What Are The Percentages?

[JDL]

I think there are probably more BFs misidentified as bears, rottweilers, cows, or stumps, than animals misidentified as BFs.

 

I agree with this in principal.  I think many are mistaken for people.

[georgerm]

This is a tricky question to answer Old Dog.

 

Most people are not thinking about Bigfoot every day like those on forums. Those on forums who talk bigfoot, look at pictures and videos are ready to see and identify one. This group has a good chance to identify a bigfoot that's walking through brush during an average encounter. The encounter may last for 5 seconds within 50 feet. 80% of this group will identify the bigfoot.

 

Now we come to the other group. The doe doe birds when it comes to bigfoot, other creatures, and forest adventures. In todays paper a fellow wrote in and was glad someone finally told him the big hawks that he sees around his home for years are really buzzards! Gee who knows what others are thinking when they see wildlife. 99% of this bigfoot ignorant group are not educated about the habits of bigfoot, its image, or the sounds they make, so they are not looking for them.  This group has a poor chance to identify a bigfoot walking through brush during an average encounter that may last for 5 seconds with in 50 feet. 25% of this group might identify the bigfoot. The other 75% will think its a bear, doe deer or elk or will not see the bigfoot. When I saw bigfoot's huge head and shoulders in a moon lit evening, I thought it was a bear and at the same time an illusion.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2016 by georgerm

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

 

What is your best estimate as to how many BF sightings are misidentifications?  How many are hoaxes?

 

Your question needs to be more specific...

 

Are we talking documented sightings or hearsay?

 

If documented, Class A, B or both?

 

BTW, Redbone and BobbyO are the ones to ask, they've read in detail and classified hundreds of reports.

 

 

I thought the term "sightings" was fairly self explanatory.  What's you're guess of overall sighting misidentifications, not sounds, not prints, just sightings?

 

 

How many folks actually think it is Bigfoot when it ain't and it is reported.

Probably a lot lower than those that see Bigfoot actual and don't report it

So the unknown unknowns are trumping the known knowns and so it goes.

 

Whether it is reported or not, it is a sighting.  I think you, and others here, are complicating it a bit too much.  I'm asking about sightings in general, reported or not.  Just kind of a general idea of how many overall are misidentified as a Sasquatch.  My guess is about 80% are misidentified.  What's your guess?

 

95%

[FarArcher]

Wouldn't matter if it were 99%.

 

That's still leaves a bucketful of legit sightings.

[Old Dog]

Wouldn't matter if it were 99%.

 

That's still leaves a bucketful of legit sightings.

 

That was my thought when asking the question.  However, there are those who will say that 100% are non-legit for what ever reason they can think up.  They will argue that not a one is real.  I personally find those folks very obtuse in nature, but they hang around anyway.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Old Dog

[gigantor]

I think it is very high, 90%

[WSA]

Old Dog....to my mind that is a tempting question to pose, but completely off the point. Better to ask, "How are these possible, whatever the reports are?" Your question allows for a response of false certainty. This false certainty comes from both sides of the debate. My question confirms what science has to face: We don"t know yet. Dismissal or 100% acceptance (and anything else is a W A G) leads nowhere useful, I don' t believe.

[OkieFoot]

It`s difficult to answer but I wonder how many reported sightings of a BF are actually made up, fabricated stories.

[TritonTr196]

It`s difficult to answer but I wonder how many reported sightings of a BF are actually made up, fabricated stories.

My guess is since shows like Finding Bigfoot and media outlets like facebook have come about and the internet in general, out right hoaxes have tripled. These shows and media places allow anyone to just post anything they wish and since theres so many other people that is looking for something to latch onto they will find others of their caliber that will believe them based solely on the (this is the internet and it's gotta be true). The red circle people/groups if you will. This paves the way for even more made up on the spot hoaxes on a daily basis just so they can get their daily Bigfoot/Dogman sighting posted on their favorite facebook groups before anyone else does that morning.

Now there are the real stories that gets reported through these outlets but sadly, those get swallowed up by the grandeur of the fake ones.

[OkieFoot]

 

It`s difficult to answer but I wonder how many reported sightings of a BF are actually made up, fabricated stories.

My guess is since shows like Finding Bigfoot and media outlets like facebook have come about and the internet in general, out right hoaxes have tripled. These shows and media places allow anyone to just post anything they wish and since theres so many other people that is looking for something to latch onto they will find others of their caliber that will believe them based solely on the (this is the internet and it's gotta be true). The red circle people/groups if you will. This paves the way for even more made up on the spot hoaxes on a daily basis just so they can get their daily Bigfoot/Dogman sighting posted on their favorite facebook groups before anyone else does that morning.

Now there are the real stories that gets reported through these outlets but sadly, those get swallowed up by the grandeur of the fake ones.

 

 

That's a very good point. 

[Old Dog]

Old Dog....to my mind that is a tempting question to pose, but completely off the point. Better to ask, "How are these possible, whatever the reports are?" Your question allows for a response of false certainty. This false certainty comes from both sides of the debate. My question confirms what science has to face: We don"t know yet. Dismissal or 100% acceptance (and anything else is a W A G) leads nowhere useful, I don' t believe.

 

Yeah, I prefer to not over think things too much.  One can pose almost any question, then follow it up with all sorts of "what if's" and a load of "but's......".  I posted the question as more of a jumping off point to conversations.  Everyone has a different take or slant on the same subject or question, and that is where conversations and theories take form and develop into understanding.  So, from my perspective, my question was right on point.

[WSA]

Dang you Old Dog, you sure are a spoil-sport. Just when I was fixin' to go all scientific hair-splitter on you, you disarmed me completely! 

 

But yeah, we got lots of opinions here, don't we? A buyer's market of opinions, take your pick and make us an offer.

 

I do think though some invest way too much in this kind of subjective ball/strike calling.   You are best to set aside the extreme outliers on either side of the argument, and you are then left with the solid middle ground that doesn't lend itself to glib explanations. That is where the best evidence is. What I see many do is put up a number of pieces of good evidence up against an equal weight of bad evidence, and declare the final result on the question of existence to be a net zero. Total wrong approach, to my mind.   

[Old Dog]

Dang you Old Dog, you sure are a spoil-sport. Just when I was fixin' to go all scientific hair-splitter on you, you disarmed me completely! 

 

But yeah, we got lots of opinions here, don't we? A buyer's market of opinions, take your pick and make us an offer.

 

I do think though some invest way too much in this kind of subjective ball/strike calling.   You are best to set aside the extreme outliers on either side of the argument, and you are then left with the solid middle ground that doesn't lend itself to glib explanations. That is where the best evidence is. What I see many do is put up a number of pieces of good evidence up against an equal weight of bad evidence, and declare the final result on the question of existence to be a net zero. Total wrong approach, to my mind.   

 

Yep, too many think of all of this as some sort of competition.  When one thinks in terms of winning, regardless of which side of the issue one is on, nothing gets done.  Too many try to one up their opponent at any cost, and there in the conversation is lost.  Too many people on both sides of the issues have closed their minds and declared themselves the one who's right, and all others points are moot.  Those people have nothing to add to the conversation and I simply put them on ignore and move along to something that progresses the conversation.  Others like to spar with their imagined opponent to see who can out zing the other.  Those people have ruined the forums for a lot of folks.  Every once in a while one can glean a few pearls of wisdom and a few interesting facts and theories, but they are getting harder and harder to find.  I keep reading, plowing through the chaff to get to the wheat.

[BC witness]

I think your question depends so much on the experience, or lack of it, of the observer reporting it, that it is almost impossible to quantify. Virtually all of the preceding observations apply, under the right conditions for each case: experienced hunter/trapper, city boy/girl, trained observer of nature, drunken yahoo, needy for attention teenager, and a hundred other cases of the human condition. My personal experiences lead me to believe that at least some reports are legitimate, and that is enough for my continued interest in providing confirmation of the existance of Sasquatch/Bigfoot.

[1980squatch]

I don't get the 90 to 99 percent answers. If you think these things are real, why so much doubt when folks say they see one?