Dude, What?

[Guest thermalman]

And for that...I re-quote the OP.

 

Dude.

 

WHAT!?!?!

Should I spell it out? They're your words, so you might want to explain how you're not in contradiction? And do you believe RD's BF body is real without DNA supporting evidence, as you stated you don't need for proof? Take your time. The questions will always be here.

Edited February 5, 2014 by thermalman

[Trogluddite]

No evident source of external light maybe, but just a clear night with starlight and or moon light and very large set of fully dilated nocturnal eyes could still reflect IMO and if others are reporting beams of light emitted from bipeds they must also be big fans of X Men movies

This.  If you're in total blackness (a cave or mine where everyone turns off their lamps) there is no external light. You cannot see anything.  I know I'm preaching to the choir for old-timers who did night patrols before every swinging Tom, ****, and Harry had their own NVGs, but most of the time, above the ground, there is some light around.  Once you're eyes get used to the lack of light, it's amazing what you can see.  And the human eye, which is not overly well adapted to darkness, will standout (the whites) or reflect what little light there is.  

[Guest Urkelbot]

That's one paper (and you don't invalidate its claims.  And "why not throw that one out?" is cherrypicking.  there are nine-foot humans on record, right?)

 

Note that you're asking questions, not providing answers.

 

you think a bunch of random lies hoaxes and hallucinations would produce that data?

 

Again, you're using squirrely assumptions to invalidate evidence.  Not done.

 

Oh.  evidence indicates that for sasquatch, body mass is disproportionately greater than for a human of the same height.  We know Bergmann's rule isn't a law.  But anyone who tries to tell me that it's likely - any more than barely conceivable - that a bunch of random lies hoaxes and hallucinations would produce data conforming to Bergmann's rule is, well, I promised a long time ago never to say 'barmy' here.

 

It can be thrown out as bad data based on Q test.  it fails at 99% confident interval so should be considered an outlier and bad data.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_test

Not to mention a 14 foot tall bigfoot is a little too far fetched.  The 8'6 inch human is at the extreme out of a population of billions, anyone this tall is barely functional.  Were dealing with a population of 47 in the study.  I would guess he included the 14' to put the western canada mean for height above washingtons height mean but its hard to say without the raw data. 

 

Your the one who declared this to be an example of good science that is evidence for bigfoot.  I was demonstrating why it should be considered poor science.  One of the  reasons it was published in Manlike Monsters On Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence and not a legitimate scientific journal.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Surely I cannot be the only person to notice a recurring theme, thread after thread after thread in the past few days...

[Guest]

Surely I cannot be the only person to notice a recurring theme, thread after thread after thread in the past few days...

 

 

 

Oh no, I have too.

 

It's hard to discuss hypotheticals when the species itself has not been found, I guess.

[the parkie]

I have now utilised the ignore function for one member. Cuts out a lot of threads that are basically all the same rehashed nonsensical waffle.

[Guest LarryP]

It can be thrown out as bad data based on Q test.  it fails at 99% confident interval so should be considered an outlier and bad data.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_test

 

 

You went with Wikipedia on this?

[Guest DWA]

It can be thrown out as bad data based on Q test.  it fails at 99% confident interval so should be considered an outlier and bad data.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_test

Not to mention a 14 foot tall bigfoot is a little too far fetched.  The 8'6 inch human is at the extreme out of a population of billions, anyone this tall is barely functional.  Were dealing with a population of 47 in the study.  I would guess he included the 14' to put the western canada mean for height above washingtons height mean but its hard to say without the raw data. 

 

Your the one who declared this to be an example of good science that is evidence for bigfoot.  I was demonstrating why it should be considered poor science.  One of the  reasons it was published in Manlike Monsters On Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence and not a legitimate scientific journal.

Well, this is what *I* mean by poor science.

 

1. If the community at large can be shown - and it has been - demonstrably ignorant at best and in denial at worst about a topic, one should care very little for what "legitimate scientific journals" have to say about that topic.
2. If one thinks a "14 foot tall bigfoot is a little far fetched," I invite his explanation of how that can be said of something that remains unconfirmed.  The tallest humans on record were and are "a little far fetched" too.  We know how gigantism works in humans, not in sasquatch.  (Nor were we told much about how that individual was functioning.)
3. Bigfoot reports being what they are - as in, bank on it, most sighters haven't filed one - and the subject not being a significantly studied phenomenon, I don't see how a report can be invalidated based on a factor used in evaluating stuff for which we have considerable data because we accept them.  Hard to calculate that 99% when most of the data, count on it, isn't even available.  (Of course, drop it - I'd do it in a minute - and one still has the rest to deal with.)

And we aren't even through one of those three links yet. 

 

Krantz - to move you ahead to the analysis of trackways - noted that the scientists thinking the tracks weren't authentic simply said that something must have been done to create them.  Even if they speculated what...they had no idea how.  And they were, of course, roundly disputed by people who make their living reading footprint evidence, who do have to routinely confront that very question.

[Guest thermalman]

I have now utilised the ignore function for one member. Cuts out a lot of threads that are basically all the same rehashed nonsensical waffle.

[Guest Urkelbot]

Well, this is what *I* mean by poor science.

 

• If the community at large can be shown - and it has been - demonstrably ignorant at best and in denial at worst about a topic, one should care very little for what "legitimate scientific journals" have to say about that topic.
• If one thinks a "14 foot tall bigfoot is a little far fetched," I invite his explanation of how that can be said of something that remains unconfirmed.  The tallest humans on record were and are "a little far fetched" too.  We know how gigantism works in humans, not in sasquatch.  (Nor were we told much about how that individual was functioning.)
• Bigfoot reports being what they are - as in, bank on it, most sighters haven't filed one - and the subject not being a significantly studied phenomenon, I don't see how a report can be invalidated based on a factor used in evaluating stuff for which we have considerable data because we accept them.  Hard to calculate that 99% when most of the data, count on it, isn't even available.  (Of course, drop it - I'd do it in a minute - and one still has the rest to deal with.)

And we aren't even through one of those three links yet. 

 

Krantz - to move you ahead to the analysis of trackways - noted that the scientists thinking the tracks weren't authentic simply said that something must have been done to create them.  Even if they speculated what...they had no idea how.  And they were, of course, roundly disputed by people who make their living reading footprint evidence, who do have to routinely confront that very question.

Based on the data in the paper, the limit set the author uses to support his theory, you can reject the 14 foot from the set using the q test at a 99% confidence interval. If he included all the data available to him he wouldn't have got the same results which he says in the paper. To vindicate this theory all the current data on Sasquatch reports could compiled into a spreadsheet and repeat the statistical analysis.

The paper is bad in that half the data is eye witness height estimates. It would have been better to stick to the footprints. He should also have used, or investigated himself, studies of other animals of the cascade range and done footprint/weight ratio along latitudes. As it is if you replaced Bigfoot with black bear or coyote it wouldn't get published.

[Guest]

respect The Moneymaker.

[Guest]

This. If you're in total blackness (a cave or mine where everyone turns off their lamps) there is no external light. You cannot see anything. I know I'm preaching to the choir for old-timers who did night patrols before every swinging Tom, ****, and Harry had their own NVGs, but most of the time, above the ground, there is some light around. Once you're eyes get used to the lack of light, it's amazing what you can see. And the human eye, which is not overly well adapted to darkness, will standout (the whites) or reflect what little light there is.

Having spent a lot of time in my youth camping and hiking, I know exactly what you mean. But you would be surprised how little people actually understand this.

• If one thinks a "14 foot tall bigfoot is a little far fetched," I invite his explanation of how that can be said of something that remains unconfirmed. The tallest humans on record were and are "a little far fetched" too. We know how gigantism works in humans, not in sasquatch. (Nor were we told much about how that individual was functioning.)

A fourteen foot tall Bigfoot would have a significantly hard time remaining hidden, don't you think?

But personally I think that they are closer to human sized and estimates of their size must certainly be the ultimate evidence of what my former teacher once said, "The mark one human eyeball isn't accurate for gauging measurements."

Edited February 7, 2014 by Leftfoot

[Guest DWA]

^^^And then there's that last sentence.  My ultimate argument for not tossing the 14 is "well it must have been pretty huge, don't you think?"

 

But as to 'staying hidden', the society's general denial that this is even real is more than sufficient camouflage.  I am really surprised that proponents and skeptics alike seem to have a lot of trouble with what, to me, is a simple concept.  A bigfoot walks down a suburban street at night.  15 people see it.  13 say nothing; the other two file the sighting on two different databases.

 

POOF!  GONE.

Edited February 7, 2014 by DWA

[Guest LarryP]

But personally I think that they are closer to human sized and estimates of their size must certainly be the ultimate evidence of what my former teacher once said, "The mark one human eyeball isn't accurate for gauging measurements."

 

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Guest Urkelbot]

You went with Wikipedia on this?

Its a basic statistical test should i have scanned my statistic text books to better explain how it works? It involves a couple calculations and a reference chart.  If you had bothered to do the Q test yourself you would see that I couldn't have simply used the Wikipedia page since their Q chart only goes to N=10. The population for Western Canada had a sample size of 17.