Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I know I have read about 30 foot tall bigfoots. Read somewheres. Sorry for the lack of recall. I cannot imagine how they would hide or how much they would eat. That's just crazy. It just seems impossible, but I am not sure I would say it's a lie--if sas is real, and it is, then God knows what else might be real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyASize12 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 10 foot tall seems extraordinary... A few years ago, someone posted a series of tests using common objects arranged to form a structure that we were supposed to guess the height/distance to based upon a photo taken. The photos were all in broad daylight and you had as much time as you wanted to review it. it was interesting how wrong most of the estimates were. I would suspect that a fleeting encounter, especially in any form of lower light, would lead to a mis-estimation of height unless you had something known (a vehicle, porch roof-line) to scale against after the encounter...and the wits/time to make that guage during the sighting. That said, I would also expect that Bigfoots exibit the same variations in height that all living things do. Amidst all the "ordinary" 6-8 footers....you are gonna get a couple of truely BIG individuals. We know that there have been humans over 8 feet tall...so a squatch of 10-11 feet seems possible if you expect a "normal" adult's height to be 8 feet. Also, until we get a couple of actual specimens to examine, I do think there is a degree of uncertainty to the "A footprint of this size means a squatch of this size" calibration....to say nothing of the fact of individual variations for those things. Anyone examining our footprints would expect me to be physically larger than my father based upon my size 12 foot vs his size 10. Although I am heavier, he is in fact taller... Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Stan Courtney's bigfoot print at 26.5 inches is about as big as I've seen. My formula, from before 2002, indicates that13.25 ft is in the ball-park for that footprint length. The statistics which I've worked on seems to indicate that 15 ft is about it for a maximum height. This was + 5 S.D. from the mean, taller than the next 10,000 or 100,000 (i forget) bigfoots you'll see in your life , if, indeed, you see any. Grover Krantz showed me the longest bigfoot cast that he had in his possession in 1988 or maybe 1989.....30 inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Here is one of the most notably immense reports I can recall. It's from Rattlesnake Ridge in Washington state, 1998: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/rattlesnake.htm Certainly one of the best written descriptions of an awesomely sized creature. ...the gluts were as large as a Clydesdale's ass... I am 6'2 and I only came up to his midsection. I can only guess that this animal was between 10 and 12 feet in height. It was much higher than a basketball rim and towered over us like we were children...The feet on this creature were massive and were approximately 20 or more inches in length... The calves were twice the size of my own head, and his quads were as big as tree trunks and swept out like a bodybuilders. I'm not kidding; those legs looked like they could squat a full-size Dodge pickup truck. The glutes were huge and muscular and very high like a track runner's. They tied into these enormous hamstrings that gave the animal a very explosive look, like it could sprint at very high speeds. The waist was narrow and very powerful and solid looking. Above that I could see these huge lats that flared out under his arms. His pectorals were wide and bulky looking. They were so big, that they came up to his chin. I couldn't see any neck at all, but his traps and deltoids were what really caught my attention. First of all, the delts were as big as beach balls and connected to them were these HUGE traps that flared out and upward. They went from his deltoids to his ears. The top of his head was conical and these bulky muscles steamed down from the tip of his cranium to his traps kind of like the back of a Gorilla's neck...His arms were huge and bulky, and you could see his triceps bulging out and his biceps looked like bowling balls. His forearms were abnormally long and they too were bulging with muscles. His knuckles were huge... Believe me, trying to describe this creature does not even begin to do it justice. I wish I could somehow download his picture from my brain and put it on a screen to show you his enormous proportions. In 1993, I shot a 1200-lb bull Elk near Yakima. The creature we saw that day had twice the muscle mass as my Elk did, and I guarantee you he weighed no less than 1500 lbs, with a maximum weight of 2500 lbs EASILY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I know I have read about 30 foot tall bigfoots. Read somewheres. Sorry for the lack of recall. I cannot imagine how they would hide or how much they would eat. That's just crazy. It just seems impossible, but I am not sure I would say it's a lie--if sas is real, and it is, then God knows what else might be real. Vampires and werewolves for sure. *points to name* ..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 A few years back Tim Binnall interviewed a fellow named Joe Fex who, among other things, claimed to have met a 14-foot bigfoot in the hills of Tennessee. It's been a long time since I listened to this interview, but if I remember correctly, he also claimed to have had some telepathic contact with this bigfoot, and that it had traveled all the way from the Pacific Northwest to Tennessee, to assume the role of patriarch in a bigfoot family/clan. Very interesting interview. You can download it here: http://www.binnallofamerica.com/boaa5.13.6.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 You know I wonder if there isn't something like extreme sexual dismorphism going on here like with the orangutans. Perhaps the others that are reported more often are the subadult males that have left the home range to go roaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spasticskeptic Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I'm not sure on the biggest Bigfoot, but this image always intrigued me. If my memory is correct, those guys were apparently in the back of a pick up and they were chased down the road by a Bigfoot the size of their cut out. I think the pic was from the early to mid 70s. That's one BIG cut out. Not sure if the finger placement is intentional though Cheers, Kraig That pic is from Los Angeles County from the early 70s. IIRC, that alleged encounter was in a campground near either a place called "Pearblossom" or "Sycamore Flats," and sort of on the back (North) side of Mt Baldy (although somewhat west of Baldy proper). These campgrounds look down on the city lights of Lancaster and Palmdale at night. Nice view. I have always been suspicious of the claims involved here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Thanks for the corrections, obviously my memory isn't the same as it used to be... Cheers, Kraig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Is there anyone here who has a clip of a (near as can be) authentic sasquatch howl/groan? I think I might have heard one today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 i think it might be a little tough to accurately judge height if faced by something as massive as some reports claim. maybe adrenaline & nerves fuel some of those XXXXL ,even for BF, claims. idk. now if one stood by an object of known height for reference to give an idea, then youve got a starting point ,imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hominid Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I take the reports over 7-8 ft. with a 20lb bag of rock salt. I think most people lose their sense of scale once they get beyond the standard normal distribution of human height. Search for images of Robert Wadlow, the tallest human being ever recorded at 8-11 and some change. When standing next to normal sized people, he looks ridiculously large. I can easily imagine that someone, after an adrenaline charged fleeting encounter, might describe him as "12 feet tall and a thousand pounds!" Even, 7' plus NBA players look incredibly tall when standing next to "normals". There's a picture out there of 7-6 Yao Ming standing next to the 6-6 Michael Jordan that really shows how much difference 1 foot can make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 ^ What about when people have a scale with which to get a good estimate, like tree branches or whatnot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I think what hominid's tryin to say is with a sasquatch encounter, or even if it'd happen to be a mistaken identity (bear, large wolf, err whichever), most people are so startled and scared crappless that their natural self preservation interest kicks in and overrides the objective mind, and they resort to fight or flight (usually FLight) thus don't take time to do a size reference. Even if the creature happens to be standing beside something of known height, it's not likely someone in freak-out mode would accurately note the verticle relationship. And yes most errors, in recollection, would be in favor of size increase from actual. I often wondered, though, if someone saw an elf or leprechaun, would they tend to estimate the size smaller than actual? Since such entities are supposed to be tiny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 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 Mike What is or was your take on the UK 'Bolam Bigfoot' report from 2003? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts