Crowlogic

Where Have All The Giants Gone?

214 posts in this topic

If the OP posted this to antagonize proponents (troll), then the best way to find out is for proponents to not respond. If that was the OP's motive, the thread will simply die.

 

If his motive was to disrupt, or pull everything back to existence, it will be obvious - when he is sitting here posting to himself, because no one else is.

 

If you don't like the skeptic threads and feel they are simply trolling,,,, don't participate. I can almost guarantee that these types of posts will stop if the skeptics don't get the reaction they were fishing for.

+1 Chelefoot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not to be taken as a real image. It's just to demonstrate scale.

I assume you knew this?

I was pretty sure it was not to be taken as real but felt it best to investigate.

 

I did go back to the original post and it said nothing about scale or even what is being considered a giant.

I then went to the second post and still no mention of what the OP is considering to be a giant.

In my opinion, if the OP wanted a straight answer then the OP should have asked a more specific question.

 

What I DO see is a vague question about whether all reporters of giants are liars or hoaxers.

A proper way to ask this question would be specify how tall a "Giant" is, and then list or link the reports in question. Are we supposed to guess? I certainly cannot give a straight answer on a report that is unknown to me. Given the vagueness of the question I felt my first answer (NY and SF) was appropriate.

 

It's not difficult to find the OP's obvious position in other threads, so it seemed (in my opinion) that this was indeed an attempt to elicit a response that can get the same old conversation started again. Ask a vague question, get a specific response so the argument can start.

 

If Giants are 8 feet tall, then it would be my opinion that the reporters are NOT all liars and hoaxers.

There are several reports still coming in on animals this size.

 

I have read hundreds of reports (you should too) and saw one that mentioned a 16 footer. There are a few mentioning 12 footers. I won't dismiss it (the 16 foot report) out of hand as lying or hoaxing, but I also do not believe it. I think the young person who reported it was mistaken. Could he have been lying...absolutely. The person who needed to figure that out was the report investigator, who didn't press that question and also seemingly felt the report was valid enough to publish.

 

(edited for accuracy - I goofed... a 16 footer is most I've read about. It is not a good report and no actual follow up with an investigator.

Since I goofed I decided to do the work and provide the link: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=3380

Edited by Redbone
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salibruous on this forum claims one of the bigfeets he saw would be about 12 feet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy for me to imagine that a person that was having a sighting could easily mistake the height, especially if they were frightened during said event. The inadvertent fish tale of the monster they saw.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we expect the median male height to be around 8 or 9 feet, we can expect 1% or so of 12ft reports, and a percent of 5 footers, and demonstrate a rather fetching bell curve. Didn't Bindernagel or someone do that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that many reports are still missing from the SSR database, but there are only 2 reports of 12 foot or more in the database and one is the16 footer mentioned above. The 12 footer is a guess on how tall if standing because the subject was sitting.There are 5x 11 foot reports.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without getting into the existence argument and simply looking at this from the physiological possibility aspect:

 

There was a period when megafauna were common.  This was during the Ice Age when the air was richer in oxygen.  This was due to both the cooler air temperatures and higher air pressures at coastal elevations which were hundreds of feet lower than today.  Both effects resulted in denser, more oxygen rich air.

 

More oxygen rich air, in combination with sufficient diet, enabled larger body sizes to be achieved physiologically.

 

So it would be possible for the development of a megafauna hominid (or pongid).  Homo Erectus was around six and a half feet tall and Homo Heidelbergensis was taller.  Then on the pongid side you have Gigantopithecus Blacki.

 

With regard to the size distribution of bigfoot reports, if I'm not mistaken, the average height correlates to the latitude, with smaller average heights reported and warmer latitudes.

 

The question remains, though, why would a contemporary bigfoot retain its megafauna characteristics today?  One might speculate that its larger size still supports significantly greater lung volume and, thus, better oxygenation.  Even so, one would expect the relative oxygenation to be less under contemporary climate conditions.  If so, then bigfoot might well be smaller than they once were.

 

Are 16 foot tall specimens possible given these considerations?  I think a physiologist could probably answer that question.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To assume 11' would be a tall Bigfoot I wouldn't doubt there could be a 14 to 15ish tall Bigfoot. In humans, what's the average height, 5'10" ??? We have basketball players over 7'. I wouldn't assume many but a few here or there would not be out of the question.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would have to be a physiological limit, but I'm not qualified to establish that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without getting into the existence argument and simply looking at this from the physiological possibility aspect:

 

 

 

So it would be possible for the development of a megafauna hominid (or pongid).  Homo Erectus was around six and a half feet tall and Homo Heidelbergensis was taller.  Then on the pongid side you have Gigantopithecus Blacki.

 

With regard to the size distribution of bigfoot reports, if I'm not mistaken, the average height correlates to the latitude, with smaller average heights reported and warmer latitudes.

 

Are 16 foot tall specimens possible given these considerations?  I think a physiologist could probably answer that question.

Source for the part of your quote I've bolded.  Indeed mega fauna existed but gigantism has been a model used since the dinosaurs and large flightless birds.  Neither of which existed during the ice ages.  If the O2 rich environment was responsible for mega growth why then did many African cultures evolve into very tall individuals in a hot O2 thin environment and Eskimos evolve into squat and diminutive in spite of being in a cold O2 rich environment ?

 

The issue of huge bigfoot raises a huge number of questions and problems.  One of larger red herrings in the bigfoot mythology does indeed revolve around the size discrepancies and general diminuization of the reported sizes as time has gone by as if to better create a more believable mythology.  For instance only the most gullible will accept that such a thing as the Thunderbird exists with it's 30 foot wing span but something on the scale of a 8 ft wingspan eagle could be far more easily accepted.  In other words make the tale believable and avoid larger than life parameters.

 

In no small part the giant bigfoot model was the result of what we now known were hoaxes.  But in the 60's when it was all just ramping up those hoaxes hadn't been exposed.  Anyone telling a tale and knowing Blue Mt and or the Jerry Krew story would have been aiming squarely at the core of the information available at the time.  Bear in mind modern bigfoot mythology was based on not just strange ape like creatures but on giant ape like creatures.  It wasn't appreciated then that the giant tracks were fakes.  If you were going to get into the game the creature had to be big.

 

Now can a 7 ft or even and 8 ft ape be in our hinterlands?   Well yes in the same way a large bear can.  But that does not explain the giants reported as being anything other than thoughtless tales told by the less than astute to the properly gullible.  All one needs to do is look at a representation of a giant bigfoot (mine or another for that matter) and the issue becomes untenable.  

Edited by Crowlogic
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The issue of huge bigfoot raises a huge number of questions and problems.  One of larger red herrings in the bigfoot mythology does indeed revolve around the size discrepancies and general diminuization of the reported sizes as time has gone by as if to better create a more believable mythology.  For instance only the most gullible will accept that such a thing as the Thunderbird exists with it's 30 foot wing span but something on the scale of a 8 ft wingspan eagle could be far more easily accepted.  In other words make the tale believable and avoid larger than life parameters.

 

In no small part the giant bigfoot model was the result of what we now known were hoaxes.  But in the 60's when it was all just ramping up those hoaxes hadn't been exposed.  Anyone telling a tale and knowing Blue Mt and or the Jerry Krew story would have been aiming squarely at the core of the information available at the time.  Bear in mind modern bigfoot mythology was based on not just strange ape like creatures but on giant ape like creatures.  It wasn't appreciated then that the giant tracks were fakes.  If you were going to get into the game the creature had to be big.

 

Now can a 7 ft or even and 8 ft ape be in our hinterlands?   Well yes in the same way a large bear can.  But that does not explain the giants reported as being anything other than thoughtless tales told by the less than astute to the properly gullible.  All one needs to do is look at a representation of a giant bigfoot (mine or another for that matter) and the issue becomes untenable.  

 

 

 

Maybe you should actually analyse the data before coming up with halfassed theories about it. What you propose should produce a distribution skewed to  the high side. Shame the data doesn't. So apart from a complete lack of fit to the data, the perpetuation of the myth that bigfoot started with Jerry Krew, and the complete lack of understanding that natural populations produce freaks at both ends of the scale.. it's a winner.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The issue of huge bigfoot raises a huge number of questions and problems.  One of larger red herrings in the bigfoot mythology does indeed revolve around the size discrepancies and general diminuization of the reported sizes as time has gone by as if to better create a more believable mythology.  For instance only the most gullible will accept that such a thing as the Thunderbird exists with it's 30 foot wing span but something on the scale of a 8 ft wingspan eagle could be far more easily accepted.  In other words make the tale believable and avoid larger than life parameters.

 

In no small part the giant bigfoot model was the result of what we now known were hoaxes.  But in the 60's when it was all just ramping up those hoaxes hadn't been exposed.  Anyone telling a tale and knowing Blue Mt and or the Jerry Krew story would have been aiming squarely at the core of the information available at the time.  Bear in mind modern bigfoot mythology was based on not just strange ape like creatures but on giant ape like creatures.  It wasn't appreciated then that the giant tracks were fakes.  If you were going to get into the game the creature had to be big.

 

Now can a 7 ft or even and 8 ft ape be in our hinterlands?   Well yes in the same way a large bear can.  But that does not explain the giants reported as being anything other than thoughtless tales told by the less than astute to the properly gullible.  All one needs to do is look at a representation of a giant bigfoot (mine or another for that matter) and the issue becomes untenable.  

 

 

 

Maybe you should actually analyse the data before coming up with halfassed theories about it. What you propose should produce a distribution skewed to  the high side. Shame the data doesn't. So apart from a complete lack of fit to the data, the perpetuation of the myth that bigfoot started with Jerry Krew, and the complete lack of understanding that natural populations produce freaks at both ends of the scale.. it's a winner.

 

Hold on just a moment fella.  Now let me get this straight the propencity of giant bigfoot sightings just all happened because they were seeing the freaks?  You mean those big reallt really real bigfoot track just happened to be the freaks?  Oh my there sure were a lotta freaks.  In fact mostly freaks.  In fact by the standard of the times Patty is a shrimp.

 

 I said THE MODERN BIGFOOT  MYTH/ERA STARTED WITH JERRY KREW!  The operative work is modern era.  The pre modern era is little more than campfire stories.  I also have stated that authors claiming a 15 ft FB made a plywood cutout of the one they claimed they saw.  Having once owned the book I know what was in it.  Also those same authors claimed a bent road sign that just happened to have a nice scar in the metal like a truck or other object had actually caused the damage that evenin my young adult pro bigfoot mind seemed a bit shall we say suspect.  .  No you're going to try and tell me that the really really big really really real bigfoots didn't play a role in the structure of the mythology.  BS back at you point blank BS!  Why do you think they call them forest giants?  Maybe you should remove your bigfoot tinted glasses they tend to block out the uncomfortable incredulous elements of the myth.  Here read up on some really really big really really real bigfoots.   

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/tallest_bigfoot.htm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without getting into the existence argument and simply looking at this from the physiological possibility aspect:

 

 

 

So it would be possible for the development of a megafauna hominid (or pongid).  Homo Erectus was around six and a half feet tall and Homo Heidelbergensis was taller.  Then on the pongid side you have Gigantopithecus Blacki.

 

With regard to the size distribution of bigfoot reports, if I'm not mistaken, the average height correlates to the latitude, with smaller average heights reported and warmer latitudes.

 

Are 16 foot tall specimens possible given these considerations?  I think a physiologist could probably answer that question.

Source for the part of your quote I've bolded.  Indeed mega fauna existed but gigantism has been a model used since the dinosaurs and large flightless birds.  Neither of which existed during the ice ages.  If the O2 rich environment was responsible for mega growth why then did many African cultures evolve into very tall individuals in a hot O2 thin environment and Eskimos evolve into squat and diminutive in spite of being in a cold O2 rich environment ?

 

The issue of huge bigfoot raises a huge number of questions and problems.  One of larger red herrings in the bigfoot mythology does indeed revolve around the size discrepancies and general diminuization of the reported sizes as time has gone by as if to better create a more believable mythology.  For instance only the most gullible will accept that such a thing as the Thunderbird exists with it's 30 foot wing span but something on the scale of a 8 ft wingspan eagle could be far more easily accepted.  In other words make the tale believable and avoid larger than life parameters.

 

In no small part the giant bigfoot model was the result of what we now known were hoaxes.  But in the 60's when it was all just ramping up those hoaxes hadn't been exposed.  Anyone telling a tale and knowing Blue Mt and or the Jerry Krew story would have been aiming squarely at the core of the information available at the time.  Bear in mind modern bigfoot mythology was based on not just strange ape like creatures but on giant ape like creatures.  It wasn't appreciated then that the giant tracks were fakes.  If you were going to get into the game the creature had to be big.

 

Now can a 7 ft or even and 8 ft ape be in our hinterlands?   Well yes in the same way a large bear can.  But that does not explain the giants reported as being anything other than thoughtless tales told by the less than astute to the properly gullible.  All one needs to do is look at a representation of a giant bigfoot (mine or another for that matter) and the issue becomes untenable.  

 

 

You seem to have omitted part of my post.  I stated that "More oxygen rich air, in combination with sufficient diet enabled larger body sizes to be achieved physiologically."​​  I should probably have also qualified this statement based on oxygen uptake.  It's one thing to have more oxygen available and another to be able to efficiently uptake it.

 

Oxygen is just one factor http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/091101_oxygenconstraint, but bigfoot's theoretical ability to oxygenate better than humans (indicated by incredibly long and loud vocalization, the ability to run at speeds well exceeding those of humans, etc.) could be a continuing factor contributing to better metabolism and resultant size (better oxygenation ensures more efficient use of energy from glucose and use of nutrients at the cellular level).

 

Of course Bergmann didn't bother with the underlying metabolic principals, he simply noted the trend.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Crowlogic...

 

 Why do you think they call them forest giants? 

 

To somebody 5 foot tall, a creature that is 8 feet tall would probably seem like a giant.

 

So that we can help you get the answers you seek, can you tell us how big is a "Giant" or "Freak" mythological Bigfoot?

What book are you talking about in the post above? Link?

Do you believe that "Every" bigfoot sighting is a lie or a hoax or just the giants?

 

How many reports of giant Bigfoot are you aware of? I read through the link you thoughtfully provided and only see a few mentioned.

If this is all then they may be statistically insignificant. Do you have links to more?

 

The linked page does contains a possible explanation for reports of 12, 13, and 15 footers. Maybe they are just exaggerations by frightened observers.

 

However nobody said 15 feet again, it was 12, 13 feet tall, but never a 15 footer. Normal sized sasquatch height reports in this area also happened, leaving modern research to conclude these may be gross exaggerations by frightened observers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites