• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Big Birds

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
Interesting.
Thunderbird? Pteradactyl?
Whatever it is, I think it merits some further investigation.
 
Had a turkey buzzard land on my porch when it was investigating a kitten in my house. They are huge birds. I was five feet from the bird separated by a glass door and didn't feel good about that flimsy door at all. My presence behind the kitten didn't bother the bird one bit.

Could be these people are exaggerating the size because a turkey buzzard certainly isn't as big as some prehistoric bird, but it's big enough, especially up close, to shake one up. Since they are rather brazen and go for the kill rather than the scraps, they do seem more menacing.
 
I am watching the show right now. I am a bit annoyed that they speak of the inability of people to identify the size of something in the sky with no point of reference as if we only make things larger. If you saw a twenty four foot bird soaring at two or three hundred feet in the air out of the corner of your eye, wouldn't your brain register it as a smaller bird flying lower to the ground? Also, they flew a 24 foot kite and some people were crazy in their estimates but several other were with 25% (27.5 feet, 30 feet...). Perhaps a better, more useful, bit of research would have been to collect estimates and try to establish a statistical model of the estimates. Then we may be able to say "The majority of people mis-estimate by XX%, so we will adjust all estimates by this amount to determine if there is a species that falls within this measurement as well."

Also, they kind of ignored in that segment that the footage from the 70's started with that bird in a tree. I was a bit shocked that they didn't go to Lake Shelbyville (call me History Channel; I have professional cameras and it is only a couple hours from St. Louis) to see if they could find the trees to make a measurement...
 
Michael L. said:
I am watching the show right now. I am a bit annoyed that they speak of the inability of people to identify the size of something in the sky with no point of reference as if we only make things larger. If you saw a twenty four foot bird soaring at two or three hundred feet in the air out of the corner of your eye, wouldn't your brain register it as a smaller bird flying lower to the ground? Also, they flew a 24 foot kite and some people were crazy in their estimates but several other were with 25% (27.5 feet, 30 feet...). Perhaps a better, more useful, bit of research would have been to collect estimates and try to establish a statistical model of the estimates. Then we may be able to say "The majority of people mis-estimate by XX%, so we will adjust all estimates by this amount to determine if there is a species that falls within this measurement as well."

Also, they kind of ignored in that segment that the footage from the 70's started with that bird in a tree. I was a bit shocked that they didn't go to Lake Shelbyville (call me History Channel; I have professional cameras and it is only a couple hours from St. Louis) to see if they could find the trees to make a measurement...
Click to expand...

Very good suggestions! I would like to see that statistical study conducted in different parts of the country for a wide variety of demographics. I think it would be very valuable in researching any aerial phenomenon.
 
Can't believe no one has been youtubing this show yet. I been wanting to see it. Any of you know if it can be seen on the net yet? I'm mostly interested in the Bigfoot show, but will watch the others too.
 
Well, it is illegal to do that and I think History Channel's parent group is pretty militant about keeping their stuff off the 'net (as they should be). It is available on iTunes for a couple a bucks an episode. I heard a rumor that they (A&E, who owns History and History International) was talking to Joost (a free streaming broadband content provider).
 
Back
Top