Where Have All The Giants Gone?

[Celtic Raider]

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.

 

I think you guys are getting too intricate here...........

 

What Redbone showed was a nice little graph with some depiction of height ranges for reported animals. Basically, as we all know the numbers that are spewed out of any kind of graph or calculation are only ever as good as the numbers that were put into the formula and since a lot of the input were estimates and in some cases would have been wild guesses, then to be talking about Bimodal and Gaussian curves is reading something into this that cannot possibly be inferred. All you can really take from it IMHO is that most reports show a nice, compact range of sizes from x to y, and that the number of 'giant' reports are overstated.

 

As a side, after showing her a photo my partner estimated that Robert Wadlow was 12 foot tall.......... data out is only as reliable as data in 

[Guest DWA]

It does get rather annoying, this continued inability of the 'skeptical' to understand evidence and how it is used.  

 

When one is talking eyewitness reports, the appearance of anything approaching a normal curve should be, to anyone of scientific bent, a significant eyebrow-propper.  You wouldn't be able to give me a good eyeball number of any kind for practically any animal you ever saw, unless you looked it up in a guidebook first.  When those eyeball numbers are telling you how big each sex and age class of an animal is, you should be paying closer attention than most do.  Starting to parse it as if the eyewitness measured the animal with calipers is just not understanding how this works.

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.

This is a prime example of Using Stuff I Learned Having Canon Shoved Down My Throat To Confuse The Issue.  Spade, meet spade.

Q test.  Well I never.  Sheesh, Redbone, don't you know about what happens to the messenger around here...?

[gigantor]

I think the mistake a lot of people here are making is the assumption that Redbone is advocating evidence for a particular view point.

 

All he is doing is plotting the available data and I thank him for his hard work compiling it, so should you. The data is what it is, he's simply presenting it. That's how science works. Conclusions can then be argued based on the data, but character assassination attempts at the guy who simply presents the data are ignorant and unscientific.

 

So if you disagree with the data, argue against it, lay out your objections; don't be an ignoramus and try to shoot the messenger... it's sad I even have to post this. It's science 101.

Edited December 5, 2015 by gigantor

[Guest]

And his data basically confirms what other sightings have stated, about the same height, females 7 foot+, males 8 foot+. those are the averages. Not alot of 10 footers, although they are out there.

[Redbone]

It's my own fault for daring to suggest that the one single report of a 16 foot Bigfoot (which in my opinion is an exaggeration or out-right lie) and two 12 footers were not significant to the remaining plethora of eyewitness reports, without following strict statistical procedures.

 

How dare I also use actual eyewitness report data to counter the OP's unfounded claims of recent general diminution of Bigfoot to a more believable size?

 

I will go out on a limb to once again suggest that this thread was started to show how silly and gullible we proponents must be to believe all of those campfire stories of GIANTS, which were simply put forth to perpetuate the myth that is Bigfoot. The problem is that no data was presented that supports that argument. Only a handful of those GIANT reports were found or noted. That GIANT 15 foot plywood cutout turned out to be 'only' 12 feet tall. I am left wondering of the original description of a 15 foot piece of plywood was an exaggeration or an outright lie meant to perpetuate the myth that all Bigfoot proponents are gullible.

 

Side note: The graph I made also noted a pair of '2 foot' reports. One of those was a duplicate and errant SSR entry that has now been corrected. Here is the other: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=22973

 

I tired of waiting for the 'statistical experts' to find my other mistakes. It saddens me to say there was a typo in my spreadsheet that caused the first graph that I placed here to be incorrect. I left a mistake out there to be found, but alas nobody noticed

 

I had left out 10x reports of 6 footers from this decade. I was 60 feet short of the sum total I used to calculate average. Here is the corrected graph showing even less diminution of Bigfoot's height than what I first thought.

 

[Guest DWA]

Giants happen in a number of species...like ours.  I don't doubt that giants are out there.  But the averages are consistent; and it is more, and not less, impressive that these averages are coming from people giving eyeball estimates that no one could trust as hard data.  That's what volume and consistency can do for you.

[Twist]

Giants happen in a number of species...like ours.  I don't doubt that giants are out there.  But the averages are consistent; and it is more, and not less, impressive that these averages are coming from people giving eyeball estimates that no one could trust as hard data.  That's what volume and consistency can do for you.

 

Then why does consistency and the volume not product more hard verifiable evidence?  I'd say its just as easy to claim that the likes of shows like Finding Bigfoot and the various websites such as BFRO put into peoples mind the "ideal" bigfoot thus false reports follow the patterns laid out by those sources.   

[Guest DWA]

That means "proof," and we all know science doesn't run on proof.  It runs on following evidence, which already says, confirm this thing because the pattern of evidence says it is real.

Anyone who thinks this is being planted in people's minds either is not reading, or not thinking about what they've read.  Sorry.  Gotta call a spade a spade sometimes.

[Twist]

That means "proof," and we all know science doesn't run on proof.  It runs on following evidence, which already says, confirm this thing because the pattern of evidence says it is real.

Anyone who thinks this is being planted in people's minds either is not reading, or not thinking about what they've read.  Sorry.  Gotta call a spade a spade sometimes.

 

From all your posts that I've read I'm not convinced at all you understand how science works.   If I applied science in your  manner, if I found a website that had 10k reports of dragons they would then exist.  Anyone that contradicted it I could just repeat your mantra, science isn't looking or applying any effort.

[Guest DWA]

I reiterate my previous post.  You're just really not thinking about this much.  It's about the least informative, let alone by far the least fun, way to approach this topic.  

I've gone on and on about how to think about this; no one has offered a serious alternative.  That is mainly because, in science, there isn't a serious alternative to doing science, which is not a blanket rejection of everything unproven (with which rejection, science would effectively end), but a process of discovery in which proof is almost a by-product.

Edited December 7, 2015 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

From all your posts that I've read I'm not convinced at all you understand how science works.   If I applied science in your  manner, if I found a website that had 10k reports of dragons they would then exist.  Anyone that contradicted it I could just repeat your mantra, science isn't looking or applying any effort.

You shouldn't be so quick to short-sight that post because it's a good one. I makes me think that you're in fact the one not thinking here. The issue is really one in which who cares what science thinks about this subject. Of course that would make about 8,000 of your posts rather moot so perhaps that's not the way to put it. Maybe your efforts on the soapbox might be better focused if you went after the group that TELLS science to ignore Sasquatch.

One thing has always been true when it comes to power and that is the practice of ignoring anything that will dry up the flow of money whether it be environmental pollution, genocide, or any number of other circumstances that would hinder the steady flow of wealth.. If one controls a body of investigators and something comes along that could inflict a situation that chokes off the money train then pressuring the investigators to look the other way until the money choke hold is dealt with seems perfectly logical.

Yeah. That's what you should be harping on. Bashing science is only bashing a symptom. It's not addressing the malady. IMHO beating up on scientists and members who "are really not thinking about this much" only covers up the fact that you yourself are not. It isn't the scientists- it's the thumb that's pressing down on them. Haven't you ever wondered why in all of my threads I never dis science? It's because as far as Sasquatch goes it's all under control which effectively relegates science to the level of small potatoes.

There, that's the serious alternative you were looking for. Hook the big fish in the pond and the little fish will be free..... to look for bigfoot.

Edited December 8, 2015 by hiflier

[Twist]

Thank you Hifler.  I'm actually a proponent of bigfoot but NOT in the sense that is portrayed on the BFRO.  I do not believe for a second they are as widespread and common as would be believed based off that site. I believe they exist but in very small numbers/population in remote areas. When it comes to scientific research, follow the dollar.  What makes money sells tickets.  Bigfoot may sell tickets for discovery, but not on an academic level therefore they do not fund for it. 

[hiflier]

Hello TWIST,

Yep. You pretty much nailed it. Of course one sees things quite differently when following the money. Also one tends to think differently too as a result. For instance keeping Sasquatch away from Humans while at the same time denying their existence might be one avenue of thought. A program designed to drive them deeper into remote areas then might not seem to be too off base.

Filing anonymous reports to the BFRO that get little more than a follow up phone call as a vetting process would have the potential of keeping sighting report figures high. But when people go and look for them because of "all the encounters" and find nothing then folks return home disillusioned and give up the search. In a way it traps people in between where no one can move forward or back on solving the mystery. It's a psi-ops scenario played out on UFO Forums in exactly the same way but with hundreds of times more sighting reports that Sasquatch.

Odd that both have the same pattern ,eh?

[xspider1]

^ In contrast to the above, I happen to like this:

 

 That is mainly because, in science, there isn't a serious alternative to doing science, which is not a blanket rejection of everything unproven (with which rejection, science would effectively end), but a process of discovery in which proof is almost a by-product.

 

I think that the discovery process is indeed most important.  'Proof' is always, at least for awhile, only in the eyes of the beholders.

 

 

It's a psi-ops scenario played out on UFO Forums in exactly the same way but with hundreds of times more sighting reports that Sasquatch.

Odd that both have the same pattern ,eh?

 

 

My understanding of the definition of the term psi-ops is: 'propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors'.  Are you suggesting that a majority of Bigfoot reports fall into that category?

 

[Guest DWA]

Filing anonymous reports to the BFRO that get little more than a follow up phone call as a vetting process would have the potential of keeping sighting report figures high. But when people go and look for them because of "all the encounters" and find nothing then folks return home disillusioned and give up the search. In a way it traps people in between where no one can move forward or back on solving the mystery. It's a psi-ops scenario played out on UFO Forums in exactly the same way but with hundreds of times more sighting reports that Sasquatch.

Odd that both have the same pattern ,eh?

But they don't.  What is the consistent description of a UFO?  Of its pilots?  We don't have one.  By contrast, a detailed entry could be made (and has been, more than once) for the sasquatch that could sit beside anything in any NA mammal guide.

Edited December 8, 2015 by DWA