Redbone Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) I didn't do statistical analysis. I made a chart. If you are so concerned about the Q test, feel free to do it yourself...dude Let us know what you come up with. Edited November 22, 2015 by Redbone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Depending on how you quantise the heights, human men and women can seem to form single curve too. Discussion http://www.johndcook.com/blog/mixture_distribution/ http://www.jstor.org/stable/3087302?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents So unless you get a hugely clear bimodal separation people are gonna know you can fudge factor it either way, and trust eyeball anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Bimoodal or flat top but combining males and females in human height will not produce a Gaussian curve. If Bigfoot is real and a primate of earthly origins when all the Bigfoot height and size data is combined a non Gaussian curve should be expected. I'm not sure redbone really understands what he's doing at this point. It looks like he did a decent job compiling some data and creating a histogram. Doing those things are statistical analysis and so is removing data points and determing what is significant and what isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Well as we know, the footprints do not exhibit a great degree of dimorphism... http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm Greater degrees of dimorphism in primates suggest polygamy, lesser degrees monogamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure redbone really understands what he's doing at this point. prove it...repeat the work and point out the mistakes By the way I graphed all the data, and removed none. I thought I explained that to you already... Edited November 22, 2015 by Redbone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Yup, put up or shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) I'm sorry for the long length and if this post drifts off topic but I felt it would be fair to respond. It appears in your height histogram we are dealing with a single bell curve. This goes somewhat against what is seen in anthropoid primates which almost always display sexual dimorphism. Here is a human height histogram http://www.usablestats.com/images/men_women_height_histogram.jpg So you would expect a curve that looks something like this?(This graph represents contrived data, for demonstration purposes, unrelated to any sightings database anywhere. It was only assembled to demonstrate a set of data that may be indicative of dimorphism among a sampling of some tall unknown animals. This data is in Inches.) I would try to determine if that blip at 185 inches is statistically significant, except for the fact that I really don't care. If it's important to somebody they can figure it out for themselves. Bimoodal or flat top but combining males and females in human height will not produce a Gaussian curve. If Bigfoot is real and a primate of earthly origins when all the Bigfoot height and size data is combined a non Gaussian curve should be expected. This may be found to be true when science has collected enough specimens to measure height accurately, within an inch of actual height. Unfortunately our SSR database is much less specific than that. Few reports give a height that is measured in inches. I decided to try to verify "general diminutization of the reported sizes" in an effort to provide supporting data. I used the BFF SSR sightings database. It is the best database available to me that would allow this type of specific search.While average height of reports cannot be 'exactly' determined using our present search tool, I was able to search by height as such...10 feet or more, 11 feet or more, etc... Using this search function I came up with how many reports of each size range were reported by decade. The end overall result would be slightly lower than actual because I could not take into account 6 1/2 feet reports vs 6 feet, for example, but this difference should be fairly consistent across the range. The data we are entering all comes from BFRO and other online report sources.A more accurate representation could possibly be produced by including 1/2 or 1/4 foot increments in the search. As it stands now it would be remarkably tedious to spit out that kind of detail and I'm not sure who it would be useful to. It sort of appears that the double bell curve changes to a Gaussian curve when the Same Data is presented in feet (rounded down) instead of inches. I guess what I have shown COULD be representative of a unknown primate population that shows traits of dimorphism after all! Does it? I have no way of knowing with our presently available data. Coincidentally, all of the height data I used for SSR database graphs in this thread are in feet, rounded down, because that is the search functionality that was available to me at the time. I had to go with what was available. (This graph represents contrived data, for demonstration purposes, unrelated to any sightings database anywhere. It is the same data as used in the graph above, but shown in feet, rounded down, instead of inches) When I am in the woods I carry a tape measure. Eventually, when I get a good sighting I will ask Sasquatch to hold still while I measure. We'll get this dialed in! I still eagerly await the review of my work in this thread by others so that I can learn from my mistakes and possibly become a better person. Edited November 22, 2015 by Redbone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 I'm not sure redbone really understands what he's doing at this point. prove it...repeat the work and point out the mistakes By the way I graphed all the data, and removed none. I thought I explained that to you already... It's touching, the way bigfoot skeptics think they can wish something into existence just by saying it. Only works for Dorothy, and only in one movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Oh, brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Dorothy??? I thought it was Patty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 Not sure if this is relevant or not, but it may be. My best friend used to be a bulldozer operator for his Dad's construction business. His Dad placed a bid with a group of archaeologist to help in excavating a site near Saltville Va. He won the bid and my friend ran the bulldozer for the archaeologist. He said the archaeologist were very specific about how far to scrape the surface down and whatnot. They showed him impressions and outlines of some of the things he was uncovering. Then he said they found a human skeleton. When they did, they immediately cordoned off the area and sent him home for the day. When he returned to work, no skeleton, no word on skeleton, no news story on the find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Hello All, Wasn't going to bother with this thread at all but saw it's been running 12 days so decided to read through it. Slow day at the office guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 IMO, the responses to the OP appear to illustrate cyber masturbation is in full effect. Final Solution....everyone put the OP author on their ignore list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 We have proof of a 10 ft tall ape that lived up to 100,000 years ago.... So whats the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Every time I see the thread title the musician comes out in me and i think of this song [replace flowers with giants] heehee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts