stancourtney Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 This footprint last week may be the largest ever found east of the Mississippi River, not sure about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Cool, thanks for posting stabilized version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Last week a friend and I found a single left track of 26 1/2 inches in Southern Illinois. The night before he had turned around as this creature was crossing the road quickly behind us. All the picture and details are here: Southern Illinois Giant How cool is that? Man, a footprint of 26 1/2 inches is quite the incredible find. I've always had tremendous respect and faith in you and if you post it and feel comfortabole with doing so then I'm going to lean towards believing you. Respect an awful lot of folks around here, but none moreso than yourself. I see BFSleuth used the Farenbach scale and took your foot measurement and figured an weight of over 1000 lbs. and close to 10' in height. Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stancourtney Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I would not have believed a 26 1/2 inch footprint unless I had been there. I have seen 18 inch several times before. Until we can lay a tape measure along side one these guys I think the height thing is just a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Summitwalker, you noted that many sighting reports don't have a reference to indicate height and that is true. This is why I always take a reported height estimate with several grains of uncrushed sea salt and allow that the actual height will be +/- a foot or two. However, as you noted, there are sighting reports with pretty good visual references and follow up work, like this one: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=28743 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The biggest hominid creature ever reported was 20 ft. tall in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tirademan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Here's a couple interesting accounts. tirademan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 JP, I would take that with a complete and utter pinch of salt. I cycled across the Cairngorms last year. They are a good set of rolling hills, nothing more, and there is no hiding place for anything. The highest peak in Britain is only just over 3000 feet, and we have just a tiny amount of tree cover left. There is no history of sightings in Britain, and not the slightest chance in a million that there are any unknown bipeds over here......the place is just so small, crowded, and farmed. Scotland, not to put too fine a point on it, has the highest alcohol consumption rates in Europe, and a history of practical jokes and tall stories. That is what I would suggest as the most likely explanation for that report. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 As always you rock tirademan with the historical newspaper reports. Dug those up from 1829 and 1793 I see. Always enjoy your posts and historical content. When The *old* forum got hit by the bug near the end the thing I missed the most were your posts. This forum is VERY fortunate to have you around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Stan's new report of the IL 26.5" tracks is the same length as an individual in OK that has been recently found by more than one researcher and years apart in the same general area. Height estimate cam back as 13 ft based on other large tracks with Class A reports to go with them. Like a 20" track and a 10' footer. The length of foot in inches divided by 2 equals height in feet fairly accurately. Patty is estimated by more than one way of being 7'3" or 7'4" with a 14.5" track. The same method of height estimate works. Also a Class A report was found in the area of the 26-27" Oklahoma track and describes someone seeing a giant BF peeking over a boulder at them which the boulder was later measured at 12' high and impressions over 2' long were found behind it. The step range if I recall was 9' . The True Giants are not only in the PNW or Canada. Keep in mind even I have a very hard time imagining this size but something is leaving those tracks imply something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 25, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) I used Farrenbach's scale and extrapolated that a 26.5" track would estimate a height of 9' 11" and a weight of 1,060 lbs (about 480 Kgs). Good idea BFSleuth. Dr Fahrenbach says about the foot to height relationship: "In a number of visual encounters, the foot length was measured subsequently and is here plotted against the estimated height. Inspections of the regression line (the average of all data points) shows the surprising detail that for 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 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 the height, in average feet by 6, and in large feet by 5". A 26.5" footprint is large, so according to Dr Farehback, the height would be 26.5 x 5 = 132.5" or 11'. I respect Stan Courney, but find the idea of a 11' BF implausible, much less in Illinois. Stan, is it possible your FB friend hoaxed you? after all, he invited you to his property, only he saw the animal and later he found a single print... he could have plotted the hoax at his leisure. Just saying... Edited March 25, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The biggest hominid creature ever reported was 20 ft. tall in Scotland. Wow, 20 feet? Can you give us some more info on this report? I never heard about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Here's what I gathered from this thread , so far. A) Stan's excellent and well documented report. I actually visited the web site... read it all, and listened to the full audio, that explained the entire event in detail.. before commenting. B ) Bigfoot being, that big... to produce 26" tracks, should probably be reported elsewhere.. like Texas (where everything's bigger), maybe ? Illinois has the 3rd most reports (am I right ?), in the BFRO (USA) database, and I only can wonder.. why it hasn't been yet included on the "Finding Bigfoot" series ? Maybe it will, now. C) Why Stan doesn't post here, very often D) All members don't read all posts in the thread, before posting and commenting. E) Scots are the heaviest boozers in the British Isles and tell tall tales. All this time... I thought that title went to Ireland ? There's not many Scottish Bars around the town, where I live... wonder why ? F) Tirademan's historical findings..which always add something well worth reading. edited to add Edited March 25, 2012 by imonacan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) I believe Melba Ketchum described seeing a 10 foot tall sasquatch, measured against the height of a caravan/ trailer. Mike Melba saw a Sasqatch? Man now I know the Ketchum affair is bogus! BTW I read the book in the70's showing the supposed 15' BF. Even by my undemanding standards of the day the book was utter tripe! And by the end the authors had digressed into underground alien mysteries or something to that effect. Acid was still common back then so go figure. Ask yourselves the question...Do you really think something that big is out there unknown and virtually unseen? At 12' we're gettinginto the Mighty Joe Young range and that as we know was fantasy. Edited March 25, 2012 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 IMO, the report of the 20 ft. tall BF is a hoax. There is a legend in Scotland about a creature known as the Big Grey Man of Ben MacDhui. http://manbeastuk.blogspot.ca/2008/10/scottish-yeti.html Here's a site about the so-called Scottish Bigfoot. I'm open minded and I investigate and research all hairy hominid creatures from all over the world, like the Big Grey Man of Ben MacDhui of Scotland and the Grendel of Denmark. But right now, I don't think there is any rock solid evidence to suggest that there are hairy hominids other than in North American and parts of Asia. Can anyone offer strong evidence for Yowie's (Australia) or Maricoxi's (South America)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts