Forget about a body...what about one decent pic?

[Guest Starling]

This is really a mathematical or statistical question and designed to provide hard data for the case against existence.

 

In the 1950s and 60s it was argued that no one had yet photographically captured a car crash as it happened and this was seen as evidence in favour of alien spaceships as UFOs...photos of which always fell into the blurry and distant or the George Adamski-obvious-Hoax category. The odds were against folk having a camera ready to record these one in a lifetime moments and capture them really well. Now of course TV shows made up almost entirely of car crashes have become standard fare as 'Reality' entertainment so this no longer holds water. 

 

One of the least compelling aspects of the Bigfoot legend to me is the photographic record. I love to see these pics but have never yet seen a single one that was truly impressive and could be described by one and all as unambiguous. The PGF 'Was it a suit?' debate thread goes on and on forever and that film is still described by most as the best there is. 

 

Regardless of what proponents claim, encounters, are a remarkably frequent occurrence for a creature that's yet to be photographed in a way that is neither indistinct or demonstrated definitively to be beyond human mischief. These sightings we're told happen every year. Lacking a body, it seems to me that as long as there are encounters describing reasonably good looks at these animals  the statistical probability of that all-important one decent photograph or video becomes greater and greater...and it should therefore only be a matter of time - especially in a world where phone cameras, drones (now with hi-def capabilities) affordable trail cams and GO-Pro type devices are increasingly ubiquitous.

 

I'd like to work out how many more years we can we go without a decent photograph or video of a sasquatch before the statistical probabilities of sighting-plus-good photo start to weigh heavily against existence?

 

My belief is that they already do so. But just to pin this down...what's the average number of reported Bigfoot sightings in any given year in the PNW? we can build a model based on data gathered from the world's other highly-elusive species

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Starling

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I have heard many reasons as to why this does not occur . Ranging from startled, briefness,to they have been captured on film or whatever. 

That they are not shared for various reasons. 

 

Meanwhile the only truly remarkable although highly controversial type of evidence in this manner shared is the Patterson film. 

 

I can only logically conclude based on what has been shared and made available the creature simply does not exist. 

 

 

 

 

[Cotter]

Well, there are a lot of 'rumblings' about how folks have good pics and videos, but don't share them.  I think it is obvious why they don't share them (especially on forums, FB, etc).

 

Also, I think folks that DO get good pics that are not involved with the subject matter prior to snapping a shot/vid call the wrong people.  And subsequently, again, they never get shared on forums, FB, etc.

 

Occam is oft trotted out in a situation like this.  But ends up concluding different things depending on the route and assumptions made.

 

 

[ohiobill]

Hi Starling,

 

Interesting question, one that can only be answered in the most general of ways I think. The formula can be put to paper but the factors involved are incalculable without better data and obviously would still always be subject to outliers as possibilities. I'm thinking of the thylacine as a real world example, the formula would put the probability near zero but the possibility always remains. Even if the formula is perfect it still remains a picture and remains subject to interpretation and ambiguity. 

 

For me, the more important question raised by your premise is how much weight can be given to reports. It's the variable that has to be answered before any serious attempt at an answer can be made. How does one account for flat-out lying, role playing or possible monetary considerations? What percentage remains viable after discounting hoaxes, mistakes and deceit of one kind or another? How about those claiming multiple interactions who can produce zero evidence of their claims? 

 

Personally, I think we're well past the "put up or shut up" phase and I completely discount those claiming multiple encounters without evidence. Never ending excuses are given even after the forum has made numerous changes to encourage evidence sharing. The ball's been in their court for quite some time with the only change being new excuses. 

 

Cotter - The forum's already made several changes including a private research area to encourage sharing. Do you think any further changes could be made that would entice evidence sharing? Do you personally feel there's any evidence to be shared?

 

[Redbone]

Hopefully there will be a follow up investigation...

(Link)

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Redbone

[ioyza]

The whole premise misunderstands the nature of probability and statistics. How would you go about putting this into a formula? How do you account for the individual reactions of human and sasquatch in an unexpected sighting situation, the quality of the camera the human may or may not have around their neck or on their phone, and do they even remember they have it? These are not excuses! These are the multitude of real world variables at play that take this way beyond the realm of quantifiable odds.

 

The fact that sasquatch are almost always aware of our presence in their woods, and that these are almost unanimously the type of encounters we achieve as 'researchers,' and why we should never expect photos from such encounters, is probably something that's been suggested to you many many times, and isn't really the point here.

 

I have an odds question for you: Given the popularity, interest, and alleged money to be gained from creating a convincing hoax photo or video, and considering the advances in costume and special effects technology, what are the odds that BY FAR the best hoax comes from 1967? Better or worse odds than whatever factors led to the genuine video?

 

Take a crack at working out an actual formula for any of this, I'll be back to poke a thousand holes in your assumptions.

[ohiobill]

Are you familiar with the Drake equation? A formula can be designed, it's assigning values to the variables that becomes problematic. 

 

Of course, anyone with easy access to a sassy clan in Chicago could just bypass the discussion and provide proof or some really good pictures...

[ioyza]

Alas, if only sign = easy access, and if access = access to evidence, and if access to evidence = proof, then the situation wouldn't resemble the one described by those dealing with it in the real world, and the question would've been settled long ago as you think it should have.

 

And fine, I see your point on formulating odds - though it's kind of a nit-picky point of semantics. The impossibility of assigning odds to all the factors involved was entirely my point. This doesn't address dependent probabilities either; say, the length of time of the sighting prior to the sasquatch fleeing into cover depends on whether or not the witness is holding a phone or camera. That's a complication in the formulation itself, not just yet another impossible-to-estimate parameter.

[hiflier]

From what I can see (other than Redbone's posted link) folks seem to be skipping a step and going straight to discussion instead. Instead of what? you may ask. Why instead of digging in and trying to find examples of photos that have long since fallen by the wayside. Not that any examples of photos will settle this issue but photos were taken of these creatures before this digital/pixelated age began. The problem is researching when and where those photos were taken.

 

For instance, it may be easier and faster for someone living in a certain state to access their library archives than it would be for someone who is not a resident of the state. One example of this is a newspaper called the San Mateo San Bruno Herald in California (around the San Francisco area). There was a photo of a supposed Bigfoot printed in that paper back on July 13, 1979. So the job is really two-fold: Research to find incidents where and when photos were taken of an alleged Sasquatch then, after that, finding where and when the photo was submitted to a public outlet like a magazine or newspaper- or even a TV news broadcast.

 

This is where the real work is folks should anyone want to avail themselves in the effort of running this stuff to ground. Not everyone has seen all there is to see about this subject nor knows everything there is to know. But some time taken out to dig up some things might just be time well spent. Now, I've done research which is how I know about that 1979 photo submission. But finding the actual newspaper article and bringing it here is the issue. I can't seem to pull that part of it off. Anyone care to take the ball from here? It would be greatly appreciated.  

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Sightings are rare and tend to be very short. Witnesses tend to be preoccupied with the question of what is it they're looking at, and whether or not they're in danger, especially if it's a close encounter. One has to be ready beforehand, but in reality almost no one is.

 

The PGF shows a real one, and provides insight into how difficult it can be to distinguish between real and a costume. This is because the limb proportions and biomechanics are almost identical to that of a regular person. 

 

The quality of cell phone cameras hasn't been very good until recently, but we still have photos of alleged Sasquatch. It's just that it's difficult to distinguish between real and fake.

 

What so many "skeptics" fail to understand is we're dealing with an entity that's incredibly elusive.

 

The thousands of reported experiences span over many decades over the entire continent, and a large portion of them aren't even visual sightings. Of the ones that are visual, you also get some hoaxes, which again, can make it very difficult for people to distinguish between what's real and what isn't.

[WSA]

OS, you've answered your own hypothetical, I think, with your observations about the PGF. The quality of that film is extremely good. It is long enough to not leave you wondering what the subject is...it is out there in plain view. A large, hairy, moving, bipedal animal. In good light. No obscuring brush our trees. No obvious or telltale indications of a hoaxed event. And yet, it wasn't enough, and if we are still debating that document from a time that pre-dates digital manipulation, do you think for a minute some high-res photo is going to do it for all the skeptics? In your dreams pal!   

[Cotter]

5 hours ago, ohiobill said:

 

Cotter - The forum's already made several changes including a private research area to encourage sharing. Do you think any further changes could be made that would entice evidence sharing? Do you personally feel there's any evidence to be shared?

 

Hi Bill!

I do personally feel that there is photo/video evidence that CAN be shared.  But won't be.  I don't want to offend any of the folks at BFF, but this simply isn't a place that, I feel, anyone would post excellent photographic or video evidence.  Would you trot it out to be blasted by a bunch of internet strangers?

 

I think if someone were to get the goods, they would call either the police (thinking they would be able to help), or an expert such as a professor or scientist.

 

In both scenarios, one resounding theme would prevail - don't tell anyone what you have.  Let the 'professionals' handle this.

 

Most, if not all, folks would look to make a buck and try to sell it (no doubt with some sort of NDA in tow).  Depending on the avenue chosen, there is a time frame here.  If a professor/scientist got a hold of it and was genuinely going to try and make the case for existence, it would take years to get their act together to be accepted.  

 

If it ran through the law enforcement chain, well, IMO, it would never be released and gag orders would abound.

 

In the end, unless we have a sasquatch invasion, this phenom is going to be out there a long while.

 

I think a HUGE mistake folks make in this modern world is that an assumption is made that it would make it to the internet.

[JustAGuy]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

From what I can see (other than Redbone's posted link) folks seem to be skipping a step and going straight to discussion instead. Instead of what? you may ask. Why instead of digging in and trying to find examples of photos that have long since fallen by the wayside. Not that any examples of photos will settle this issue but photos were taken of these creatures before this digital/pixelated age began. The problem is researching when and where those photos were taken.

