Let's Do Some Math...

[JDL]

From what I gathered from reading it, he seems to be saying that the methodology being used is inadequate in coming to migratory conclusions. 

 

He suggests to find the common source of mankind, and then gain complete knowledge of the geography and changes of the globe, and then working from the source up through the tree rather than in a backwards fashion. He claims that you cannot come to an accurate conclusion of the migration of man and it's connections without having that knowledge.

 

He then states that accepting conclusions using the "present status of the science" will only result in futility because all of those things were not yet fully known. 

 

 

 

Very true. Truer words were never spoken on a Bigfoot site. Everybody please take note.

 

There's actually a lot more to it than that involving a certain well known figure and his son selling that land to a certain country-

 

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_35234.php

 

But that talk isn't allowed here, so the official word is 'endangered turtles'. 

 

Powell purposely selected the most primitive Native American cultural artifacts available and stated that there was no reason to expect anything more advanced anywhere else in America, then concluded that it was futile to continue down paths of research investigating European contact and origins.

 

My family has had several run ins with Reid, including a 5 am call from him personally to my parents' home making a certain demand.  He declined to participate in a public event involving a charity my parents founded to support the family members of deployed servicemen during the Gulf War in the 90's, then started showing up when he realized that the crowds, and donors, were in the thousands, and then he attempted to redirect the effort away from its intended purpose.  He is consistently self-serving.

 

 Right on, thanks for the link.

 

Hellbilly, I missed your post, was it on this thread?

 

Sounds very conspiratorial, and that's just not for me.

 

Just curious but how does he explain the Smithsonian covering up evidence supposedly found in other countries?

 

All we know is that the Smithsonian took possession of certain artifacts and nobody's heard about them since.  Two-fold effect.  Taken out of circulation, remains cannot be examined by a third party and, relegated to a closet someplace, you can usually count on remains being forgotten for the most part.

[Guest Stan Norton]

That's right Larry.  Capitalists love for people to think things are straight forward and that everything on television is the truth. "This is dern America and we is free."  ********, they've managed to keep you using gasoline vehicles all these years and to keep you thinking that you're being taken care of.   The fact is that this world is full of a bunch of friggin crooks that monopolize technology and hide history from our eyes.   If you don't know that, then you're still voting every year and thinking your man is going to make the difference.   LOL Called brainwashed naivety.   

 

BACK TO THE TOPIC...IF YOU HAVE 10,000 TO 20,000 ACCOUNTS IN AGGREGATE EVERYWHERE, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY THIS POPULATION IS ONLY 5000...YOU DIDN'T DO VERY WELL IN MATH OR STATISTICS IF YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.   PRETTY BASIC MAN.  I'D BE INTERESTED TO KNOW HOW MANY ACCOUNT IN AGGREGATE THERE REALLY ARE.

 

First paragraph: keep wrapping tinfoil around your head, I'm sure it must work.

 

Second: this is too wrong. If you know anything about statistical analyses, the number of reports in itself means nothing when trying to estimate the number of things being counted..there is no statisttical relationship until proven by tests. That's the basics. I will repeat: it is perfectly possible for 100 or 1000 people to see the same thing - it has no bearing on how many things there are in reality. Plus the fact that all the reports are subjective and collected in about as unscientific a manner as possible. They do not lend themselves to stats at all. Hopefully there is a statistician on here who can explain better than I.

[AaronD]

By no means an authority, but I did take a handful of stats classes in undergrad and grad school--in laymans terms, millions of people have seen Elvis perform. Does this mean there are millions of Elvises out there? Naw, although there was a song claiming he is everywhere....anyhoo, barring my dry humor, since we can't confirm that sasquatches have access to busses, airplanes, etc like Elvis did, it might be reasonable to conclude that the sasquatch seen in Northern Cali last night is not the same one seen in upstate NY tonight--even though descriptions may be similar. But agreed, none of this statistically proves much of anything--although the liklihood of everyone claiming a sighting is either mistaken, hallucinating, or outright lying for attention is very low as well.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Yes agreed Aaron. I too took some stats classes for my undergraduate degree and have used them on and off in a professional capacity for the last 15 years or so. Whilst I would never describe myself as stats competent, I do have enough of a handle to know that the BFRO database for example is essentially useless in terms of statistical analyses. The data are subjective, collected in a non systematic way, are from a multitude of sources, are spread over decades and no attempt is made to normalize them. So, they are the very epitome of biased data. They have no statistical integrity besides being able to look at basic patterns and lists.

 

The John Green database is different as he at least took pains to normalize his data to a degree. I think Hiflier is looking at that data set.

 

The notion that the sheer number of reports (collected over the last eight or nine decades by the way) is in any way indicative of the actual number of sasquatch is patently absurd. Your nice Elvis example illustrates this perfectly. If the data had been normalized then we may at least be able to look at geographical spread and time in order to omit obvious double counting, but I suspect that even in the years with the most reports there are still too few data to allow any meaningful exploration of that relationship.

 

Until people start collecting data in a valid way (NAWAC appear to be doing this...) and there is continent wide collaboration over census methods then we will get nowhere. Still, I expect that matters none to those who are close friends with the sasquatch.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Stan Norton

[Guest Llawgoch]

even though descriptions may be similar. But agreed, none of this statistically proves much of anything--although the liklihood of everyone claiming a sighting is either mistaken, hallucinating, or outright lying for attention is very low as well.

 

 

You have to remember that if Bigfoot does not exist, the sample pool that sightings are drawn from is not "everybody" but "people likely to report false sightings of Bigfoot".  This pool is going to have a very high percentage of positives.  Of there are 100,000 people in America who fall into this pool (due to a propensity for mistakes or hallucination or simply willingness to lie, as you outline)  then statistically, that would be enough to explain the sightings.

 

Now before the usual person  comes along and start shouting that I have to "prove" this I am not saying that it is the case, simply that it is a potential explanation for the numbers of sightings that does not require postulating a Bigfoot.  I don't have to "prove" a potential explanation.

[AaronD]

^^ Well, yes, if bigfoot does not exist then all sightings are false--simple as that. But, let's prove the non-existence first

[Guest Llawgoch]

No, that's not the point.  That is a circular argument. You have tried to argue statistically in favour of the existence of Bigfoot.  I have simply shown an alternative which does not require the existence of Bigfoot.,  I don't have to prove that non-existence in order to do that.  Both exist as competing alternatives, therefore you cannot simply say "it's unlikely all are false" as I have shown you why it is not as unlikely as it might initially appear.  This does not mean Bigfoot doesn't exist.  it just means that you can't argue that it probably exists simply because of the number of reported sightings.

[MIB]

Llawgoch -

 

Bigfoot DOES exist so all this effort your making is for nothing, a total waste of your time.   There are better things to do with your life than frittering it away arguing the wrong side of a lost cause.   

 

MIB

[indiefoot]

Llawgoch, that's called special pleading, IIRC.

[Guest Llawgoch]

What?  No, it isn't.  How on earth is it special pleading.

AaronD says it's statistically unlikely all the reports are untrue

 

I point out that it isn't, because the sample is not randomly selected but self-selecting.

 

I am not saying all the reports are true, or untrue.  I am pointing out that it is not statistically unlikely that they are all untrue.  This doesn't mean they are all untrue, I seem to have to keep saying this.  I am not claiming that my explanation is the case, just that it could be the case.  My argument simply rests on it being a possibility, whereas it is Aaron's argument that relies on my scenario being impossible. My position is that the reports could be due to there being a Bigfoot or could be due to the fact that certain people have a propensity to claim they have seen one or think they have seen one when in fact they haven't, and we cannot say which.

 

This stuff should not be so difficult.

 

And to MIB, Bigfoot may or may not exist.  I don't believe it does, but I'm not invested in its non-existence.  What annoys me are bad arguments given for its existence...or, come to that, non-existence.

Ok, to try and make myself clear on the special pleading thing.

 

If someone says "X must be true because although I cannot prove it, there are no other viable explanations", you do not have to prove a proffered alternative Y, because X wasn't proved in the first place.  Y does not show X to be false.  It merely becomes a competing alternative, with neither of them proved.  Is that clearer?

Edited April 14, 2014 by Llawgoch

[Cotter]

How does one determine if someone is in this predispositioned group of BF sighting 'hoaxers'?

Or does one automatically get placed in it after a sighting?

[Guest Alex MW]

My goodness, saying that it's possible for 100 people to see the same bigfoot in a multitude of states is just being argumentative and foolish imho.  It's the same kind of garbage as the folks saying "let me see a video of the bigfoot doing that call or speaking."  It's just argumentative as opposed to dealing with logic or probability...like courts do in the criminal law.   We could sit here and use extreme probability to discount everything.   It gets us nowhere and isn't even reasonable.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Alex MW

[Guest Llawgoch]

How does one determine if someone is in this predispositioned group of BF sighting 'hoaxers'?

Or does one automatically get placed in it after a sighting?

 

One has no idea who is and who isn't in it.  That's the problem.  If we knew, we could establish whether Bigfoot does or doesn't exist.  But we don't, so we can't.

[Guest Alex MW]

@Stan   Dude if you don't think the petroleum industry (I work with their industry btw and I know how they work) is not buying up and shelving all efficiency technologies and keeping you in the dark ages, you're clueless.  Ask yourself how the computer can make leaps and bounds in technological advances and we're still dealing with the same gas combustion engine after all these year. LOL   I just shake my head.  Go out and vote for change buddy. lmao

[ohiobill]

Alex, how is it the same combustion engine? Is your car running on unleaded gas blended with ethanol? Is it computer controlled with variable valve timing and multiple valves per cylinder? Doesn't it have more power, produce less harmful emissions and get better fuel mileage than anything you drove years ago? Clueless would be someone who doesn't understand that there is only so much potential energy in a gallon of fuel! Cars are more complicated, contain more mandated safety features, more emissions controls, more advanced engineering and more creature comforts than ever before which raises weight. Cars today are often heavier than they used to be but are faster, safer and more fuel efficient while running on a blended fuel that contains less potential energy than before.

 

The Model T of 1914 weighed about 1200lbs, had a 20hp engine, got around 15mpg, and could go about 40mph. The 2014 Fiesta weighs 2600lbs, has a 120hp engine, gets 39mpg and can do 100+mph all while being safer, cleaner, infinitely more comfortable and more fun to drive. We could talk about hybrid vehicles, all electric and/or solar powered vehicles or even hydrogen fuel cell prototypes but it sounds like you have never seen mention of these dark age technologies. My advice - remove your head from wherever it is and open your eyes. 

 

Discussing technology or statistics isn't like discussing the latest paranormal bigfoot claim where spouting nonsense is met with "that sounds possible" or "I've seen the same thing mentioned in several anonymous accounts from the early 1970's which were recently investigated and sound true to me" or even my favorite "I often encounter the same and much more but to spare you from the darkness I must say no more".  Statistics are real world math applications that work best when they are based on solid (not anonymous and/or anecdotal) sources.