View Single Post
11-29-2012, 11:08 AM
Registered User
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 5,333
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Originally Posted by avs1dacup View Post
Easy. Human observation, for the most part, can't be trusted. Humans have a very hard time accurately gauging the size of objects from a distance, especially large distances.

There was a show on tv about Nessy I believe, that did an experiment that basically proved this point. The dude built a kite that looked like a pterodactyl that was about 30 feet wide and had people tell him what they thought the wingspan was. When the kite was on the ground or flown at short heights, people were able to accurately guess the size. But when it was flown at 100 feet, people over compensated or under compensated for the distance and were widely wrong.

This is the same reason that someone will never be convicted of murder based solely on eye witness testimony. It's just not accurate.
They've done this a lot on that Monsterquest show. They took a regular log, I believe it was 6-8 feet long and stuck it in the middle of a lake and asked 3 people who saw a monster in the lake to guess how long the log was. A couple said it was 20-30 feet and the other one said it was 14 feet.

They did the same thing to measure the size of a supposed cougar in West Virginia. A guy took video of it by the tree and they analyzed it and showed it was much smaller than a cougar. Probably a bobcat or a really big domestic cat.

Canucks is exactly right. If there was big foot we would have some evidence other than the occasional grainy video of it. People hunt, people hike. You're just not going to miss an 8 foot ape walking upright if it's actually there.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline   Reply With Quote