Height

[Guest vilnoori]

Heck, there's three guys in my church that are around 6'7" so I would expect sasquatches to be well above that. One track I found was almost 17 inches and seemed to be a female since it was accompanied by a smaller track about half the size. That gives a sasq about 8 ft. tall. If there is a high degree of sexual dimorphism in the species the grown alpha males could be significantly bigger than that.

[Guest TooRisky]

Heck, there's three guys in my church that are around 6'7" so I would expect sasquatches to be well above that. One track I found was almost 17 inches and seemed to be a female since it was accompanied by a smaller track about half the size. That gives a sasq about 8 ft. tall. If there is a high degree of sexual dimorphism in the species the grown alpha males could be significantly bigger than that.

LOL...Here we have a 21"x10" print WASRT found... This was one big boy and have had estimates this his height in the 11-12 foot range...

[Guest midnightwalker1]

LOL...Here we have a 21"x10" print WASRT found... This was one big boy and have had estimates this his height in the 11-12 foot range...

I've only seen one print like that in the leaves. It was monstrous and hard to imagine until you see it (or until you see the one that laid it). That's a nice shot of a huge print. Honestly, I'd lean towards 12'

[gigantor]

...Here we have a 21"x10" print WASRT found... This was one big boy and have had estimates this his height in the 11-12 foot range.

TooRisky,

Please show your formula and logic. That is this thread's stipulation.

Using Dr Fahrenbach's formula:

21" x 5 = 105" or 8' 9"

Edited October 29, 2010 by gigantor

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

LOL...Here we have a 21"x10" print WASRT found... This was one big boy and have had estimates this his height in the 11-12 foot range...

21 X 6.9 = 144.9\12 = 12.075 Feet tall. Yep, that's a big boy. Chris B.

[gigantor]

Chris, just wondering, where do you get the 6.9 factor from? not saying it's wrong, just wondering...

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, just wondering, where do you get the 6.9 factor from? not saying it's wrong, just wondering...

That's my formula based on my findings in KY. 6.8 is the standard factor I use. To figure TooRisky's print I added .1 to get the 6.9 because the width was 10" on TooRisky's print measurement. Normally the formula for 6.8 works fine on prints up to 8" wide but I add a bit if the width goes over that. The standard formula is 6.8 X foot length, divided by 12 = Approximate height of subject in feet. It's been pretty accurate for me here in KY.

Chris B.

[gigantor]

Thanks.

[Guest]

midnightwalker1,

Anthropometric Source Book, Volume II: A Handbook of Anthropometric Data, NASA Reference Publication 1024, provides information for various populations of men and women. For example, a survey of 3,869 United States Air Force male personnel showed an average foot length of 10.34in, with a corresponding average height of 69.01in. A survey of 221 stewardesses showed an average foot length of 9.40in, with a corresponding average height of 65.45in.

Thus, the height/foot ratio for men is about 6.67, while the ratio for women is about 6.96. The average of the sex-specific values is 6.82 for adult humans, which yields a height estimate of about 9.4ft for a 16.5in foot.

For a non-human primate these ratios may well be different. A 16.5in foot is likely above the distributions of values in both the USAF and stewardess surveys, in which the reported 95th percentile of foot length is 11.4in and 10.1in, respectively. The USAF survey reports a 99th percentile of 11.8in. Of course, very large men are not accepted into the ranks of the USAF, and very large women do not become stewardesses.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest]

But I am here to attest to the fact that any woman over 300 lbs. has extra wide feet, the bones just spread out and the foot gets flatter to support the extra weight. People tend to go up a shoe size with every 30 lbs. they gain, just FYI. I don't know what relevance this may have to bigfoot other than the foot size might indicate weight better than height.

[Guest midnightwalker1]

midnightwalker1,

Anthropometric Source Book, Volume II: A Handbook of Anthropometric Data, NASA Reference Publication 1024, provides information for various populations of men and women. For example, a survey of 3,869 United States Air Force male personnel showed an average foot length of 10.34in, with a corresponding average height of 69.01in. A survey of 221 stewardesses showed an average foot length of 9.40in, with a corresponding average height of 65.45in.

Thus, the height/foot ratio for men is about 6.67, while the ratio for women is about 6.96. The average of the sex-specific values is 6.82 for adult humans, which yields a height estimate of about 9.4ft for a 16.5in foot.

For a non-human primate these ratios may well be different. A 16.5in foot is likely above the distributions of values in both the USAF and stewardess surveys, in which the reported 95th percentile of foot length is 11.4in and 10.1in, respectively. The USAF survey reports a 99th percentile of 11.8in. Of course, very large men are not accepted into the ranks of the USAF, and very large women do not become stewardesses.

Pteronarcyd

Makes sense and seems solid statistically (law of large numbers). Also lines up with what Chris was saying and I agree with. Good post and thanks

Edited October 29, 2010 by midnightwalker1

[gigantor]

Just want to point out that Chris was saying 12ft. Fahrenbach's formula produced 8'9".

Pteronarcyd says 9.4ft, which is much closer to Fahrenbach's number.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Just want to point out that Chris was saying 12ft. Fahrenbach's formula produced 8'9".

Pteronarcyd says 9.4ft, which is much closer to Fahrenbach's number.

I think Pteronarcyd figured 9.4 feet on a 16.5 inch track. My numbers that determine 12 feet are for TooRisky's 21 inch track. For a 16.5 inch track, my formula calculates 9.35 feet in height. Just to clarify. Chris B.

[Guest midnightwalker1]

Just want to point out that Chris was saying 12ft. Fahrenbach's formula produced 8'9".

Pteronarcyd says 9.4ft, which is much closer to Fahrenbach's number.

On the 16.5" print I'll accept 9-10' tall because that's also the height that I saw on the other track signs for my area. On a 21 inch print? Nah, that's a big ole boy. I'd place him at 12 foot with all due respect to Farenbach.

[Guest RayG]

Just tossing this out there because I thought it was very interesting. I found a word document online from "Anthropometric Guidelines - Department of Defense Ergonomics Working Group, A table of measurments and guidelines developed and published by the DoD Ergonomics Working Group."

The direct link is found here, on a page filled with links to info on Anthropometry.

Unfortunately there's no data included to indicate how many subjects were measured, but here's a pic with the info I found most interesting:

According to their measurements, the average height for a man (line 9) is 68.7 inches, with only 5% of the population greater than 72 inches tall. If I stand really straight, I top out at 72 inches tall.

Line 24 shows that the average shoulder breadth on a man is 17.9 inches, with only 5% of the population having a shoulder breadth greater than 18.8 inches. My bare shoulders are more than 2 inches wider at a whopping 21.5 inches, and I have no idea what percentage of the population would fit into that category.

The last category that I found interesting was foot length, with the average length being 10.5 inches, with only 5% having feet greater than 11.2 inches in length. My feet are 11.5 inches.

So, while my height is right at the cutoff for the 95th percentile, and my feet are slightly longer, my shoulders are a great deal larger, and demonstrates the problem with trying to take average measurements and applying them to the general population.

RayG