Guest Twilight Fan Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Thanks for the link, Poulsen. I had no idea there was a supposed Scottish version of Bigfoot. Can you imagine if this goliath version teamed up with the Loch Ness Monster (also in Scotland)? That would be one scary duo! @ Crowlogic - Actually, Mighty Joe Young was 15 feet tall and 2000 pounds. At least in the Disney remake with Charlize Theron, I can't speak for the older version. But I agree with you. I've always found it strange how these supposed giant creatures could exist and waltz around in every state of the US without more people running into them, or without leaving more evidence behind. It's definitely a mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Jonathan, the incident I referred about "Grey Man" ,was an incident that lists it as "pre 1952" and at Ben MacDhui peak (listed as the tallest peak in Scotland, at 4,296 ft.), and was allegedly seen by a witness that spent the night on the summit. The estimated 20' creature was seen "swaggering", so maybe it was drinking or suffered from altitude sickness, or maybe the witness was lying or suffered from the same. I don't know if it's true, but read it in a book that describes worldwide hominids and cryptids seen. It puts the account before the PGF or the Jerry Crew track find American hype about BF..so who knows ? Many people think BF doesn't exist here, even with 10s of millions of unused forested acres, and other sparsely populated parks and forests, that people do use. How much is available in Scotland, or if the creature existed or not (?).. I cannot say, as I was just referring to a book, and story from that book.. that is one of the few out there, that boldly attempts to describe and sketch these creatures.. as per numerous witness accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stancourtney 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. Gearman, Thanks so much for the information from Oklahoma. I think many of us have programmed ourselves as to what we think these animals look like. When something different comes along it kind of shakes our beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The Scottish Bigfoot has swag? Also, I don't think that there is that much unexplored wilderness in Scotland (But I've never been there so I don't know). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stancourtney Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 gigantor 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... Hoaxing is always a major consideration. We had traveled the spot where the track was found twice the afternoon and evening before the animal ran behind us and across the road. If I had not been with the witness the whole time I would not have accepted the track find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted March 26, 2012 Admin Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Thanks Stan, it's just a very big print... but you were there and if you don't think you were hoaxed, that counts for a lot. I think Dr Fahrenbach said the biggest print he had in his study sample was 27", so you found a rare one and there must be a very big boy running around there. Edited March 26, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 B ) Bigfoot being, that big... to produce 26" tracks, should probably be reported elsewhere.. like Texas (where everything's bigger), maybe ? (am I right ?) Apparently you could be right about everything being bigger in Texas. Here's an article about a strange archaeological find in the 19th century that was apparently built & inhabited by giants. It came complete with among other things, a giant skull, a 25 ft. long bedstead, a three ft. long pair of sandals, & a 40 ft. high rock wall, enclosing 30 sq. miles. It's not a religious article, so if that kind of thing bothers you, just skip the first couple of paragraphs about the "Flood", & you should be fine. http://www.noahsark-naxuan.com/PR/CORREX%20Giant%20Texas%20Skull.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 One site I found about giant bones found, may interest some of you. Not sure what they are from but possibly sasquatches. Read cautiously though, some could be sensational and untrue. I'd like to think maybe these are sasquatch remains---FINALLY, a body! or not..... http://www.stangrist.com/giants.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest operator Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 that could explain why we dont find bodys.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Apparently you could be right about everything being bigger in Texas. Being the smart lady that I think you are.. you know I was just being sarcastic. Without this find from Texas being called a BF, and having a human type skull.. it doesn't count, .. but it is certainly the biggest giant fossil I've ever read about. With sandals the size of skateboards, it takes the cake for human feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Yeah, I know it doesn't count, but it's so interesting, I couldn't resist posting it. Your link was certainly interesting, too, Aaron. Maybe some of them are Bigfoot. Edited March 26, 2012 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 How can someone even guesstimate the height of BF when they see one? I mean, isn't that why they put the tape measure height chart in stores, so people getting robbed can estimate how tall the guy who just robbed them was? Exactly. A couple of years ago I was starting out from the first campsite along the Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail in PA, after the steep climb from Ohiopyle, and ran into my first bear. It was hidden in a thicket along the trail and I did not see it until it decided to run when I got too close it. I had little to no control over my reaction, which was probably rooted in the primitive parts of the brain. I froze, immediately turned my head and, with tunnel vision and slowed time, watched it run away. I might have said that its ears were equal in height to me, but I'm smarter than that and know that it was both running uphill, and lunging up on its hind legs in order to bound away. Perhaps based on this experience, I have a vague feeling, admittedly, that BF witnesses are seriously underestimating the distance between themselves and the BF during the encounter, as well as the creature's height. This is probably due to tunnel vision. 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. Maybe... but this could also work because it is a tautology, being based on the witness's perceived height and not on any objective measure of any bigfoot alive or dead. If witnesses are overestimating height to begin with, this will become part of any resulting formulas. As others have posted, the height to foot length ratios for different animals are likewise different. Peace, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Tirade, that story from 1829 seems remarkably similar to another story about a Georgia hunting party which went out for a period of weeks, encountered a BF, shot it, and then had several of the party killed before it succumbed. That story was also from 1829, but its details were different. I wonder if they are different accounts of the same story? As to BF size, I believe that Dranginis was investigating a BF which was reported to be 12 feet. He had a photo which strongly suggested the 12 feet was correct. Certainly it was over 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 The video strangely looks like Patty "video-shopped" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spader Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I have read True Giants and it goes into great detail of giant beings or manlike beings. Even the Bible has stories about the Nephilim (also included). If you are into folklore you should add it to your collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts