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

[Guest]

Mulder "the worst case that can be made is the BF is not conclusively documented to exist"

I'm a skeptic and I can live with that.

[Guest]

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

Even if he does, unfortunately there are 10s of 1000s of "scientists" and "teachers" who think just like him who DO.

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.

Nice attempt at a twist/dodge, Drew. Again you are trying to conflate "evidence" with "proof", allowing you to conveniently reject any evidence that does not rise to the level of 0% doubt remaining.

Classic psuedo-skepticisim at it's worst.

[Guest]

I'm a skeptic and I can live with that.

One of the few around here who I think qualifies for the title.

[Guest]

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...

Plenty of evidence that hasn't been published any reputable peer reviewed journals. Peer review appears to be the kryptonite for bigfootery.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[salubrious]

As always you can think what you like. If you ever have the good/bad luck to encounter one, whatever you think will go out the window in a heartbeat. Until then, enjoy the bliss of ignorance.

[Guest azguy]

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.

really, just watch it, that no evidence, every one could be camera glare, nature playing tricks or downright hoaxes...and I want to beleive...

[salubrious]

'camera glare'??

[Guest]

Okay, let me just settle this for you all.

1) If you didn't see or hear or smell one yet and you want to believe but you don't believe because you didn't see or hear or smell one yet.....I think you do believe, you just won't admit it until you do see/hear/smell one. Instead you will pretend not to believe. But when you see, hear, or smell one, that will give you an excuse to believe and the confidence to say so. (chicken noise)

2) If you didn't see one yet and don't believe, perhaps you are one of the "skeptics." No evidence will convince you. Just mulish. (heehaw)

3) If you have no sighting or other encounter, but do believe, it's because you can be convinced by a massive number of witness testimonies and other evidence. Congratualations, you have common sense. (trumpet fanfare) A reasonable man or woman you are.

4) If you did see one and you don't believe.....I never heard of one of those. I am skeptical they exist. (crickets)

5) If you did see/hear/smell one and do believe, 1 and 2 above will say you have no proof that will convince them. Number 3 will want to hear the tale, and 1 and 2 will smirk and point as you tell it. Why are they even here? But that's another thread.....

[Guest Time Traveler]

So Drew wants someone to show him one species identified and cataloged based on footprints, blurry videos or stories.

Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Humbolt squid (A man eating squid ridiculous!), Preswalski's Horse, Manatee, Pink River Dolphin of the Amazon, Indian Elephant, Three toed sloth, Akidna, Kangroo, Platypus, Capybara, Tapir, I could go on if need be. Every single one of these animals were thought to be nothing but fantastical stories of explorers. How about every fossil mammal dug up since the days of Roy Chapman Andrews. It took time but all were identified as living viable populations. Blue whale, Giant squid, How about the Giant tortoise, Charles Darwin sent reports and sketches back to England and really took heat for the Marine Iguana, and a dozen finches all the same but different. Shar Pei dogs were just rumors out of China back in the 1970's, every Shar Pei born here came from two dogs smuggled out of China until China finally had to loosen the grip.

[Guest kampz]

I chose zero. In my opinion, it's impossible to call every human being a liar since the dawn of mankind.

[Guest DWA]

I said one to 10 percent, because I can't see the probability of anything as being zero or less.

But I didn't have a space for my actual answer:

There's no way I would bet one penny on the odds that even a significant percentage are false positives.

[Guest DWA]

Plenty of evidence that hasn't been published any reputable peer reviewed journals. Peer review appears to be the kryptonite for bigfootery.

Red herring. Why don't you have a talk to John Bindernagel, who's been trying to make that happen for over a decade and gets rejected every time?

Oh, I forgot. "Skeptics" maintain their "skepticism" by making certain never to talk to a scientist who disagrees with them.

Peer review doesn't happen because the mainstream won't do it. For the "skeptics'" part, they never engage the scientific proponents on their own ground but always go after the woo-woo underbelly. Shoddy, not skeptical, and unbecoming the scientific mind.

In this field, "skeptic" as commonly used means "in denial."

[Guest SquatchinNY]

Summitwalker:

.

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

Misidentifications do happen. But, some sightings were accounts of a real, living, breathing Sasquatch.

Edited November 25, 2012 by SquatchinNY

[Guest DWA]

If you have read them you know that the consistency of reports can only come from ONE cause, not a random concatenation of causes.  That means that either the sightings are false because ONE UNIFIED THING is going on, i.e., they are ALL hoaxed or ALL hallucinations or ALL mistaken identity, etc., or the sightings represent a phenomenon external to the people experiencing it.

 

Think about all of the ways 100% of the reports could be one thing that makes them all false.

 

Right.

 

Zero.