Guest Alex MW Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) @Ohio Bill Enjoy 20-30 mpg w/all the neato computer parts in the engine. My advice to you is get educated and stop using History Channel as your source. Just responding to you in the same vain as you addressed me. As for statistics, it's pretty basic. How many unique sightings can we safely assume there to be. Add quite a few for those that have never reported and I'd probably double the uniques sightings. Then do a SWAG calc by what percentage of the bigs we're lucky enough to spot. Divide all your unique sightings by that number for the estimated population in that geography. Please explain how that methodology somehow falters Bill since your a statistics expert and a real world mathematician. I use the sources that are available which are thousands and certainly should pass the law of large numbers test. Here we have thousands of accounts where we can deduct a certain percentage for dups and a certain percentage for misidentification. So please indicate why would throw our hands up and say "hey there's no real world numbers here. " Explain that to me Bill. I need an education cuz I'm just an unschooled boy from Geeeooogia. Help me out man Edited April 14, 2014 by Alex MW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) ^ Perhaps you may wish to re-read the post directly above you. It answers your question. In fact, and quite ironically, your paragraph directly before you ask your question illustrates perfectly why there are no real world numbers. When you start doing things like "Add quite a few .....probably double the...then do a SWAG ...by what percentage of the bigs we're lucky enough to spot....divide..for the estimated population...deduct a certain percantage" Do you honestly not see the problem in your approach? I've seen more precise measurements for baking a loaf of bread. Edited April 14, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 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. I believe your point is simply you are adding yet another possibility to the quandary. Good. Your suggestion is as good as mine, or anyone else's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) @dmaker Perhaps you should explain how documented sightings are anonymous or anecdotal. Can you explain that? Are you stating that these well documented accounts either or This thread assumes their existence. Don't derail the thread by questioning whether they do...if that's the point. Edited April 14, 2014 by Alex MW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 What do you mean by documented sighting? The fact that it ended up in a database?If it was actually documented in the sense of recorded by a camera then we'd be having a different conversation. Sighting reports are anecdotal, documented or otherwise, because they are stories told by one person to another without physical evidence. This is pretty basic. I don't question the existence of these reports, so I'm not sure what your tangent was about there. I was simply pointing out the problems with your approach and how it is simply a dash of this, and a pinch of that followed by this guess and that guess....and then you wonder why a statistical analysis cannot be reliably conducted??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Really, I guess we should let all the killers out of the jails where there were eyewitness accounts but no camera footage. You guys kill me. ZERO LOGIC. Analytics is what I do for a living buddy. I put together cases against corporate attorneys all the time. You folks fail to exhibit any logic as it relates to admissible evidence. The bigfoot world is full of a bunch scientists wannabe's that think that denying logical evidence or eyewitness accounts is being intelligent or scientific. Edited April 14, 2014 by Alex MW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 ZERO LOGIC. Wait, wasn't it you espousing SWAG in your most recent population equation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Well, your adventures as a clerk aside, this is not a court of law. Anecdotes are not an example of scientific evidence. The scientific method cannot be applied to them. For one, they are not falsifiable. But that was hardly my point. I was simply commenting on your usage of wild guesses and made up on the spot measurements as an obstacle to statistical analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) SWAG is a very common term dude. It doesn't mean it is out of bound but a comical term for a pretty **** good guess. I'd say that guessing we're seeing maybe 5% because they are incredibly elusive in those woods is probably a conservative SWAG. Otherwise, we'd be seeing them all the time...right Clerk my ass. I've only lost one time. Edited April 14, 2014 by Alex MW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Lost what? You would have us believe that you are an attorney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Anyway, so you folks discount all eyewitness accounts unlike our court system. And you say that you are logical and reasonable. Yeah sure. You guys are pulling the typical bigfootforums circular "I don't want to believe because I don't want to believe and I am smarter than the thousands who have seen before me. And I enjoy arguing illogically on the bigfoot forum instead of problem solving. " That's brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Not at all. You're stating those not agreeing with you as having "zero logic." I disagree. I don't find it logical to include a SWAG into one's equation, and then consider any opposed as being illogical. Just sayin'........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I am a utility consultant that represents my corporate clients as their attorney "in effect" against corporate attorneys defending their clients (the utilities). So yes, I am up against corporate attorneys all the time. My clients don't need to hire an attorney because I know the regulatory laws and the ins and outs of utility costs. I can represent them as long as they are present. In fact, attorneys often seek my advice on cases. So yes, I've only lost once in my career and that was a crooked deal. You'd be surprised the big names that have settled with me because I knew my stuff and understand how to structure a case. Then you won't buy Evolution Incorrigible or 90% the crap on tv news...because most of that garbage is beyond a SWAG Lmao So you're apparently more logical than I thought. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Then you won't buy Evolution Incorrigible or 90% the crap on tv news...because most of that garbage is beyond a SWAG Lmao So you're apparently more logical than I thought. ) You might be surprised. You'd hafta tread the Tar Pit to see my true thoughts, my friend. Another 23 postings, and you're eligible, should you wish to join the Premium Access section. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I believe your point is simply you are adding yet another possibility to the quandary. Good. Your suggestion is as good as mine, or anyone else's No. I am replying to the statement "although the liklihood of everyone claiming a sighting is either mistaken, hallucinating, or outright lying for attention is very low as well." by pointing out that there are explanations that mean that possibility is NOT very low. therefore the conclusion "Bigfoot probably exists" is not warranted. But neither is the conclusion "Bigfoot does not exist", when based on these grounds alone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts