Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 hard to explain away , 20" , 22", 24", 26" legitimate tack ways and impressions with toes and matching long stride and width proportions as belongs to only a 7' creature.. 14 is difficult to comprehend just as 12' is but there are alot of stuff in the 10' range so if 10 is fairl common what makes for a BIG one ? 4x4 mode makes them low enough to pass through tall grass fields, crops of corn or brush woods and look like something else from a distance .. something to consider
Guest LarryP Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 "The mark one human eyeball isn't accurate for gauging measurements.", part.
Guest Posted February 7, 2014 Posted February 7, 2014 "The mark one human eyeball isn't accurate for gauging measurements.", part. Should be self-apparent that what he was talking about was the unaided eye being unsuitable for making exact measurements. He just had a colorful way of saying it.
MIB Posted February 8, 2014 Moderator Posted February 8, 2014 The mark one human eyeball can be trained to do surprisingly well. It just takes effort. You learn how to cheat by finding things in the environment of known size to use as a gauge for the unknown size thing. At some point, though, it becomes instinct. Quarterbacks do it throwing footballs, outfielders do it throwing baseballs, hunters do it judging range, and car drivers do it judging distance and time to turn. As often is the case, the scoffer loses track of the bigger picture context and says nobody can do it just because the scoffer themselves can't yet if they'd think about it, they approximate it themselves many times a day. MIB
Guest Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 As often is the case, the scoffer loses track of the bigger picture context and says nobody can do it just because the scoffer themselves can't yet if they'd think about it, they approximate it themselves many times a day. I'm not saying that people can't do it, I'm saying it's not the most accurate tool to do it. There's a difference.
MIB Posted February 8, 2014 Moderator Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Ok, with that clarification / qualification, I won't argue. MIB Edited February 8, 2014 by MIB
Guest Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 I'm glad we could come to an agreement (for a change). All kidding aside, even putting aside the issue of accuracy of the human eye there's the issue of the fallacy of the human memory, and not to mention the tendency to exaggerate.
Trogluddite Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 "The mark one human eyeball isn't accurate for gauging measurements.", part. I understood it perfectly, but then I know the secret handshake. The mark one human eyeball can be trained to do surprisingly well. It just takes effort. You learn how to cheat by finding things in the environment of known size to use as a gauge for the unknown size thing. At some point, though, it becomes instinct. Quarterbacks do it throwing footballs, outfielders do it throwing baseballs, hunters do it judging range, and car drivers do it judging distance and time to turn. As often is the case, the scoffer loses track of the bigger picture context and says nobody can do it just because the scoffer themselves can't yet if they'd think about it, they approximate it themselves many times a day. MIB "can be trained" but precious few are - even the simple trick of using your own (or someone you know) height/weight to estimate height/weight of an individual who you have to describe.
Guest spurfoot Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 To OHZoologist, Your observation of dark pupils within a glowing iris (or white) is important. It solves part of the mystery of eyeglow. Evidently the glow originates on the outside of the iris (or the white) where it would not be directed backward to interfere with the retina. Whether or not the glow is within the cornea is unimportant. In Bigfootforums I (the old one), I (under a different user name) put forth a theory that the glowing substance might be a type of porphyrin. There are many types. Hypothetically, the porphyrin dye might be excited by ATP. I have substantial reason for believing a porphyrin might be involved. In that same series of posts I also tried to define terminology for this phenomenon. Namely eyeshine is retinal reflection of an external light source, and, eyeglow is self luminosity however generated. You are using that terminology distinction and I encourage others to also do so.
Guest LarryP Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 Quarterbacks do it throwing footballs, outfielders do it throwing baseballs, hunters do it judging range, and car drivers do it judging distance and time to turn. Exactly. As someone who played QB, played center field, and is a hunter, that statement makes absolutely no sense at all. Unless you're afflicted with a complete lack of depth perception, the human eye is incredibly accurate. Of course in the case of a QB and center fielder, it also helps if you have a good arm, to go along with a good eye. Obviously Leftfoot's "teacher" had neither. We used to call those Waterboys.
Guest LarryP Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 In Bigfootforums I (the old one), I (under a different user name) put forth a theory that the glowing substance might be a type of porphyrin. There are many types. Hypothetically, the porphyrin dye might be excited by ATP. ATP = Adenosine Triphosphate ?
Guest Cervelo Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Exactly. As someone who played QB, played center field, and is a hunter, that statement makes absolutely no sense at all. Unless you're afflicted with a complete lack of depth perception, the human eye is incredibly accurate. Of course in the case of a QB and center fielder, it also helps if you have a good arm, to go along with a good eye. Obviously Leftfoot's "teacher" had neither. We used to call those Waterboys. Incredibly accurate?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMMFIpcwRcg&sns=em http://www.cycleback.com/eyephysiology.html Edited February 8, 2014 by Cervelo
Guest LarryP Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 Yes. Incredibly accurate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRKXyfQgOQA
Guest Posted February 8, 2014 Posted February 8, 2014 Unless you're afflicted with a complete lack of depth perception, the human eye is incredibly accurate. I have good depth perception but since I'm training into a field that requires precision, I'd rather rely on my scale rather than my eyes alone. On that note, I used to think I could gauge distances and sizes accurately until I started using measuring tools on a regular basis. I had no idea just how far off I was. Larry Said: Of course in the case of a QB and center fielder, it also helps if you have a good arm, to go along with a good eye. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the majority of the population has never been a quarterback nor a center fielder. And even if they were? I doubt they spend much time in game trying to figure out how far away their target is and simply act. Physical activities are far simpler when you don't think too deeply about it. Larry Said: Obviously Leftfoot's "teacher" had neither. And obviously you are wrong.
Recommended Posts