Height

[Guest]

But what are you calculating, what formula are you using, and how do you know it produces accurate results?

RayG

I didn't come up with the formula that I am using. I got it from a fellow that has much more bigfoot experience than me.

It is not conclusive, but is used only to help approximate a creature's height.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

I take the length of the foot in inches, multiply by 6.8, then divide by 12 to get a height in feet. That's my formula that fits me and also seems to fit hairy bipedal creatures. I never try to determine a height from the length of the step because that length can vary wildly depending on the travel mode being used/terrain/etc. Chris B.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

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...

Does this logic apply to all, or just the skeptics?

I did use words like "roughly", "guessing", and "humans". Did I need to ask everyone to say it out loud in a condescending fashion as well to make the same point? Math is math. It applies to everyone. The guessing enters the picture with the ratio of foot size in comparison to the body. You said "all calculations will be close", this cannot be said unless the value for the percentage of the foot size to body ratio is known and not guessed. Also, if the number of the whole body is broken up into parts (torso/thigh/shin) as suggested, the parts still need to be added back together to form the whole, so the point is mute.

We know it's guesswork for all <---- this does not apply to just the skeptics. If you have variables that are based on nothing, the answer can be anything. Or even worse.... exactly what you want the answer to be. Just tweak the ratio.

Edited October 27, 2010 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest]

I guess if you aren't looking at stride then the leg length wouldn't be important. It would probably just boil down to physics in that what size body can be supported by this size of foot? So taking the tall humans as an example, bigfoot being bipedal like us, then it would probably run along the same lines as calculating height from a human foot.

[Guest midnightwalker1]

Really good responses. Thanks for the input.

[Guest]

From a scientific standpoint we have no proof of a Sasquatch's foot size to height ratio. Judging this from a human ratio is unreasonable, just because a track is measured at 16.5'' (24 Shoe) doesn't mean that the subject is 8'8''+. If you are measuring a human you could use such conversion rates but we are talking about an unknown species. Just because a gorilla, human, or chimp track measures at a Shoe size of 12 doesn't mean they are 6' tall. I am a 6' male, my shoe size is only a 10, by measures I should have a shoe size of 12. My arm length is longer than most men at my height, my wing span is around 75'' when it should be 72''. Converting a Sasquatch's height from it's foot size is unreasonable without a number of specimens to to measure off of. When we are able to measure a size from a video and we have tracks, that is a different story. If we have enough video evidence that clearly give a height within 2-3inches and a track size then we will be able to do so. If I remember correctly we have had some videos with track sizes that has allowed us to do so, but, unless he have hard evidence there is no certain way to convert such measurements.

[Guest LittleFeat]

I couldn't agree with you more Matt. You have to take into consideration the observations of Meldrum and Krantz, namely the rotation of the leg during the stride and the mid-tarsal break. BF may be bipedal but they apparently don't walk anything like us. There have been reports of BF moving quadrupedally at great speed which also points to anatomical differences impacting proportions. The calculation used for human proportions could be, and probably is, much different than the formula used to determine the proportions of BF.

[gigantor]

Ok, if you find 16.5" tracks with 62 inch walking stride, provide your calcs and logic for height determination.

I'm going to use Dr Fahrenbach's analysis presented in the book "Meet the Sasquatch" by Christopher L. Murphy. Page 127.

------------

FOOT TO HEIGHT RELATIONSHIP: In a number of visual encounters, the foot length was measured subsequently and is here plotted against the estimated height. Inspection of the regression line (the average of all data points) shows the surprising detail that for a 20% linear growth of the animal, the foot grows 60%, lending the name "Bigfoot" some statistical credence.

The biological reason is to be found in the fact that the weight of the animal rises with the approximate cube of of its linear dimensions, thus outstripping the bearing weight of the sole unless the foot grows in excess of the rest of the body.

As a consequence, in small animals the foot length has to be multiplied by about 7 to give height, in average feet by 6, and in large feet by 5.

----------------------

I know this method is inaccurate because it uses estimated heigth, but IMO it's at least as good as guessing.

So, I think 16.5" is "large" for a BF. Using the formula,

16.5 x 5 = 82.5" tall or 6.88 ft.

Edited October 28, 2010 by gigantor

[Guest]

Here is a link to an article about this topic on Bigfoot Encounters.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/henner.htm

Here is a better version of the same abstract that includes the graphs from the BFRO site:

http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/whf/fahrenbacharticle.htm

Here is an even better article that compares many different primate's foot/body proportions. It seems feet on primarily bipedal apes is related to body weight:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC23630/

Edited October 28, 2010 by Jodie

[Guest]

Those are some very interesting statistics, however, there are heights on the chart reaching 13'6''. I find it hard to believe that Sasquatch reach a height over 7, maybe 8 feet max. The load on a biped spin of a 9' tall 500-1000lb+ individual is unfathomable. Not throwing out that some may reach 8'+, as do some humans reach 7+, the number of reports of 8'-15' Sasquatch are too much for my liking. I feel this comes from poor judging ability and a lack of calm nerves when a sighting occurs. I personally feel Sasquatch reach an average height of 7'-7'5 with some abnormalities being larger and smaller. I also believe that different regions of North America have different sub-species and they are broken up by the Pacific North and South West, South East, North East, and a very small population in the Central United States. The sizes do differ in these regions which leads me to believe these are sub-species. The Pacific North and South West having an average height from 7'-9', the South East with 5'6''-6'6'', North East with 6'-7'6'', and the Central United States with 7'-9'.

Edited October 28, 2010 by MattGreenlee S.O.S.O.

[gigantor]

Those are some very interesting statistics, however, there are heights on the chart reaching 13'6''. I find it hard to believe that Sasquatch reach a height over 7, maybe 8 feet max.

I agree. But that's why the analysis uses the average... I'm not defending the numbers, just saying it's probably as good as we have for now. At least it's based on actual observed data, as faulty as it may be.

And if you look at the result 6.88ft is plausible.

Edited October 28, 2010 by gigantor

[BobZenor]

Homo floresiensis had an exceptionally long foot compared to modern humans. That is a pretty good example of how you can't necessarily just correlate human foot sizes. Based on my assumption that Patty is somewhat over 6 feet tall without accounting for her stooped posture and the fact that she apparently left approximately 14.5 inch tracks, I would assume that a 16.5 inch track would belong to something that is about 7 to 8 feet tall depending on how you measure it. I would assume they probably have stooped posture as well. A larger animal should have relatively larger bones and feet to support it's weight just because of the physics. That obviously didn't apply to the tiny floresiensis which must have walked differently. They seem to have relatively larger feet and that ratio should increase as the size increases.

Edited October 28, 2010 by BobZenor

[Guest midnightwalker1]

Interesting on the other responses. What I didn't tell you is that I use one other form of track evidence to corroborate my estimates of height. I always look for some method to corroborate or confirm my findings or SWAG's. This fella is estimated to be at least 9 feet tall, based on this other track evidence. However, I've seen it repeatedly within range of the tracks and at those heights but cannot absolutely tie them to those individual tracks. I make the assumption because they are the largest tracks I've found in the area and the other track evidence is at the tallest height throughout this area. I'll let you guys tell me what other evidence that might be. If you're correct, I'll respond accordingly. Shouldn't be difficult though.

I will say one thing. I set out to gather all the different theories for estimating height when I posted this question. And I got some excellent answers. Thanks to you all

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

I guess if you aren't looking at stride then the leg length wouldn't be important. It would probably just boil down to physics in that what size body can be supported by this size of foot? So taking the tall humans as an example, bigfoot being bipedal like us, then it would probably run along the same lines as calculating height from a human foot.

That's the way I look at it Jodie. In my view, it's about the size and weight a particular size foot can support. I also add a bit to the 6.8 factor according to the width of the track being measured. As the wider track would seem to suggest a larger individual. Great topic! Would my formula work in the PNW? I dunno? It's based on KY evidence, so I can't say if it would fit elsewhere in the Country/World. Chris B.

[Guest midnightwalker1]

Those are some very interesting statistics, however, there are heights on the chart reaching 13'6''. I find it hard to believe that Sasquatch reach a height over 7, maybe 8 feet max. The load on a biped spin of a 9' tall 500-1000lb+ individual is unfathomable. Not throwing out that some may reach 8'+, as do some humans reach 7+, the number of reports of 8'-15' Sasquatch are too much for my liking. I feel this comes from poor judging ability and a lack of calm nerves when a sighting occurs. I personally feel Sasquatch reach an average height of 7'-7'5 with some abnormalities being larger and smaller. I also believe that different regions of North America have different sub-species and they are broken up by the Pacific North and South West, South East, North East, and a very small population in the Central United States. The sizes do differ in these regions which leads me to believe these are sub-species. The Pacific North and South West having an average height from 7'-9', the South East with 5'6''-6'6'', North East with 6'-7'6'', and the Central United States with 7'-9'.

Well, I can tell you that they do. When you see them they leave you in awe and sometimes buckle your knees in the beginning. Just a strange affect. BTW, that garbage about the southeast having smaller sas is absolutely bunk. They may be a bit leaner at times but I've even seen some tall and broad guys. I can tell you that I've seen some big ole boys down here. I play basketball so I tend to gauge things against the rim and am pretty good at gauging height that way. My gauging their height is usually corroborated with track signs. Bottomline the 6.5' is a joke. Plenty of other folks in the southeast that see them who can back me up. I have two juveniles in my area that are around the 5-6' level and fairly skinny. Those are the little guys that are still growing.