Is Bigfoot height and speed exaggerated?

[Scratchy]

I’m only my semi-monthly Bigfoot dive again and this popped up in my noodle.

 

Am I the only one that feels like Sasquatch are grossly over-estimated physically?
 

Height-

 

The tallest man without deformity was Angus Macaskill, who was 7’9 at his peak. Sasquatch data usually has the height clusters at 6-8 feet tall. I believe that biomechanically sasquatches would also not be able to reach over 8’ tall. It simply wouldn’t make sense for a large upright bipedal organism, especially one that is said to be a hunter. There are many reports of 9’, 10’, or even up to 12’ tall Sasquatches being seen. This just sounds bogus to me for a variety of reasons besides physical feasibility. People would absolutely be noticing these things way more with just a height increase from 7’ up to 11-12’. It would be almost impossible for the creature to feed itself partly because it could not move quickly and quietly enough to catch prey, and because it would absolutely demolish very large stands of ripe growth with how much food it would take in. 

 

 

Speed-

 

This is my main issue. The fastest man we know of is Usain Bolt, who topped out at 27ish miles per hour. Most college level sprinters max out at around 23-25. There are fossilized Australian human footprints that when measured predicted the man making them was sprinting over muddy terrain at about 23 mph and increasing slightly. This is the fastest of all the large bipedal primates (us) we know of.
The other great apes are about the same or worse. Google says Chimps and Gorillas attain similar speeds, but anyone that has seen videos of these beasts running would agree that is the exception and not the rule. They are clumsy arboreally adapted animals. Orangutans aren’t even worth mentioning as they are pitiful on the ground.

The absolute fastest primates are baboons and patas monkeys. Baboons clock up to 28-30. Patas monkeys, the fastest recorded primate, clocks in at an underwhelming 34-35 mph.

 

I want someone to explain to me with sound logic how an extremely large, bulky, upright bipedal hominid is supposedly faster than a gracile, semi-digitigrade, speed adapted plains monkey. It makes zero biological sense. There are reports of these things keeping up with cars on highways or horses at a full gallop. It is literally lunacy.

 

what does everyone think? Are people just stupid and awestruck? What else could be going on?

[OntarioSquatch]

Yup. Some research suggests that Sasquatch are faster and heavier than they look, which is insane because it’s hard to imagine both at the same time. One interest thing I’ve noticed though over the years is that genuine eyewitnesses are often more shocked by how thick the subject is rather than how tall.

[Doug]

Moose stand 7 to 8 feet tall at the shoulder, are 9 to 10 feet long, weigh 1,200 to 1,800 pounds and where there is a high concentration of them, there are still large amounts of ripe growth available to them and other animals. They run up to 35 miles per hour.

Brown bears  are 4 to 5 feet tall at the shoulder and 8 to 10 feet tall when standing on their hind legs. They weigh up to 1,500 pounds and can run 35 miles per hour and can kill many moose, caribou, elk and deer in a year.

So, I don't find those descriptions of sasquatches ridiculously far fetched, just somewhat exaggerated due to witness perception.

 

[socialBigfoot]

I explored the science behind height estimates a while back. Basically there are 3 factors that affect accuracy : 

1) The actual height of the target (in this case, a Bigfoot). 

2) The height of the witness. This is referred to as the own-anchor effect, where the witness may use their own height as an anchor or benchmark from which to form a judgement on the target’s height.

3) The witness’s knowledge of, or expectations about, the average height of the target’s population.

 

Much of this science comes from research into eye witness testimony, so it's questionable whether we can apply it to Bigfoot reports. The consensus among eye witness researchers seems to be that witnesses typically under-estimate the target's height. I think for Bigfoot reports, #3 above is most critical. The statement "it was 7-8 ft." is so common in reports it's like one of the given letters from Wheel of Future before the contestant even picks their own letters. 

 

@Doug touches on what could be a fourth factor specific to Bigfoot height estimates -- the witness's knowledge of and experience with other large animals in the forest. 

 

Here's my post on Substack for those interested in a deeper review of the science.  

[Doug]

If I had a dollar for every person that said that black tailed deer stood about five feet tall and weighed three-fifty or that a coyote was about four feet tall and about seventy pounds, I would be rich. Deer and coyotes are not as high  nor weigh as much, as people imagine them to be. The same could happen in the opposite. People under estimating them. People are surprised to find out a wild turkey can weigh as much as 30 pounds or that a golden eagle weighs as little 6 to 15 pounds. informed, experienced perception is important.

[Trogluddite]

On Bigfoot and Beyond, Cliff and Bobo recently talked to the woman who runs the Bigfoot Data Project.  She is apparently looking at as much data on claimed Bigfoot encounters as she can from a very stringent scientific viewpoint.  So when evaluating height, she had her minions (or minion) do research on how fear or apprehension affects the estimation of height - no surprise, the more afraid you are the bigger something looks.

 

I'm not going to try to recap what she said beyond that, but it was a good episode, probably within the last 50 or so.