Jump to content

1 In 10,000 Sasquatch Sightings Are Likely To Be True.


Recommended Posts

hiflier

Hello All,

 

Here's the thing. John Green's database has around 4,000 reports. And even if the BFRO has 4 times that the combined would be roughly 20,000 reports. You see the issue? TWO Sasquatch if one takes Dr. Meldrum's statement literally. But he being a scientist why wouldn't one take him literally? Personally I don't push it to such an extreme but the fallout here as a result of his statement brings into question whether or not he's letting the community down slowly from it's position of Bigfoot existence. 

 

Now in retrospect he may regret the remark and he may have meant it as demonstration of how small the BF population is? If that's the case he knows something we don't- no surprise there. But if he really meany what he said then the ripples will be felt both currently (meaning large sums of money) and historically (books, conferences, and expeditions already gone by.

 

I'm not trying to make the proverbial mountain out of a molehill here but the good Doctor's statement needs clarifying or I forsee a slow burn comin' around the bend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hello All,

 

Yeah, we're missing someone. If Dr. Meldrum recants a bit then a reprieve of sorts might be in the offing. I have a sense that it was a kind of figure of speech m'self.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonehead74

On a related note, I often wonder about the pro-bigfoot scientists who are so lauded and lionized by a certain segment of bigfoot proponents. Are they granted their vaunted status because they are, first and foremost, recognized as brilliant scientific minds who have happened to endorse the possibility of bigfoot's existence? Or is it that certain proponents elevate these scientists simply because the scientists reinforce the proponent's viewpoint?

As to the good doctor's statement, I think it was probably an off-the-cuff quip and has gone from molehill to mountain status.

Edited by Bonehead74
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChrisBFRPKY

Well, I tend to classify verified trackways or casts as physical evidence of something biological (and many of  those have been faked, that's why I specify "verified" trackways or casts). " 

 

Have you found many hoaxed tracks in Kentucky then? When you say you classify trackways, do you mean those that you have personally analyzed in the field? 

 

Yes, oddly enough I've found one hoaxed print in KY. It was created by a couple of kids looking for attention I suspect.

 

I can only classify the tracks I see in the flesh. There's alot to look at so internet pics won't allow a detailed examination of a print/trackway. Now there are some obvious tracks on the internet that can be labelled as hoaxed.  Please see the Ray Wallace stompers with the split ball feature. Aside from those, I'd have to see the tracks myself. Chris B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dmaker. I am not a mathematician, but I can guarantee if you or Dr Meldrum were to ask a mathematician to run a statistical probability on the truth of the witness statements it will definitely not come out to be 99.99% false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hello Bonehead74,

 

I wonder if Bigfoot has their equivalent of these kinds of problems. You know. Frooda gave three tree knocks instead of two and added a rock clack. Changes everything.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related note, I often wonder about the pro-bigfoot scientists who are so lauded and lionized by a certain segment of bigfoot proponents. Are they granted their vaunted status because they are, first and foremost, recognized as brilliant scientific minds who have happened to endorse the possibility of bigfoot's existence? Or is it that certain proponents elevate these scientists simply because the scientists reinforce the proponent's viewpoint?

As to the good doctor's statement, I think it was probably an off-the-cuff quip and has gone from molehill to mountain status.

 

That.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

The bottom line is that reports are just that, someone's experience that has been recorded.

 

Statistically, it's no different than a political poll, a domestic abuse survey, a vehicle satisfaction survey, etc. The veracity of each individual account may be questioned, but the hope is that over a large enough number of records, a pattern may emerge.

 

For example, the JD Power Initial Quality Vehicle survey suffers from the same data defects you complain about, yet it is accepted as the industry standard for excellence. The difference is that a BF sightings database has not been analyzed in the same manner, yet.

 

Also, there are witnesses present and available to answer questions about their sighting and you would have to prove every single one of them as hoaxers, liars or having misidentified the animal in order to say that all sighting reports are false.

 

So basically,  you're trying to prove a negative, which of course, is a fallacy.

Edited by gigantor
Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Men have been executed on false or incorrect witness testimony. Political polls have, on occasion, been proven quite inaccurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChrisBFRPKY

A rather odd turn of a phrase. You can see an unidentified, cryptid, upright hominid "in the flesh," but tracks? I'd probably describe as "in situ."

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in%20situ?s=t

 

I was referring to myself. As in I have to physically be present when viewing a track in order to tell anything about it. I'll try to be more lucid in future posts.  Chris B.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SSR Team

No, I don't believe it likely that even one of them is accurate. That was not my point. My point was mostly aimed at those here who admonish others for even doubting a single report. Those that claim the reports are true unless proven otherwise and that how could that many reports be wrong?.The congruency of the reports yields the truth for those that can simply parse properly!!, That the witnesses  are people that could never be mistaken. Those that scoff at the idea of bears being mistaken for bigfoots.  That the reports are the cream of the evidence.  I found it very interesting that, what is arguably the most respected voice in bigfootery, seems to think there is a very, very wide margin of error in the reports and that bears are likely to be mistaken for bigfoot. I found it interesting that such an ardent disciple of Dr.Meldrum as, say, I dunno, DWA comes to mind, seems to stand in stark contrast with the opinion of someone he constantly and loudly supports. How would such a person account for 9,999 false reports when he declares that by simply reading them he can parse out the truth? Maybe he knows something Meldrum doesn't?  I doubt it..  A 1 in 10,000 accuracy does not sound like the cream of the crop to me.

 

That was my point. I'm sure you must have seen that?

Not at all, because you're now talking about 10,000 and 100% and not 9,999 and 99.9%

If you were taking Meldrum's comment literally like you seemed to be as you kept focussing on 9,999 and not 10,000 in every post you've made, you'd then need to understand what point I'm making.

But you don't understand it because even though you've written about the 9,999 in every post, you're now saying that all 10,000 are rubbish anyway which just puts the entire thread as irrelevant because it's not about the 1/9,999, you've now made it about, as usual, the 0/10,000.

A complete waste of time, great.

 

I call all members who have had a sighting to please come forward and answer DMaker's questions so he can satisfy himself that you're not crazy, lying or an idiot.

 

Thanks!

People have been doing it for years anyway and there's various examples all over this forum, but no one should specifically do it just to satisfy one individual poster who is as closed minded as he/she is, it's just a complete waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...