Probability And Accuracy Of Reports

[Guest Divergent1]

Not sure what you're suggesting. 

 

Do you mean only other critters, or other events as well?  

 

For instance, only a percentage of rape victims come forward because they'll have to face their attackers in court, have to deal with insensitive cops after a traumatic experience, and have a social stigma attached that frankly victimizes them yet again.   So, is that what you're asking about?

 

MIB

I was thinking in terms of the context of the subject. Anything out of the ordinary that might be considered weird, unusual, or paranormal, not just bigfoot.

I think someone should pick characteristics to note in reports and then pull the ones which seem to show up the most regardless of how authentic the report might sound. I don't think you can assume to know anything with any certainty but you might have a starting point looking at different circumstances or characteristics from a statistical perspective.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Divergent1

[Explorer]

This interesting topic has been discussed before (see link below).

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/12125-what-is-the-statistical-probability-that-all-sightings-are-false/

[Guest Divergent1]

I read to about page 7 of the linked thread. It seems they were discussing the cons of using the data to prove the existence of bigfoot. There is no way you could do that, however, you can turn subjective data into objective data. That data can then be used to decide where to focus your attention if you want to look for physical evidence. Here is an example that I had in mind when I posted my suggestion; you have several unpublished reports in geographical area of  approx.150 miles, nothing has been on the news to prime someone to misidentify what was reported, and none of the witnesses know each other. I think that would be statistically significant.

[Guest DWA]

^^^There are indeed many ways to cut the cake.  And there seems to be a lot of effort to make the data be proof, which it cannot be.

 

But in doing what you are talking about, one can determine what to do to follow up on the reports.

 

Do the police frequently have no more information than someone's story?  Frequently.  Can they follow up?  Yes.  Absolute same logical diff, and really no more reason from a logical standpoint not to follow up in one case than in the other.  What happens instead:  the police do their job; scientists don't do theirs.

Edited September 1, 2014 by DWA

[Incorrigible1]

Is there a local phone line I can call to sic "scientists" upon the latest report, DWA? Are they eagerly hanging by their telephones, ready to pounce upon the latest report?

 

What's that? No? Well, then. Your contention might be continued claptrap? I could have guessed.

[Guest DWA]

Those of you who read the syllabus and are keeping up know that we have approximately seven metric tons of reports out there, to which analysis models can be applied, and that anyone who is waiting for "the latest report" hasn't figured their way about these particular woods yet.

 

6 [six] thousand [THOUSAND!] SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY.

 

Did someone not get the syllabus? 

Edited September 1, 2014 by DWA
Edit Objectionable text

[Incorrigible1]

One can call "scientists," the way one can call first responders? More word salad from friend DWA, evidently.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Why not get a list together of phone numbers to use to contact an anthropologist in any given state. Or a department head at a university. Shipping a report to the BFRO might get a phone call or a meeting with a state field investigator but to what end? To vet a report and add it to the database? Then what? I think there's already enough there anyway. The pattern is the same with UFO's because the modus operandi, i.e. report formula, was copied for that subject too. I think it might be time to break out of the mold and start calling the state agencies and university departments and try to keep the subject under the noses of those who study apes, Humans and ancient hominids.

Raising our hands to the right people and busting the lid off the report chambers just may be a refreshing change. Start insisting as a public that SCIENTISTS investigate this stuff. OR.......keep whining about science not lifting the scientific finger on out behalf. The only ones that can change the status quo is....wait for it.....US. If you start to water this down with reasons to back off that idea then you're part of the problem instead of the solution. This needs a way to move forward and no one is going to do it for us.

Edited September 1, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

I love number and statistics, but I don't think only 1 out of 10 reports are real, based on the average person NOT wanting to being called a crackpot, I am think that probably 6 to 8 out of 10 are legit.

 

Next if you consider that only 1 out of 10 are even reported, that would greatly increase the number of legit sightings...

[Terry]

An outdoorsman with no prior knowledge or interest that reports seeing a bf...believable and possible.  The gifters and people who report bf families and friends around their properties...not so much.

 

t.

[WSA]

No, nobody is saying you should call 1-800-SCI-ENCE. The point being, if that is what it takes, somebody should have reconsidered passing up that correspondence course to study locksmithing in their spare time at home. Count on it though, some bright young kid somewhere has drawn a career plan to  pursue this evidence. We are waiting on him or her, and all others who share that passion. Those more senior will be chagrined. Thus it always has been.

[Guest Divergent1]

So let it be written, so let it be done.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQnxlHZsjY

[Bonehead74]

This is a bit of a read, but worth it, IMO. I think some here might appreciate it as it relates to the topic at hand.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/wasson.htm

[Guest Divergent1]

That was interesting. I wonder how many investigators have the skill to do this? I wonder how many witnesses would agree to testing? If someone refused testing you'ld have to throw the report out of any kind of analysis.

[Guest]

An interesting article. I have pondered the idea myself of a common personality trait of otherwise unrelated, and apparently completely different, upbringingwise, ethnically diverse, age diverse, all the various and myriad differences in people who have reported seeing what they took to be an unknown animal. I have asked myself and others if there is indeed a real 'profile' as would be done by experts in that field as FBI agents and people who make a living pigeonholing people for very serious reasons. I don't know. From reading the reports on the various data bases and groups I would have to say it would have to be some very deeply rooted human predisposition from way back to span the huge gap I find in witnesses other traits and environmental influences. From teenage girls to U.S. Army Colonels to Fortune 500 Ceos to Navajo Law Enforcement to little old ladies that work in a cotton mill and grow a garden and go to church every Sunday to ministers of the Gospel, to countless Native American reports to guys driving home from work to attention seekers to the shyest introverts and on and on, is a very large group. And  there may be such a 'profile'. Or, the other much simpler possiblity, they saw what they said they saw, which requires no other variables. Maybe some Anthropologist or other scientist,or profiler professional can score a huge government grant and try to see if such a profile can be constructed using enough people willing to participate who have made reports. Would be interesting to me, and a study of human nature is surely is as valuable as some of the studies I read our taxes have paid for. Really wouldn't even be any stigma attached to the researcher as a studier of the people and personalities rather than the subject itself.