Guest LarryP Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Why am I here? Fantasies are interesting to observe. So, you're just an observer who's never fantasized about anything?! "Booooring..... Booring, Sid ! " - Johnny Rotten ("Sid and Nancy" reference). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Again, that is statistically impossible. If you'd like to prove otherwise, I'd love to see what you come up with. But so far you haven't provided anything. Let me know when that physical evidence comes up and then maybe you have a point. How many reports of bigfoot are there? The number 20,000 (ish) has come up here I think. How many people are out in the woods over that period of time? Millions I'm sure. 20,000 is (statistically speaking) small potatoes compared to that. Not an encouraging percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Let me know when that physical evidence comes up and then maybe you have a point. There's all kinds of physical evidence. Just because you choose to deny it, does not invalidate it's existence. Now, let's get back to Statistics. Still waiting for you to provide your statistical analysis that proves that ALL Class A sightings could not be valid? I understand that's going to require a lot of research and analysis on your part. But I'm sure it's worth your time since this subject seems to be very important to you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 ANY "class A" sighting could easily be hallucination or hoax. Simple. Statistics isn't my forte but I don't think there are many here who can say it is their forte and be correct. However it does seem to me that with all of the millions of people who go out into the woods in North America that only a few thousand reports coming out over the past fifty years or so might just qualify as statistically valid (albeit circumstantial) evidence of the possibility that all sightings are hallucinations, mistaken identity and/or hoaxes. If you have statistics for the number of bigfoot reports versus the number of campers, hikers, hunters, fisherpeople, rangers, farmers, ranchers, drivers, and a whole lot of etceteras, I would love to see them. Bigfoot reports are a tiny fraction of vacation, hunting, fishing, and driving reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 ANY "class A" sighting could easily be hallucination or hoax. Simple. Statistics isn't my forte but I don't think there are many here who can say it is their forte and be correct. Then you should reach out to them and ask for help. BTW, I'm not interested in what they "say", unless it's backed up with a real and verifiable statistical analysis, that backs up what they "say". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Exactly!! I feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 You'd also have to be pretty foolish to think that explains ALL bigfoot sightings. Where was that stated MIB? I'm guessing you missed the half dozen times that I stated otherwise in just this one thread? There's all kinds of physical evidence. Just because you choose to deny it, does not invalidate it's existence. Now, let's get back to Statistics. Still waiting for you to provide your statistical analysis that proves that ALL Class A sightings could not be valid? I understand that's going to require a lot of research and analysis on your part. But I'm sure it's worth your time since this subject seems to be very important to you.. For one thing, statistics do not equal proof of anything, there is nothing definitive about statistics. With that said, you have yet to back up your own claim that it was "statistically impossible" which is a pretty definitive statement. You're claiming that there HAS TO be validity there- show us how you came to that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Dmaker: 20+ inch footprint casts validated by more than one PHD as not hoax or human is not a scrap of confirmable evidence? In what and where did you get your PHD so that we can give your discounting of that or any evidence any credence? What's more why are you here? What Government agency or public university do you work for? Just curious. RR I think the dermal ridges debate has shown that even multiple PH D's could be wrong. Bigfoot is an area that even a degree doesn't necessarily give a person the upper hand. Edited April 25, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 For one thing, statistics do not equal proof of anything, there is nothing definitive about statistics. If you really believe that, there's nothing I can do for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ^Of course there's "nothing you can do", that's why you haven't answered the questions I asked. Statistics deal with interpretations and probabilities of numbers- it doesn't mean it can predict absolute conclusions. Just like statistically you have more of a chance to die in a car than a plane, but that doesn't mean you're absolutely going to die in a car. You tried to claim a factual conclusion based on statistics, or what you claimed were statistics (but really wasn't). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Statistics deal with interpretations and probabilities of numbers- it doesn't mean it can predict absolute conclusions. Just like statistically you have more of a chance to die in a car than a plane, but that doesn't mean you're absolutely going to die in a car. That is correct. Statistics prove that more people do die in car crashes than plane crashes and more people will continue to die in car crashes than plane crashes. That's a far cry from "statistics do not equal proof of anything". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 All statistics prove in this circumstance, though, is that only a very small percentage of people that spend time in the woods every year report seeing Bigfoot. As evidence, the statistics aren't very convincing about whether or not people are actually seeing Bigfoot or if they're being pranked or hoaxed, experiencing a hallucination, or what have you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) That is correct. Statistics prove that more people do die in car crashes than plane crashes and more people will continue to die in car crashes than plane crashes. That's a far cry from "statistics do not equal proof of anything". It completely depends on the accuracy of the individual statistics, because obviously they're not going to include the unreported and unknown deaths. Just like the two girls they found in the lake recently that were 'missing' for 40 years but now known to be car fatalities. Or how about any small planes that go missing or never reported missing with unknown fatalities, meaning those statistic numbers can constantly change. Statistics can only go off of what is known and the unknown factor means it's not absolute- not to mention there's other factors that constantly change like vehicle/tire flaws, etc. So, you claimed it was statistically impossible for all Bigfoot testimony to be written off and that some of them had to be real. There is no statistic that supports this idea, and from what I can tell you came to your conclusion based on a comparison with legal testimony. You're forgetting that Bigfoot testimony is not subject to perjury- there are no legal ramifications to insure the truth is being told. So the comparison of the two are worlds apart in relevance and accuracy. Edited April 25, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 When first started, I thought this thread had great potential to talk about a very relevant topic. Instead it has devolved, once again, into a he said she said situation. So you must excuse me, I'm going to go join a unicorn forum and spend valuable minutes of my life trying to convince them that unicorns dont exist. It won't matter what they say, I'll just stick to my storyline of "they dont exist so you're wrong". I'll let you know how I make out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ^^ I can tell you from experience that you won't have much luck with that. Cryptid enthusiasts can be a stubborn bunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts