How Fast Can Bigfoot Run?

[Cisco]

Parnassus

The point of my post was that powerful animals can be fast.

That being said, thank you for posting. Interesting thoughts!

[indiefoot]

I remember reading about a Foot that while running down an incline made a 90 degree turn by placing it's foot on a tree and pushing as it was running and landed going the other direction. Don't remember where I read that.

[Guest BFSleuth]

BFS, you seem to know the reports like the back of your hand lol. I find the first one really interesting, how it ran 35mph quadrupedally. The third one too, how it was chasing the deer on all fours. Could it be they run faster on all fours?

I was searching for the report I read that described a BF running across a road that put on a burst of speed to avoid getting hit by going quadrupedal. Maybe someone else has that link.

Indiefoot, that sounds like quite the report with the BF pushing off the tree, almost like parkour....

This report describes a BF crossing 30 yards in two quadrupedal leaps, swatting a hog against a tree, then killing it by pounding on it "like pounding on a table top" all in about 4 seconds:

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=8547

This report describes a continuously howling BF running up a valley, climbing a sheer cliff at great speed, then running up a mountainside. For those who aren't familiar, the estimate of a 5.9 difficulty on the cliff is expert level rock climbing that requires a rope and gear for all but the very top climbers:

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=22434

.... but then I guess we all need to consider frumpy ole Patty to form our opinions of what a BF can do.... (sigh)

[Guest Tontar]

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the MK Davis White Bigfoot video. If authentic it shows a bigfoot matching a sprinter's speed at a walk (one foot on the ground at all times). So how fast would it have been able to move if it would have actually broken into a run? Forty mph doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility to me.

I've seen it. It looks like a horse with white front legs, shoulder and neck. Does not look like a bigfoot running amongst other pasture animals.

.... but then I guess we all need to consider frumpy ole Patty to form our opinions of what a BF can do.... (sigh)

Or you can dismiss her as a hoax, not representative of what a real bigfoot is like. There are always more options.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Must be the front half of a horse...

[Guest COGrizzly]

There was a BFRO report from Eagle CO that has now been removed. It described a huge Sasquatch chasing a car on HWY 131 at speeds of 40-45MPH from 1987. Not only that, the reportee had seen Sasquatches everywhere. Multiple Squatches. Even Squatches going quad IN THE TOWN of Eagle when the reportee was young, chasing dogs. The BFRO took down all of her reports b/c she seem very suspect. I knew who she was/is. She is now in "good care" shall we say. Strangely, she is the offspring of a very prominent local (deceased), one of the founders of the most successful ski resorts ever.

Edited May 8, 2012 by COGrizzly

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

But again, one thing we know for sure is the amazing stride length reported in many sightings. Stride length is a key to good sprint speeds. Having that kind of stride is itself a huge advantage. So yeah, my non-biased opinion is that many of them should be able to go at least as fast as world class Olympic Sprinters. With the fastest Sasquatch greatly exceeding even that.

peace!

[BeachFoot]

Okay, folks....I decided to have a little fun with this this morning and throw some simple math at it to try to at least put things in perspective. Now, for the pedantics in residence, I'm gonna qualify this first by saying that, since this is a website by and for Sasquatch enthusiasts (skeptic and believer alike), I'm basing this exercise on the supposed anatomical and physiological simililarites to humans that are currently attributed to Sasquatch. Primarily with regard to motion, or locomotion in this case.

The average WALKING stride of a human (male, 6 ft. tall) is 28.8". The average SPRINTING stride for a 6' tall male is 98.42". Once again, for the pedantics - http://www.livestron...gth-in-running/

So....the sprinting stride of a human is ~3.4 times the length of the walking stride. Simple enough. According to the BFRO, the average WALKING stride of a Sasquatch is 60.0". ( http://www.bfro.net/...sasq_traits.htm )

Since none of the trackways have been measured (that I know of) of a sprinting Sasquatch, for arguments sake I'm just going to apply the formula: 60.0" x 3.4 for a SPRINTING stride of 204.0"

Since the bulk of Sasquatch would indicate that, if they CAN sprint, they are likely only good for a short distance at top speed. I'm applying the logic here that most predatory animals are the same. Cheetah's can hit 60mph, but only for a short time. Lions and other predators suffer the same problem. Therefore I used the world record for the 60m sprint as a baseline. That record is 21mph. http://www.elitefeet...-can-humans-run

Now, assuming that a Sasquatch at full sprinting stride can move his/her legs at LEAST as fast as a human:

For man: Sprinting stride length of 98.42 = 20mph (I figured I'd round it off...it WAS a world record and not the norm)

Sasquatch: Sprinting stride length of 204.0 (or 2.07 times LONGER than a human) would give the Sasquatch a top speed over 60m of:

41.4 mph.

As for the mid-tarsal break, I would think if the musculature of the foot allowed it, the break might actually explain the smoothness with which Sasquatch are purported to run. If the foot is allowed to flex (in the center, as well as at the ankle) rather than rotate along the entire longitudinal axis (at the end, or the ankle) it would result in a more fluid motion. I liken it to rolling a ball rather than trying to flip a steel plate of the same size. This might actually increase the spring in the stride, increasing the stride length even more (resulting in an even higher top end).

Oh, and from the first website I linked: "A longer stride length is one factor involved in running speed."

DISCLAIMER: Just a little fun with numbers and an attempt at perspective. Not meant to be taken as fact. Your individual mileage and/or top speed may vary.

Edited May 8, 2012 by BeachFoot

[Guest]

I think it more or a case of how quick they are as compared to fast. I doubt they would be able to maintain a high rate of speed for a distance. as they way they are described as being built with a large,bulky muscle mass, and do not obtain the long,lean, muscle mass as most animals built for speed.

[Cotter]

In reading this, I think there are a few assumptions being made that may be incorrect.

1) Patty is representative of a BF specimen that can run 40+ MPH. For those that refer back to Patty for such, what makes you think that Patty is the 'best' representation of a specimen.

2) BF and humans are a good comparison. Short of having 2 legs, 2 arms, head, mouth, ears, nose, what other data/accounts suggest they have any sort of similar muscular, nervous, or digestive systems as humans? We could be trying to draw a similarity about cars by comparing a Model T or 2012 Ferrari (no cars could EVER go that fast! Model T's only go 30 mph). I think that is a pretty big assumption in and of itself. Additionally, even our most adepth athletes are not the 'full package'. A creature designed to live in the wilderness for survival, when in their prime, has their entire muscle group honed and in condition - not just select muscle groups to help them sprint, or butterfly, or shot-put.

All of the above lands me in the camp that 'well, maybe they can and maybe they can't', but I'm not going to dismiss or support any claim either way.

[bipedalist]

...Sasquatch: Sprinting stride length of 204.0 (or 2.07 times LONGER than a human) would give the Sasquatch a top speed over 60m of: 41.4 mph.

A very amazing number that seems to validate some observations, nevertheless. Thanks for the examples and data.

[BeachFoot]

_{I think it more or a case of how quick they are as compared to fast. I doubt they would be able to maintain a high rate of speed for a distance. as they way they are described as being built with a large,bulky muscle mass, and do not obtain the long,lean, muscle mass as most animals built for speed.}

_{Zigo....reference Para. 5 of my post. This was taken into consideration.}

_{In reading this, I think there are a few assumptions being made that may be incorrect.}

_{1) Patty is representative of a BF specimen that can run 40+ MPH. For those that refer back to Patty for such, what makes you think that Patty is the 'best' representation of a specimen.}

_{2) BF and humans are a good comparison. Short of having 2 legs, 2 arms, head, mouth, ears, nose, what other data/accounts suggest they have any sort of similar muscular, nervous, or digestive systems as humans? We could be trying to draw a similarity about cars by comparing a Model T or 2012 Ferrari (no cars could EVER go that fast! Model T's only go 30 mph). I think that is a pretty big assumption in and of itself. Additionally, even our most adepth athletes are not the 'full package'. A creature designed to live in the wilderness for survival, when in their prime, has their entire muscle group honed and in condition - not just select muscle groups to help them sprint, or butterfly, or shot-put.}

_{All of the above lands me in the camp that 'well, maybe they can and maybe they can't', but I'm not going to dismiss or support any claim either way.}

_{1. As stated tin a previous post, I do not consider Patty to be a "prime" specimen. According to reports, she is more than likely an aged, post child-bearing female specimen. Not a young male in good shape.}

_{2. Of course using humans is a good example. From all indications, Sasquatch would be MOST like a human in appearance, musculature (albeit heavier). Nature has a way of fine tuning based on requirements, not reinventing the wheel. I think it's a rather safe assumption that, if they exist, they are built a LOT like us. Look at humans, other primates and any other animal that would fall in the same branch of the family tree should the purported DNA analysis prove they exist to begin with. Comparing a Ferrari and a Model T and a human vs. Sasquatch is comparing apples to oranges. The engine, drivetrain, suspension and computer-driven enhancements to a Ferrari would of COURSE result in a marked improvement in performance. The only similarity between the two is that they both have 4 wheels. Sasquatch and humans are (in my opinon, of course) more or less built the same.}

Edited May 8, 2012 by BeachFoot

[Guest Tontar]

As for the mid-tarsal break, I would think if the musculature of the foot allowed it, the break might actually explain the smoothness with which Sasquatch are purported to run. If the foot is allowed to flex (in the center, as well as at the ankle) rather than rotate along the entire longitudinal axis (at the end, or the ankle) it would result in a more fluid motion. I liken it to rolling a ball rather than trying to flip a steel plate of the same size. This might actually increase the spring in the stride, increasing the stride length even more (resulting in an even higher top end).

Nice analysis, Beach! However, I would take issue with your guess that a mid-tarsal hinged foot would add spring and result in even more top end. Look at how the feet of top speed animals are designed. They all use relatively long, levered "feet". Take a dog, as a prime example. They have a long "hock", which is the part of their leg that is analogous to our foot. They walk on their toes the same as if we were walking on our toes. Their heel bone juts out well behind so that the achilles tendon and calf muscle can provide a lot of power to that long lever of a foot/hock. Horses have the same lever. Cheetahs have the same lever. Virtually all (land) mammals have a similar foot structure (please don't nit-pick and talk about bat feet). Bears, chimps, gorillas, and so on have similar, but different feet due to their tree climbing ability, which has caused their feet to evolve in a slightly different direction. But land walkers have the same lever foot design. It is that rigid lever that provides the thrusting, sprinting power. take that lever away but hinging it in the middle, and you reduce the speed potential significantly. The lever is then only as long as the rear portion of the foot rigidly attached to the achilles, so the true running lever portion of the foot is reduced to what, half the normal length?

That not only reduces the amount of power that can be delivered to the ground for speed, it also reduces the amount of springing shock absorption that the longer lever foot provides. A smaller, shorter traveling shock absorber, in other words. That should translate to less smooth running because the feet can't absorb the shocks, so the knees have to act as shock absorbers. If anyone thinks that knees make better shock absorbers than rigid arched feet, watch a double amputee, someone who has lost both feet, run. The legs are nowhere near as efficient as shock absorbers as the feet are.

I don't reject the mid-tarsal foot because I don't like the philosophical position behind it (more ape than human), but because there is such a huge list of reasons an animal like bigfoot would not and should not have it. There is such a short, and impractical list of why it would. If people want to ascribe fast sprinting speeds to bigfoot, then the mid tarsal foot would have to go. If pelople want to ascribe jumping, landing after jumping, maneuvering carefully through uneven terrain, walking smoothly, and virtually every other thing that peple might want to ascribe to bigfoots, then the hinged foot needs to go. Only by not understanding the benefits and advantages of a rigid, lever foot, is the mid tarsal foot able to be applied to bigfoot.

Yes I know that Dr. Meldrum believes it could work. The fact is, nature has proven otherwise. nature proves what works and what doesn't work within specific tasks. Demonstrate a non-levered foot in nature that provides all the necessary functions a bigfoot would require. Nobody can serve up that dish.

You want speed, you need a rigid foot.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Bears, chimps, gorillas, and so on have similar, but different feet due to their tree climbing ability, which has caused their feet to evolve in a slightly different direction.

Excellent analysis of animals built for speed. The one question might be that with so many observations of BF climbing abilities, in particular climbing steep slopes without turning the feet sideways and without using hands, it might seem that their feet are hinged. Also, remember the 3 mile trackway recently found in Minnesota, particularly when the creature stepped up very high onto a log? The foot had apparently wrapped itself around the approximately 10" diameter tree, with the next step sideways to the right. They have also been observed to climb trees very adeptly.

While I realize that your analysis of all known and catalogued land animals don't have a mid-tarsal hinge, the case of the BF might be the exception. Meldrum's analysis is that because of the greater body mass the ankle joint is moved forward to be closer to mid foot than a human, there is no arch because the great weight can't be supported very well by an arch (born out in tracks), and the mid-tarsal flex provides for smoother transition in the stride. As noted in a prior post, one of the common characteristics of sighting reports is that BF walk and run very fluidly. This would be supported by Meldrum's hypothesis of a mid-tarsal hinge.

[Doc Holliday]

I remember reading about a Foot that while running down an incline made a 90 degree turn by placing it's foot on a tree and pushing as it was running and landed going the other direction. Don't remember where I read that.

IIRC,that was a Virginia researcher ,I think draginis? I probably murdered the name spelling,if so im sorry.

Happened around fredericksburg I think,if I don't have it mixed up w/ another.