Guest midnightwalker1 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Ok, if you find 16.5" tracks with 62 inch walking stride, provide your calcs and logic for height determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 I took a stab at it. Your shoe size increases by 3 sizes for every one inch of foot. A ten inch foot equals a size 8 shoe, so that means a 16.5 inch foot would be a shoe size of around 24. Shaq is 7'1" with a shoe size of 22. The tallest man in the world had a shoe size of 24 at 8'8" tall. So I'm guessing about 8-9 feet tall assuming Bigfoot's foot is proportioned to it's height the same as a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnightwalker1 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 I took a stab at it. Your shoe size increases by 3 sizes for every one inch of foot. A ten inch foot equals a size 8 shoe, so that means a 16.5 inch foot would be a shoe size of around 24. Shaq is 7'1" with a shoe size of 22. The tallest man in the world had a shoe size of 24 at 8'8" tall. So I'm guessing about 8-9 feet tall assuming Bigfoot's foot is proportioned to it's height the same as a human. Jodie, I would say that's a good stab and this was an actual case. I took a stab by doubling the stride and then backing off 10% for buffer. I used my stride as an example although there stride is much more exaggerated since they attempt to conserve energy by covering more ground with each stride. Anyway, I more or less verified the 9-10 foot height by other trail signs that I consider to be very telling. Thanks for your input. I am trying to see if other folks have different methods of determining height. The other thing I want to do is attempt to gauge their weight. That's a much more difficult calc though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Jodie, I would say that's a good stab and this was an actual case. I took a stab by doubling the stride and then backing off 10% for buffer. I used my stride as an example although there stride is much more exaggerated since they attempt to conserve energy by covering more ground with each stride. Anyway, I more or less verified the 9-10 foot height by other trail signs that I consider to be very telling. Thanks for your input. I am trying to see if other folks have different methods of determining height. The other thing I want to do is attempt to gauge their weight. That's a much more difficult calc though A nine foot brown bear is going to weigh in around 1000 lbs. http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/student_info/learn/bearwatching.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 The problem with trying to determine height by stride is that, unless you actually see the creature walking, you aren't certain of it's stride. The prints you may be looking at could be prints made by a running creature, therefore the stride would be longer. I have used length of print to try to determine height. Length of print in inches X 6. So a 16.5 inch print x 6 would make the creature at least 8.25ft or better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest midnightwalker1 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 The problem with trying to determine height by stride is that, unless you actually see the creature walking, you aren't certain of it's stride. The prints you may be looking at could be prints made by a running creature, therefore the stride would be longer. I have used length of print to try to determine height. Length of print in inches X 6. So a 16.5 inch print x 6 would make the creature at least 8.25ft or better. Ok that makes sense. But there are ways of reading the track to see whether it was a steady walk or run. All that said, it's easier to find a print than a trackway. That method you use fits with my feet. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 True, I guess it could depend on how flat footed the creature is, also. If I run full out, I would show definite push off, so it would be obvious I was running instead of walking. If the creature is loping instead of actual running, the push off may not be as distinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LittleFeat Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 It depends on the body's proportions and speed of the creature. If the creature has longer or shorter legs compared to its torso it's going to throw the height calculation that we use for humans off. If the creature is walking fast or running it will have a longer stride than if it walks more slowly. Also, when it comes to weight, muscle mass can really skew the weight of a creature. There are 230 pound running backs in the NFL that are less than 6' tall and yet they are fit and have a low percentage of body fat. Now me for example...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 How can anyone come up with an accurate calculation for the height based solely on tracks/stride length? What if it's a giant penguin? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Well, I use a calculator, but some others may be better at multiplication than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 But what are you calculating, what formula are you using, and how do you know it produces accurate results? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 (edited) A humans foot is roughly 15% of it's height. A little more for a man.... a little less for a woman. So only if we're guessing that bf is proportional to humans; Part/Whole = Percent/100 or 16.5/X = 15/100 Cross multiply and it becomes 15X = 1650 . Divide both sides by 15 to solve for X and we get : X = 110 16.5 is 15% of 110 110 inches = 9.17 feet Edited to fix some pretty sloppy looking dashes. Edited October 27, 2010 by FuriousGeorge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 (edited) You could take ratios from looking at Patty....assuming you think that is legitimate. I would also look at other photo's that haven't been shown to be photo shopped to get a more accurate ratio than making a guess based on human proportions. Didn't Meldrum come up with some kind of torso/thigh/shin ratio? Edited October 27, 2010 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 I'm sure he must have come up with a new ratio because 9 or 10 feet doesn't sound right. I think the new formula he created was Part/Whole = Moving/Goalposts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 All calculations will be close but not exact... The simple logic of a human foot sizing in comparison to BF is a ball park figure and cannot be exact as the skeptics want them to be... so lets all say in one loud voice to all the skeptic's "ALL CALCULATION'S ARE APPROXIMATE AND CANNOT BE EXACT"... So with this "Grand Revelation" let the conversation continue, which is interesting and informative to those that want this info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts