What Is The Statistical Probability That All Sightings Are False?--The Poll (Poll Only, Post On Thread Of Same Name)

[Guest]

BFRO has over 36000 on file. Add all the other sites and research organizations and individuals, probably pushing 50000 or so. But remember, it is suspected that most incidents are not reported. Also, of the incidents reported, most are not published, at least based on the BFRO. They only have a few thousand publically listed in their database.

Yet still no evidence! Translation...BF does not exist!

[BobbyO]

I just hope you don't teach children summit walker, for the children's sake..

[Guest Kerchak]

Yet still no evidence!

No 'evidence'?

Are you serious? Really? You think there is "no evidence".

LOL.

*Edit even anecdotes can be considered 'evidence'. Have you never heard of the term "anecdotal evidence"?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Kerchak

[Guest]

Although Elvis Costello sang about it.. there really is no "less than zero" in statistical probabilities, in my book. "Exactly zero" probability, will do nicely for me.

[Guest]

Summitwalker:

.

oy, itss like talkin to a wall.......... you so wrong!. What you think they saw? A bear, right?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Kings Canyon

[Guest]

Seeing as we have a less than zero option, can we also have an infinity option?

Infinity's cool.

[Guest]

There was an anonymity guaranteed study done for UFO sightings, and it transpired that only 10% of witnesses had "reported" it. Now I don't recall if this was to a UFO org, or to "the authorities" in some form. or to any of the above. Also we don't know what proportion of those were patriotically motivated on a "it might be the Russians" basis, or fear of threat to national defense. So BF could have a much lower report rate. Also we don't get wind of how many attempted reports are blown off by LEOs, Fish and Game, Newspapers (Because it's NOT a slow news day) and like entities. Also at one point in time the USAF was actually accepting and noting UFO reports made to local airbase or police.

So I wonder if guessing at a 10% report rate for BF sightings might be optimistic.... if it's right on the mark that's around a half million observations over the years... if it's very optimistic, and the potential for ridicule is higher, and the sense of duty to do so is much lower than UFO reporting, then it could be down around 1% and there's been 5 million sightings.....

[Guest]

No 'evidence'?

Are you serious? Really? You think there is "no evidence".

LOL.

*Edit even anecdotes can be considered 'evidence'. Have you never heard of the term "anecdotal evidence"?

That's right, there is still no evidence, unless you consider the PGF evidence, which I don't.

[salubrious]

There is a ton of 'evidence' but of course it has to be 'accepted' as evidence in the skeptical realm. That is another matter- skeptics quite often will reject evidence that does not fit their world view without actual review.

One of my favorite sources of 'evidence' is timbergiantbigfoot on youtube.

[Guest poignant]

Even if 999/1000 sightings are hoaxes or mis-IDs, all it takes is one unequivocal sighting to warrant further research.

Yup, lotsa evidence but little proof.

[Guest poignant]

Sal: yeah I follow his channel too. Will start a thread on his videos soon.

[Guest Kerchak]

That's right, there is still no evidence, unless you consider the PGF evidence, which I don't.

Well of course you don't. You are a denialist poo pooing everything.

There IS evidence for bigfoot. Hell, Grover Krantz even entitled a book "Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence" LOL.

It makes no odds to me that denialists claim there is no evidence. They are simply wrong.

[Guest Po Commander]

Even if 999/1000 sightings are hoaxes or mis-IDs, all it takes is one unequivocal sighting to warrant further research.

Yup, lotsa evidence but little proof.

I believe that 1/1000 sighting is made up by people that are having "spiritual" experiences in a forest. I believe that psychedelics play a serious part in most of these sightings.

[Guest]

Yet still no evidence!

You're wrong (as usual). There's plenty of evidence by the correct definition of the term. Only in the Skeptic dictionary can you find the twisted definition of "evidence" that you push.

Translation...BF does not exist!

And wrong again: the worst case that can be made is the BF is not conclusively documented to exist.

Are you sure you're a "critical thinker"?

That's right, there is still no evidence, unless you consider the PGF evidence, which I don't.

Cast tracks with distinct biometrics that map to a normal distribution curve, forensically typed hairs, MANY photos and video (not just the PGF), etc.

Looks like plenty of evidence to me...

Edited November 19, 2012 by Mulder

[Drew]

You're wrong (as usual). There's plenty of evidence by the correct definition of the term. Only in the Skeptic dictionary can you find the twisted definition of "evidence" that you push.

No, we simply are asking for the same standard of evidence that has been provided for 400 years.

It is not a special request we are making for Bigfoot. We are not requiring anything other than the standard requirement for every species named in the last 400 years.

Show me one species identified and catalogued based on footprints, blurry videos or stories.