 

For instance, it may be easier and faster for someone living in a certain state to access their library archives than it would be for someone who is not a resident of the state. One example of this is a newspaper called the San Mateo San Bruno Herald in California (around the San Francisco area). There was a photo of a supposed Bigfoot printed in that paper back on July 13, 1979. So the job is really two-fold: Research to find incidents where and when photos were taken of an alleged Sasquatch then, after that, finding where and when the photo was submitted to a public outlet like a magazine or newspaper- or even a TV news broadcast.

 

This is where the real work is folks should anyone want to avail themselves in the effort of running this stuff to ground. Not everyone has seen all there is to see about this subject nor knows everything there is to know. But some time taken out to dig up some things might just be time well spent. Now, I've done research which is how I know about that 1979 photo submission. But finding the actual newspaper article and bringing it here is the issue. I can't seem to pull that part of it off. Anyone care to take the ball from here? It would be greatly appreciated.  

 

Hiflier, in regards to the case you mention: I actually work in San Bruno (and live next to San Mateo). I can look in the San Bruno public library for that paper. I am traveling this week but will be back next week. I can look then. 

[ohiobill]

Hiflier - I'm a long way from Cali but generally newspaper archives are kept and can be accessed for a small fee, even over the phone. With a lot of the smaller local newspapers now defunct or swallowed up by competitors the best bet is often the local historical societies which are generally very gracious with their time. 

 

ioyza - I'm glad you concede a formula could be constructed. As I said in my first post though, it hardly matters, pics are subjective and at least an infinitesimally small chance has to be anticipated if any weight at all is given to even one encounter report. The salient point, that proponents fail to address, is that any and all cryptids are equally valid as long as you are willing to base your belief in unsubstantiated reports. Folks that argue this point must take into consideration that the same argument works for bigfoot, fairies, werewolves, chupracabras, lake monsters, etc. It's an argument meant to mean something by attaching weight to something that has none, and can't, if we adhere to any kind of scientific methodology. That's not science, that's lunacy and a strawman that's introduced to confuse anyone looking at the subject.

 

Starling's topic is the type of discussion that should be going on in a forum actually looking for an answer. What we need to be looking for is what's missing - where's Starling's missing pics & vids, where's the scat, the hair, the remains, the nest sites, the kills, vegetation feeding sites, the conflicts between different clans or humans?  In short, where's all the evidence we can theorize should be present if sassy exists? We don't need all or even any particular sighting to be true, we just need one that provides actual testable evidence. Until then, let's at least be honest, call them stories and stop pretending they hold any weight. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cotter]

39 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

The quality of cell phone cameras hasn't been very good until recently, but we still have photos of alleged Sasquatch. It's just that it's difficult to distinguish between real and fake.

 

 

^^This needs a bit of expanding as it touches upon cell phone cameras.

 

I feel that there is extreme overconfidence placed in 'everyone has a camera'.  Nowadays, who even carries around a camera?  Hardly anyone, they carry around a phone that has a camera.  Now, I haven't been everywhere, but I've yet to see someone walking around with their phone around their neck with the camera activated.  Most folks, if they see something they want to take a picture of will do the following steps.

 

1) dig camera out of pocket or purse (do folks still use the belt clip-on deals for their phones?)

2) swipe, or otherwise unlock the screen from their phone

3) access/open the camera app

4) point camera in direction of subject

5) Hope it doesn't auto-focus on something closer

6) take pic or vid

 

The ability to take a picture, unless you have continuous rolling video is much slower than it was years ago.  I find myself in discussions about photos.  With the same "everyone's got a camera, why no pics?" argument.

 

I do the same thing every time when I hear this (try it sometime!  It's fun!).  I announce that I will be getting up and leaving the area, please take a picture of me that is clear before I leave.  I get up.  I walk slowly out of the room/area.

 

There have been no photos of me taken.  Does that mean I don't exist?  Do I still have to pay taxes?  :-)

 

Sadly, the time frame of sightings, especially at the range needed, simply is not conducive for good evidence.

 

Now, a good friend of mine had an extended sighting and you guessed it.  No camera at all.  He wasn't out looking for BF, BF found him.  30 yards, over several hours (night into morning).  He watched the BF get up from his 'hiding' spot and simply walk away.

14 minutes ago, ohiobill said:

The salient point, that proponents fail to address, is that any and all cryptids are equally valid as long as you are willing to base your belief in unsubstantiated reports. Folks that argue this point must take into consideration that the same argument works for bigfoot, fairies, werewolves, chupracabras, lake monsters, etc. It's an argument meant to mean something by attaching weight to something that has none, and can't, if we adhere to any kind of scientific methodology. That's not science, that's lunacy and a strawman that's introduced to confuse anyone looking at the subject.

 

 

Well, visual observations/reports are valid if certain criteria are met.  If one is a scientist, observing an already known creature, sightings and reports are extremely valid and will be considered as scientific fact.

 

But I know what you are getting at.  However, does it simply mean that, since something isn't recognized, reports are all hoaxed/faked/mis ID'd?  

 

That's what some skeptics suggest, no?