Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



How many hoaxers would it take to account for footprint evidence recovered?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

How many hoaxers would it take to account for footprint evidence recovered?

Post  ***** on Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:31 pm

“A strong piece of evidence which suggests that the footprints are not due to a hoax or hoaxers is from Dr. Henner Farenbach. He has studied a database of 550 track cast length measurements and has made some interesting observations. The Gaussian distribution of the 550 footprint lengths gives a curve that is very similar to the curve given by living populations of known animals with out much sexual dimorphism in footprint lengths. The standard error is very low, so additions to the database will not affect the result very much. It is not very likely that coordinated groups of hoaxers conspiring together for 38 years, the time span covered by the database of track measurements, could provide such a life like distribution in footprint lengths. Groups of hoaxers who did not conspire together would almost certainly result in a non Gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths.”

It's fallacious to state that proponents for BF's existence are underestimating the nature and number of hoaxers, and then offer no reasonable estimate or counterargument for the quality of prints, trackways, and even morphisms and injuries cataloged and verified by primate, anatomy, podiatry, and other experts in fields ideally suited to ferret our hoaxed tracks. Even hand prints have been discovered, along with the numerous footprints and trackways in locations so remote and rugged the probability of their discovery, and the kinetic qualities demonstrated marginalize the probability of hoaxing to such an extent, the probability of them being authentic is more logical than the probability of them being hoaxed. Many kinetic impressions, on mountainsides, crossing streams make mechanical/prosthetic fakery impossible. I just believe more in a upright, bipedal, undiscovered primate is at some point more probable, than some jackass with a washing machine on his back, running up near vertical embankments, and jumping across woodland waterways, and striding 4-5 feet; all the while sporting 16-22 inch wooden/rubber/u name it prosthetic "bigfeet" in the hopes that discovery will be imminent. It's ridiculous.

That's of course, my opinion, and I'm not here to challenge the skeptical minded. It just seems like head in the sand logic to me, to assume all bigfoot prints are hoaxed/faked, when the evidence says different.

*****

Posts : 279
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

I AGREE

Post  Sweetsusiq on Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:41 pm

Your point is well made, and well said. Very Happy cheers I totally agree with you. Bigfoot/Sasquatch lives and is hiding in forests all around America.
avatar
Sweetsusiq

Posts : 199
Join date : 2012-08-01
Location : Kentucky

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum