I say zero. The ODDS that every single bigfoot sighting is a misidentification or a hallucination or whatever? I'd say if you look back to the last 200 years of sightings, it'd be nearly impossible that every single sighting is a mistake.

Look at Tirademan's old newspaper clippings. Same description as today, for the most part. A wild man. A large ape. A hairy man.

If sasquatch is a figment of someone's imagination, then everyones imagination sure seems to be alike....if I were to imagine a monster, it wouldn't look like a big ape.

Now...if I were to play devils advocate here....and for the pure joy of sh*it-stirring I will.....stories of ghosts and goblins, sea monsters, alien beings, elves, little hairy people, little not-so hairy people, gigantic lizards and regular sightings of Elvis the Pelvis have also been going on for centuries...much written in folklore......group sightings of such encounters (such as the whole 14 members of the Magillacutty clan of Shashoostawan, Alaska who all claim to have not only to have seen Elvis, but shared back-up vocals in an impromtu rendition of Tutti-Frutti, whislt they were on there way to a Sarah Palin rally)................but that still don't mean its true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So true! check this out, creepy gnome video... http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article902014.ece

I agree nada. Even if many of the wildman tales in the papers were fabricated like sea monster tales of some kind to sell papers, enough of them would have passed muster and were probably true sightings.

I wonder how many sightings are fake, but the people seeing it think it's real.

Now...you could write a book on that title....just name your subject....

I'd say zero chance, too.



OMG! What the heck is that?!

Sasquatch are real; people are fake!
Dudlow

I think that not all pre-PG-film sightings are "fakes". However, I do think it is probable that most internet era sightings are "fake".

The internet has produced a template for BF reports and everybody is using it.

I agree with Gigantor. Media not only plays a big role, but the internet in particular allows for reporting without vetting. JC

Hi

I can see this happening a lot, Folks that just got duped for a prank or to be scared for someones personal pleasure and things like that,

What i can't just dismiss are the up front and personal encounters from witnesses that have a good animal or woodland background, The hardest to shrug off would be when BF is within let's say 5 ' away and staring right at ya, With out having to post names there are a few encounters from some of our well known and respected members that i absolutely have 100% belief in . . . .

I say Zero Chance

Peace
Tim

No chance whatsoever. Zero, zip, nada.

For BF to NOT exist every single, solitary sighting must be wrong. Every Native American, Park Ranger, experienced hunter, seasoned hiker, explorer and backpacker over the past several centuries was mistaken.

It takes far more to believe that then it does to believe in BF.

All bigfoot sightnings are tales told. The recounting of sightings are only as real as the listener wants them to be. Now if we include the hard evidence at hand such as casts, film, video and photos then we're batting 1000. IMHO All of that is fake.

Gig

Good point on the 'net. Although I do not think everbody on the 'net is lying....

What are the odds that all BF sightings are fake?, All Sasquatch sightings a hoax?

Absolutely No Way!
Along with the kooks who claim to interact with them by having a BF knock on their trailer door for food, you have qualified professionals who claim to have seen these things. We can either conclude that some of these folks are just hell bent on career suicide or we can accept that they saw what they claim to have seen. I would not be surprised if 50% or more of these sightings are never reported because of the fear of being ridiculed. Quiet frankly, I couldn't and wouldn't put my name on a report of a sighting without dragging the body in behind me. There's just too much to lose.

Zero..sure there are plenty of kooks,plenty of misidentifications and outright hoaxers,but the THOUSANDS of credible sightings just cannot be ignored or faked. Squatch is real. I know for a fact that my sighting wasnt fake or some other animal. I have a feeling that we will be vindicated soon...real soon. Just a feeling. Peace people.

Right on! A template...good description.

i dont think all sasquatch encounters are hoaxs some are misindentifcations but some are hoaxs etc but most sasquatch encounters could be real or authentic. thanks bill . interesting new thread

Hi all,

Slim and none and Slim done left town.


I wonder how many are real, but the witness assumes it's fake.

Regards,
Unixguy

2nd things first:


Tirademans clippings are a great read. Many of them describe a "wild-man" - complete with remnant clothing. I would tend to guess a number of these subjects (clothing or not) were about men who were by choice or mental illness outcasts and not a different species. These "real" cases could also be the basis of many future stories that quickly turn into "monster" or bigfoot type legends.



vs.



So its the same old pro/con argument in a nutshell. There are so many sightings they must exist, but if they exist, they must leave evidence.

Statistically, the only solution that comes close to answering both sides is that the overwhelming majority of sightings are "fake" and only an extremely small number of sightings are of actual BF. Small number of sightings means small population and small population accounts for lack of finding stronger evidence. Of course, this then leads to the viable reproductive population question....

OR like some seem to believe, BF is actually supernatural and all our math and science don't apply!

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Some people on this forum have reported to have had an encounter. Are you willing to go on the record and say that each one did not see a bigfoot. That each one on this forum suffered from hallucination, hoax, misidentification or some other malady?




Edited for spelling.

Well, unless you're the one seeing it, you're being told about it, so it's a tale told, unless you're the witness.

He used ALL and didn't qualify it did he?

Hmm leme ask you all a question. Have you ever got on googlemap or anything similar and just looked around, just looking at the landscape? How much of America is still covered in uninhabited(No structures on it) land and wilderness? Almost all of it, easily 70%. Now for a impossible question, how much of this dense and remote forest area has had human feet on it say, in the past 100 years? Now how much of it has had human feet on it in the past 100 years during nightime? This includes caves and such...

How many people are willing to go out miles into the mountains and imense forests of America, where their is no cellphone signal or anything. Armed or not. Where the poisonous snakes and spiders rest under the leaves and grass unseen and the freakin bears and cougars just roam around all day relaxing themselves for the night to come without flipping out and shooting one of them or running or any of the other stupid DUH mistakes that we make when confronted with such intimidating, infamous, and actually pretty laid back yet cautious and wired creatures FOR FREE out of their own pockets ALONE? How many of these people are going to do this as must be done for Sasquatch research AT NIGHT with their firearms holstered the entire time it is possible(It seems that the Squatches are warry of any unknown items in hand and know what a gun is)? And how many of these people are going to go down into caves that we don't even know or care that exist during daytime?

Wrestling Crocs in Austrailia is one thing...but that is just....shiiiiitttttt!!!

Reportage of anything such as Bigfoot without hard physical proof is a reportage and nothing more. They may be true or they may not be. A listener's belief or disbelief does not make the story true or false. I suppose the Bigfoot issue has with some, myself included, reached the point where it'll be said alright enough already. We don't need any more Bigfoot stories/sightings there's 200+ years worth. We need a body on a slab in the lab. If there isn't one forthcomming then why bother to entertain us with stories and sightings. Stories and sightings do nothing abosolutely nothing to bring a specimen in. Can anybody furnish an incident where a bigfoot story was listened to and followed up on and anything convincing came out of it? Decent honest people can see things that they misidentify and report as something else. Decent honest people can also make up stories and lie too. Yes I said lie! And why do decent honest people sometimes make up stories? Because its fun! Telling a whopper is a time honored human tradition. So until there's a body there are IMHO only whoppers being told. Entertaining, interesting, harmless and benificial because it causes the brain to engage in some expansive thinking.

Impossible. Let us not forget, at some point on this earth there have been bipedal hairy things walking around. So, all sightings? No.... Maybe a lot of modern sightings? Yes, definitely.

It was my good fortune in the early 1980's to be part of a research project that put me into the deepest wilderness of NY State. It was not uncommon in the warmer months for me to spend a week at a time in the wilderness day and night collecting samples etc. I am from my personal experience 100% convinced that Bigfoot does not inhabit the wilderness/watershed regions of NY State. While I did encounter every manner of animal from bear to bee to person I saw and heard nothing that would even imply Bigfoot was out there. So your statement that folks don't go out into the deep forest/wilderness is not valid.

But he never said that Folks don't go deep into the Forest, he asked how many did & the answer is not a lot & looks even smaller if you work out the %..But you are one of those people Crow & just because you didn't see any sign of BF in the warmer months of the early 80's when you were covering only a tiny, tiny % of NY State Forest doesn't mean it's not there when you work out the % of what area you travelled & the time you were in it & certainly doesn't make XC's point invalid ..

Were you actively looking for signs of BF & aware of what alleged signs to look for back in the early 80's Crow ??

I think the key 'paradigm shift', or alternate way of thinking, if you prefer, is that misidentification or hallucination is not a malady, but is just part of the reality of human nature. That's the way it is now, and has been for thousands of years. Humans are not a fact recording device for sure.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that you believe in optical illusions and pareidolia!

Correct, we really don't so why do they continue to be reported?




I don't think anyone disagrees but remember that that is a scientific requirement not a personal one. I'm sure some of the folks here that have had close encounters don't need a body on a slab to confirm their personal experiences. Do you think they are just lying? For what gain? Just to tell a whopper?




Sure they can. The problem is the extreme similarities in most of the apparently genuine reported BF sightings from people of all walks of life.




Which makes them neither decent or honest. The "fluff" can usually be weeded out during a thorough interview by a competent professional. Hell, just read some of the interrogations on this site.




Hey, you may be right. I'm sure this explains the many reports from folks with TS Security clearances and the Career Oriented Public safety personnel who reluctantly feel compelled to speak up. Never mind the fact that it is, if not officially then at least unofficially, Career suicide.

Here is my breakdown of Bigfoot sightings:

15% Hallucinations, Group motivation, or sleep paralysis, followed by rationalization that it was a real beast
20% Misidentifications of stumps, bears, people, followed by rationalization that it was a real beast
65% BS, embellishment for attention or a good laugh, sell a book, etc...
0% An Unclassified Giant Hairy Bipedal, primate wandering the woods of N. America.

These figures can be adjusted if I left out anything, or any reliable evidence comes forward to support option 4.

Hallucinations don't leave footprints, snap off and/or twist trees at 8ft +, and I don't recall seeing them on film either




I think this figure is probably a little low but then again there sure are an awful lot of people who are "misidentifying" to an exacting degree.




I'm perfectly comfortable with this assessment




Maybe, Maybe not. There's certainly more than enough data to continue the search.



edited for spelling, of course.

It really depends on how you define the "odds' relative to the question.

Fake being defined as "non" BF ( covers the globe from hoaxing to legitimate misidentification)

So now, you have a 50-50 odds ( hinged on whether BF "is" or "is not" ) because if he "is" then its back to the culling of legitimate reports for a different set of odds ( how many BF sightings are live versus memorex at that point- completely different question)- if BF "is not" them the default answer is 100% "fake" because there is no BF.

So, if you gauge the odds in relation to the POSSIBILITY of BF versus the PROBABILITY of BF.

Possibility- 90+ % fake ( that would change if there were "known" BF traits to gauge them all against because right now there are no "baselines" to cull sightings from)

probability- solid 99.99% fake ( and if it were not for the possibility that it could exist- that would be 100%)

Would you agree that for certain people the odds would be zero since, some people (that I trust to be telling the truth,) have seen one?

A good analysis would have to involve reviewing reports where a follow up interview was conducted by qualified personnel and included additional circumstantial evidence (trace, audio, video, additional witness interviews, etc..) per each selected incident.
If a collection of these incidents were reviewed, I expect the probability percentage would be significantly higher. JMO

masterbarber - Thanks for your insight. I agree with you and your rebuttals.

One thing to add to the mix is the % of people who simply do not report it to anyone. Of the 6 people I have spoke with, 4 are locals no one here has ever heard of, or heard their story. Even those reports/sightings were just stumbled upon in regular conversation where I "jokingly" throw in the term Sasquatch for one reason or another. I think someone (mb?) said 50%? I'd say about 10-25% of sightings are reported, of course just my opinion. Many reasons why. One person I spoke with does not even have a computer or an email address.

I was actively engaged in monitoring the health of lakes, streams, and the health of the environment surrounding them. This included, among other things, and active observation of the wildlife that are dependent on them. I did on numerous occasions observe animals that I was not directly looking for at the time. Equally as important were the uncounted thousands of spore and foot prints. While the deep woods can do a remarkable job at hiding something it's a myth that it can hide everything 100% of the time. For instance I used to keep my eyes open for feathers dropped by birds of prey. At the time there was one lone Osprey nest near a certain lake I was surveying. Osprey were still rare back then and just starting to make a comeback BTW. However I saw the nesting pair on numerous occasions hunting the lake and catching fish to feed the nestlings. I couldn't get within 200 yards of the nest as the parent birds would become very excited and distressed so I kept my distance. I did hope to acquire a feather but couldn't because of the distress it caused the birds. It wasn't until I was leaving the area for good that my luck changed. As I was traversing a trail through the thick woods about 200 yards from the nest when I spied of all things an Osprey feather in the middle of the trail. Somehow it had managed to make its way down through the canopy and come to rest on the trail. It was pure luck, what were the chances? But I had proof that Ospreys were at that lake. I still have the feather BTW.

I do believe that most are mistaken identities. Eyes playing tricks or simply mistaken a known animal for something unexplained. Ever listen to a fish story, or listen to someone judge how far something is? Most sightings are so brief and sudden that the sighting could be just about anything.

That sounds fantastic Crow & i'm madly jealous, it sounds superb what you were doing & i'd personally love to be able to do something like that..When i was young i was very interested in Birds of Prey & the only Pairs we had were in the Highlands of Scotland, which is a fair few hundred miles form where i'm from, London & i never had the opportunity to view them..

So anyway, the anwer to my question is " NO " then Crow ??

The point i'm trying to make, & that not questioning your opinion at all, is that just because you didn't actively see anything such as BF Sign, especially as you wasn't really looking for actual BF Evidence, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not there..

Ok you saw other Track Sign from Animals that you were not really looking for granted, but i'm sure you didn't see some Track Sign from Animals that you " knew " were there also..

Scotland does indeed have its share of great birds. Getting back to the issue of finding evidence of the passage of animals I realized after a few months that I had become keenly aware of the surroundings and had acquired an excellent eye for the details of those surroundings. As often as not I found things I was not looking for or even interested in like spent shotgun shells, the odd shoe and even a Model T Ford slumbering in the forest since the 1940's perhaps slowly returning itself to the ecosystem. The point I'm driving at here is that if you are a watcheful person (and I was being paid to be watchful which was all the better) there isn't much that's going to escape notice. Its amazing how our senses sharpen after being in the quiet of nature away from the noise and distraction of civilization. It actually takes about 72 hours for us to make the transition from civilization mode of awarness into wilderness awarness. This is why its almost usless to leave the city on Friday night head to the mountains and hope to find Bigfooton Saturday or Sunday. The only way I would attempt serious Bigfoot searching is to get to a highly active area get into the woods and not even bother looking for the first 3 days. Then on day 4 when my eyes and ears have fully aclimated begin looking and would keep at it for at least a full 7- 10 days. Unfortunately very few researchers have that luxury.

Nicely put Crow...........I reckon its almost a waste of time going on weekend safari for bigfoot, for the exact reasons you mentioned........Having spent alot of time in the bush here in Oz, it takes me about a week before I can hear a mouse fart from 100yards.......and easily a month before I can hear the other mice giggle..............

What about all those motion detector cameras that have been set up in areas where there have been purported BF sightings or sounds yet the pics either show nothing or just a deer, beer, etc.

These cameras have often been set up for days at a time so WHY don't they catch a Bigfoot walking around its own habitat??

I want to believe it but it just seems like we'd have some concrete evidence by now unless it's in a REALLY remote area like the Canadian wilderness but WHERE is the fruit, bamboo, or other vegetation for a primate BF that is mostly vegetarian?

Remember Giganto was a vegetarian that fed mostly on bamboo. Bamboo doesn't grow in the wild in N.America does it?

I would say that your comparisons are way off. The sightings of BF over the years are not reported in fairy tale style. As Grizzly mentioned they are pretty uniformed, that's the whole point. And unless you're on the payroll for MSNBC please layoff the political rhetoric and Palin-smashing, especially if you're an Australian.


I wonder how many sightings are real, and the people seeing them think they are fake? I wonder how many sightings a real, and they don't get reported in the first place?

So, let me get this straight. If you report something the old fashioned way such as telephone, telegram, Postman Letter, Pony Express, telegraph etc. it has a possibility of being valid. If is is reported by the "new" and crazy internet, it must be false?

You would have something there if the vast majority of the clippings did not actually describe what we know of today by the term of a Sasquatch or Bigfoot. They were covered with hair, 7, 8 or 9 feet tall, threw rocks, smelled ran fast, yelled and did all of the same things that BF are reported to do today. The only reason that the term "Wild Man" was used is just due to the simple fact that the terms we use today had not been coined as of yet.

Or........there could be yet ANOTHER explanation. I will reveal it now. It could be that.....wait for it..........the majority or a great deal of the sightings are..........NOT fake!?! OMG what are we going to do?!

the selling of a book is usually a red flag on any subject. self-help gurus, etc. But when people have nothing but ridicule and the loss of jobs to look forward to, then that makes you wonder. As far as the potential for all sightings being hoaxes? I don't know, you don't know, "they" don't know. The only thing we can say with confidence is that in terms of odds neither "every" sighting being real or fake is likely. Although the fake column will be way, way larger, of course.

Fake and pranks seem to make up a good percentage of cases I will acknowledge, however, there are reports from early time periods when internet
reporting did not make descriptions so easy to come by ...... that have a lot of heuristic value.

Excellent points! It will be argued (not by me) that the Giganto line that made it to North America and survives as Bigfoot evolved/adapted to a diet other than bamboo. As for bamboo growing in North America a good friend has a really nice stand of it growing on his property. WHether its wild or planted is unknown.

If there is ANY type of wild bamboo growing in N.America then the chances for Bigfoot automatically go up. REALLY huge creatures live on bamboo such as the 450 lb.+ mountain gorilla and elephants love bamboo too.

You need some type of fibrous bulky food like bamboo that a BF could eat a lot of along with other plants, fruits, and the occasional insects and/or small game to realistically support a BF in N.America.