AaronD Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Enough! dmaker should soon be out of plusses for the day 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Alex, as we've repeatedly tried to tell you, feel free to run the numbers any way you want but don't expect your results to be held in high regard. Garbage in - garbage out, it's really that simple. Your computer normalization program works so well on weather because you are only asking it to predict an overall average for temperature or rainfall for example and you have a huge sample size obtained over more than a hundred years with calibrated instruments which results in only a few outlying results that can be disregarded. Even with this ideal setup we are more than 30 degrees below our expected average temp today, have received snow and are expecting a killing frost overnight. I'm sure 30 degrees below normal falls well within the expected range or probability density of temps for today. Statistics are great for possible ranges based on lots of good data. They are also good for determining probability densities when even small samples are closely matched to limit noisy data and are precisely monitored - that's why drug trials use similar aged patients, with similar conditions, and base dosages on weight. The point being that there is lots of verifiable data and/or lots of controls to ensure good data. We don't have any of that with the bigfoot reports you plan on using. There is no control over who submits, no control over data accuracy and no way to clean up the data by normalizing because we have no standard like we would in a rainfall study with calibrated gauges. I believe you mean to use no criteria for inclusion but rather rely on throwing out some percentage of the reports? Are you using sightings only or including encounters based on sounds or possible footprints? SWAG1. What if 90% or more of whatever reports you choose were mistaken or hoaxed as some proponents believe? What if it's 50%? Because you are not using calibrated instruments but will instead rely on humans who are prone to error your study will obviously be less precise but by how much? Imagine basing your rainfall data on people's quick perceptions gathered in the amount of time a sighting takes place rather a calibrated gauge. How close would you expect the data to track now? Introduce SWAG2. What percentage will you ascribe to outright lying? Introduce SWAG3. How many are sightings of the same creature at different times or places? SWAG4. How many SWAGs will there be? Do you realize that depending on how you set this up potential errors in the SWAGs can compound? The difficulty in doing statistics is not in applying simple math to a sample but in choosing the sample and correctly determining what factors to apply. It's impossible to do if you if you can't trust the data itself due to unreliable reporting. All I can say is good luck! Edited April 16, 2014 by AaronD edited per member request 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Well, since you called me out... Llawgoch has a point. You could have just said you don't understand his point ( which is abundantly clear that you do not), instead of backing out and taking a pot shot. Not your finest moment imo. Aren't plusses supposed to be anonymous? Enough! dmaker should soon be out of plusses for the day Edited April 16, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 ^^ I was just guessing, you concluded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 ^^ Well, you're an admin. Maybe you should have made the fact that you were guessing a little more obvious. Again, not your finest moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Can we just get back to the OP....pretty please??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) ^^ Sure thing. Edited April 16, 2014 by AaronD to remove trolling to staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 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. The Georgia Bigfoot body, the sleeping Chewbacca footage, the Elbe trackway, the Rick Dyer homeless camp Bigfoot, Todd Standing and Sylvanic, Mike Paterson- all taken as real evidence and eyewitness accounts. The Ketchum report, the Sykes report, the Justin Smeja kill- all equating loads of evidence that failed to produce. That pretty much sums up the past several years of "logical evidence and eyewitness accounts", doesn't it? Now both Meldrum and Bindernagel are involved with Todd Standing.. can't wait to see how that pans out. All of the above were once considered major 'compelling evidence' and/or credible eyewitness accounts. I would think at some point that the skepticism would kick in with people, but instead people are still being berated for not taking it all seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) @roguefooter Again the exception made into the rule. It's you folks that believe everything Paulides tells you. LOL Edited April 16, 2014 by See-Te-Cah NC 2 A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 16, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 16, 2014 The Georgia Bigfoot body, the sleeping Chewbacca footage, the Elbe trackway, the Rick Dyer homeless camp Bigfoot, Todd Standing and Sylvanic, Mike Paterson- all taken as real evidence and eyewitness accounts. The Ketchum report, the Sykes report, the Justin Smeja kill- all equating loads of evidence that failed to produce. That pretty much sums up the past several years of "logical evidence and eyewitness accounts", doesn't it? Now both Meldrum and Bindernagel are involved with Todd Standing.. can't wait to see how that pans out. All of the above were once considered major 'compelling evidence' and/or credible eyewitness accounts. I would think at some point that the skepticism would kick in with people, but instead people are still being berated for not taking it all seriously. While I agree with this post- and think that Meldum is getting on thin ice too- one of the problems is that quite often when you present something that is evidence you can get accused of hoaxing, despite the evidence being the genuine thing. I'm stating this out of direct experience. It sort of comes with the territory- BF tend to look a lot like humans and the other way 'round, so even if you have something real, getting accused of hoaxing is still a problem. At the same time with all the bona fide hoaxes out there, your last statement really says it all. Look at the berating Kitakaze got when he presented some of Sweaty Yeti's gifs to the Standing crowd! http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/46721-can-bill-munns-comment-on-todd-standing-blink/?p=830855 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skunkapetracker Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Austin, I don't know where you hunt, but where ever it is, there is a great lack of bears, and they all must have moved near me! I had lunch today with my research buddies and some of their family members. The wife of one had seen 3 bears this morning (Sun, March 30) on a busy residential street in the city of Mission, BC. I saw 1 last year, crossing the lawn of a large suburban hospital, and then crossing the 4 lane street right in front of my truck, to access the 2 sq.mi. park on the other side. I have seen as many as 6 in 1 day, on trips along logging roads, and estimate I've seen about 500 in 50 years of hunting. I have more bear rugs than I need! Having said that, I think your math makes sense, and find your ratio of bears/sasquatch reasonably accurate, as my ratio of sightings is 250/1, having seen 1 BF myself, and just missed seeing the 1 my son was hollering for me to look at, so I'll include that 1 in the ratio. I have never found a bear skeleton in the woods, only 1 cow, 1 mt.sheep, and 1 moose as entire sets of bones, and a few jaws of moose, elk, and deer, thus I'm not surprised that I've never found a BF body. Good topic. Bears in human populated areas are a different story. I have seen a dozen bears in populated areas while up in Tennessee, but never have I seen one while hunting, ever. Bears return to urban areas because of the easy access to our food waste. A lot of those bears were the same few bears going between their dens and where the food waste was. I have never ever come across a bear while hunting, and only once while camping in North Carolina, and this was because of a nearby dumpster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 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. That's a very accurate summation, Alex. The Georgia Bigfoot body, the sleeping Chewbacca footage, the Elbe trackway, the Rick Dyer homeless camp Bigfoot, Todd Standing and Sylvanic, Mike Paterson- all taken as real evidence and eyewitness accounts. The Ketchum report, the Sykes report, the Justin Smeja kill- all equating loads of evidence that failed to produce. That pretty much sums up the past several years of "logical evidence and eyewitness accounts", doesn't it? Now both Meldrum and Bindernagel are involved with Todd Standing.. can't wait to see how that pans out. All of the above were once considered major 'compelling evidence' and/or credible eyewitness accounts. I would think at some point that the skepticism would kick in with people, but instead people are still being berated for not taking it all seriously. No mention of the London trackway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 That's a very accurate summation, Alex. Please don't include me in your sweeping statement. I am all open to this animal being real so would call myself a proponent. I just happen to think that science should lead the way, not conjecture or silly notions about Spanish speaking forest folk with zero evidence presented. I have high standards, as does most of society. You want sasquatch to be taken seriously? Try acting seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 ^Stan, have you listened to the vocals that Alex has been posting? Just curious as to your thoughts. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) Cotter, No I haven't and I realise fully how that appears. However, I find the whole thesis that sasquatch are some multilingual tribe of forest folk risible and wish to expend no head space pandering to it. It is plain silly and I object fundamentally to the unscientific approach it encapsulates. I make no apology for this. I would rather the bff were used to discuss the real world but hey its a broad church. I will try to ignore it from now on as I do appreciate that some folks feel it is worth discussing. Edited April 16, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts