, 2009 by gghg

[Guest BigfootXists]

I think I can use some good old-fashioned circular logic here and clear this up pretty quickly... :bigeye:

jk

Even if live Bigfoot were discovered without a scientific doubt this very instant and, even if those Bigfoot did not look much like Patty at all (I doubt that could happen) but anyway, there might still be just as much uncertainty remaining in regard to the subject seen in the PGF. Just as the PGF can't solve the Bigfoot mystery, I don't believe that an actual Bigfoot would solve the PGF mystery. Patty could be a kind of Bigfoot very different from other kinds of Bigfoot (or other unknown Primates), right?

So, I'm left with the exact kind of 'Probability' in my mind that Bill has described. And, as more and more worthwhile effort goes into examining the PGF; that probability definitely seems to increase.

Edited June 11, 2009 by BigfootXists

[Guest]

Mulder,

What I don't understand is WHY probability analysis is rejected as a line of proof of the existence of an actual Bigfoot creature.

In Bill's analysis he raises some interesting and relevant technical issues related to costuming and filming costumed characters. In this area I bow to his expertise. However, a statistician he's not.

Bill takes 13 issues and, arbitrarily (and I believe quite conservatively from his perspective) assigns a 50% probability that each issue works against Patty being a costumed mime. In essence, he flips a coin 13 times and argues that the odds of heads coming up each time is 1 in 8,192, which is 0.0001221 or (1/2)¹³. This argument holds only if the 13 probabilities are independent; however, they are almost certainly correlated. Because each consideration is seen from a costuming/filming perspective, I'm guessing the correlations are both positive and relatively high. A perfect positive correlation would result in the final probability being 0.5, not 0.0001221, because with perfect positive correlations whatever the first flip of the coin is defines the subsequent 12 flips.

While I believe the correlations are positive, I don't think the correlations are perfect. I don't know what the magnitude of the positive correlations are, so the probability of Patty being a costumed mime, in my opinion, lies somewhere between 0.0001221 (actually, a number far lower than this) and 0.5. Speaking probabilistically, this is a statement without much information content.

No offense to Bill. Given the highest ladder in the realm, I couldn't come close to kissing Bill's rear end when it comes to costuming or filming.

G canadensis

[Guest BigfootXists]

"the probability of Patty being a costumed mime, in my opinion, lies somewhere between 0.0001221 (actually, a number far lower than this) and 0.5"

Where do you get the 0.5? From the (false) assumption that Bill's first "Circumstance: A Creature suit tends to be made genderless" is somehow known to be exactly 50% true and then applying a "perfect positive correlation" for the other 12 Circumstances to that (false) assumption?

Considering 13 Circumstances that must have occurred in order for the PGF to have been faked and then approximating the odds of each of those Circumstances occurring to be 1 in 2, individually, results in a 'Probability' of exactly 1 in (2 to the 13th power) or, 1 in 8192.

[Guest]

BigfootXists,

Where do you get the 0.5? From the (false) assumption that Bill's first "Circumstance: A Creature suit tends to be made genderless" is somehow known to be exactly 50% true and then applying a "perfect positive correlation" for the other 12 Circumstances to that (false) assumption?

I accepted Bill's assumption of 0.5, which I believe is too high for each of the 13 circumstances. Whatever that value is for the first step, regardless of which of the 13 comes first, if all thirteen circumstances are positively and perfectly correlated, the end probability is the same as the first probability. I apologize for not explaining better.

Considering 13 Circumstances that must have occurred in order for the PGF to have been faked and then approximating the odds of each of those Circumstances occurring to be 1 in 2, individually, results in a 'Probability' of exactly 1 in (2 to the 13th power) or, 1 in 8192.

A probability of 1/8,192 is 0.0001221.

G. canadensis

[Guest BigfootXists]

GC -

You made a good point in regard to "positive correlations" which should always be considered. I know (or rather, my calculator knows) that 1/8,192 is .0001220703125. I think that the 0.5 probability for the 13 'Circumstances' is meant to be a conservative estimate for each circumstance, independently. I.e., any positive correlation between the circumstances is already built into those conservative 0.5 probabilities. Therefore, based on the above "Study of Probability", the over-all 'odds' that the PGF was faked, would be exactly 1 in 8,192. I just tend to think of probability as a fraction, not as a range of fractions. Cheers!