Let's Do Some Math...

[JDL]

@dmaker:   LOL!!  You kill me!     Although I'm no longer being paid as a government scientist, first running test programs for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then working for NASA and the Army Missile Command, having retired from that line of work and moved on, I still occasionally teach University classes in scientific accident investigation methods, and communication in crises, both classes based on the events leading up to, during and after the Challenger accident.  And, I regularly speak to college bound high schoolers and University undergraduates about scientific and technical career choices.  As a part of my normal job, I apply scientific investigative and troubleshooting techniques to solving difficult design, engineering, environmental, and maintenance problems.  I've striven to apply these same objective methods to my BF research, investigations, "scientific surveys", and documentation. 

 

So, when you're ready to teach me some new and effective "scientific" methods that will keep me from having to use my apparently flawed data that I've obviously wasted years and years collecting, and that will keep me from having to "make up numbers", and will make your world all sweet and rosy, I'm all ears.  Oh, I'm also waiting with bated breath for you to teach me how to collect "actual evidence".  I can hardly wait!!!  Oh Goody!!  Maybe we can collaborate and publish the definitive field guide to Bigfoot together??  Huh? Huh?

 

Scientific accident investigation methods could come in handy after Dmaker has his first encounter.  It may be the only tangible secondary evidence to back up his statements.

[Guest LarryP]

Field guides to imaginary creatures are the same thing as children's books. I have no desire to publish one. So, you're on your own there. Though it seems that the esteemed Dr.Meldrum has beat you to it

 

Ahh yes.

 

Plus you've spent so much more time than Dr.Meldrum or Coonbo researching the subject and your credentials prove that you're eminently more qualified than they are....

 

April Fools!

 

I was wondering how long it would take before you started up with Coonbo.

 

But as always, you never fail to disappoint. That's because if nothing else, you are extremely predictable.

[salubrious]

^^ My only point was that when it comes to real animals, if people in an area are reporting it in high numbers, then a person being in that area has an increased chance of seeing one. But the reporting part is simply an anecdotal red herring. It really doesn't matter. A more logical way of putting it is that if a certain animal is in an area with increasing number, then a person in that area has an increased chance of seeing one.  More simply put: if they are there in sufficient numbers, then you have a better chance of seeing one, whether people report it or not. The anecdotes are beside the point. 

 

Most animals I have seen have various reasons for not wanting to be seen. But some of them, like bears, don't seem to care so much. BF, as best I can make out, cares a great deal and also seems to have the smarts to make it stick. IOW, there is a variable at play that does not seem to be taken into account in the above post. FWIW, I have seen more bears than BF.

[Guest]

I could swear the OP said " rough population ".

Now within this subject, a lot of things involve rough estimates, rough ideas and ways of thinking that haven't been confirmed because they can't be currently so for the normal members to take literally what he said about population and lambast the OP like they have shows really poor form to me.

If we can't talk about rough ideas, rough populations, rough guesses and guesstimates on this specific subject forum without it getting ripped apart by the normal wise guys, I fail to see why there is in fact a forum in the first place on this specific subject.

Scientists do just this. They make assumptions and test them out just like your "rough population" idea. Your thought experiment fails is all.

[MIB]

Scientists do just this. They make assumptions and test them out just like your "rough population" idea. Your thought experiment fails is all.

 

In what way does it fail?   I see nothing that specifically disproves it.  I see nothing that specifically supports another hypothesis better.   It seems exactly tied for first (and, for the time being, last) place.    That's no more fail than any other experiment.   Including experiments meant to show that they can't exist.

 

MIB

[Guest]

  First, toss out Hawaii, they don't have any. 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/hi.html

 

Reports come from all over the world of bigfoot and bigfoot-like creatures. This could mean that bigfoot is a psychological or sociological phenomenon at least in part. However, there are believers who think bigfoot is a mystical creature with powers of invisibility and that it can transport itself through other dimensions. Who is right? Not necessarily you.

[BobbyO]

Scientists do just this. They make assumptions and test them out just like your "rough population" idea. Your thought experiment fails is all.

The last part makes no sense and I didn't have a " rough population " idea in the first place.

[Guest]

In what way does it fail?   I see nothing that specifically disproves it.  I see nothing that specifically supports another hypothesis better.   It seems exactly tied for first (and, for the time being, last) place.    That's no more fail than any other experiment.   Including experiments meant to show that they can't exist.

 

MIB

The thought experiment has been shown to be either flat out false or completely irrelevant  by other posters in this thread. Bobby) is complaining about the "attack" on his thought experiment but this is exactly how science works.

[BobbyO]

Please stop referring to me as I never had a thought experiment in the first place, thanks.

I'm not the OP.

[Guest]

The last part makes no sense and I didn't have a " rough population " idea in the first place.

 

okay, my bad. You are still complaining about the "attack" on the idea. That's just the way science works. Ideas are tested (attacked)until they either fail or continue to stand. And even when they continue to stand, attacks (I mean tests) are still launched (conducted) against them from time to time in light of new data. New ideas floated out on this forum should not be immune to such testing (attacking).

[BobbyO]

There is no science.

This is a Sasquatch forum and Sasquatch doesn't exist in the eyes of science.

This entire forum is based on assumption, eyewitness testimony and experiences and ideas that have no science related to them whatsoever.

Until one is nailed and there is a body on a slab, I see no reason whatsoever to talk about any of the ideas and assumptions on this forum and continue to try and bring science or scientific thinking into it at all as science simply does not acknowledge this subject full stop.

So it's no wonder that people on this forum, especially witnesses, do not see science as the be all and end all, unlike skeptics of course.

It's a double edged sword on both sides of the fence.

Edited April 1, 2014 by BobbyO

[Guest]

Many of us, and not just skeptics, also attempt to bring scientific methodology to our studies of cryptozoology. This is simply how many of us look at the world around us. Telling us not to apply science to the study (whether science believes it or not is irrelevant) is like telling us to close our eyes and see it that way. If you don't want the dialogue then you do not have to participate but don't tell others their point of view is invalid and unseemly.

[MIB]

There's nothing wrong with scientific method until it becomes religion and closes your eyes to the very questions that should be asked merely because science can't find a way to answer them.   It's an important tool, but it's JUST a tool.   When science becomes dogma it stops being science. 

 

Evidence that is outside current explanations should not be discarded or dismissed.  I should be set aside at times in its own "hmmm bucket" but we should go back to it time to time to see if our evolving understanding now accounts for part of it AND whether looking at it again creates new understanding that escaped us before.   It's a process, not an event.

 

MIB

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Excellent post, plus 1. The sheer amount of territory we are talking about here escapes many people in my opinion, like you mentioned. People tend to think of our society as a whole being so advanced that there could be nothing right under our noses that we couldn't see, so they cannot fathom such an animal being able to remain undetected. But as you said, this is just not true.

 

The bear comparison is a great one. With so many bears, people would think they would be seen any time one goes into the woods, which is false. Obviously the bear population must be larger than the sasquatch population, although how far off are the numbers really? With bears, we are talking of an ordinary, known animal, which doesn't attempt to avoid humans. But with an animal that actively attempts to avoid human contact in most instances, there could be sasquatch all around and we wouldn't know it.

 

As I've stated many times before I believe the sasquatch population to be much larger than most estimates I've seen. I think it is over 10,000 for sure, and a number of 50,000 wouldn't surprise me, if not larger than that. I say this because despite the tendency of sasquatch to avoid us, the number of sightings are probably still high. I say probably because we have to estimate the number of reports that do not get filed with a group like the BFRO. I would think more sightings go unreported than get reported. There are many reasons why people don't report sightings, as we all know, the main one being the fact that our society on average doesn't take the subject seriously.

 

So anyway, great thread. The fact that there is plenty of room for such an animal is something that cannot be debated. A very important thing that needs to be stated is just how large a square mile actually is. You said there is a bear per 2 square miles, give or take. I don't think enough people appreciate how much land that is. A single square mile is 640 acres. THAT is a lot of land itself.

 

A single person would have a difficult time doing recon work on a single square mile. So maybe that will put it a bit more into perspective for some people. And that super large number you posted regarding the square mileage of forestland...the number of acres we are talking about is just not fathomable for most of us.

[Guest Llawgoch]

How can you say it's an excellent post, then say that his estimate is wrong by a factor of 10, which would make them only 14 times rarer than bears. If they are only 14 times rarer than bears then numerically we should have found one, IF the argument is purely numerical.  How can it be an excellent post?  How does any of what you have said makes sense?  If you look at the bears per square mile figure compared to the sasquatch per square mile figure in his post, let alone your revision, it in NO WAY accounts for the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of dead bears and not one sasquatch.  if sasquatch exists, it must be better at avoiding us, which his post and this argument completely fail to address.  Seriously, what was excellent about that post?

Edited April 2, 2014 by Llawgoch