Posted 25 March 2012 - 07:17 AM
I am glad someone found and posted the pic of the cardboard BF. I have always been struck by that pic, though honestly have felt it a bit outlandish, sizewise. BUT people see what they see.
I think it is honestly very easy to over or underestimate size from a distance - look at all the sightings of large birds that get turned into GIGANTIC birds by witnesses (yes, I am very much skeptical of giant bird reports). The fact that those guys were in the back of a vehicle may have contributed to overestimating height (even though it seems like they would more easily underestimate due to their being higher off the ground).
Even using landmarks as a height guide has its issues, IMO. Memory and perspective can both be problems. Heights above 8-9 ft push believability for me (but hey, I am pretty obviously in the "closer to human" camp, so such inhuman heights would be pushing it). So that is something that we must reconcile...Easy to see why Hall and others went down the "true giant" road. I don't buy that reasoning, but I can see taking reports that don't fit the mold and claiming that they must be something else. If we can believe in multiple types of HBs in NA ( I find the idea of smaller ones local to the south appealing), then why not giants in the north?
I may believe in the possibility
of the existence of relict populations of undiscovered hominoid creatures, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck...
I don't think that what 'bigfootery' is searching for is Gigantopithecu
s, or even a descendant thereof...but I reserve the right to be wrong