Jump to content
Guest Tontar

How Fast Can Bigfoot Run?

Recommended Posts

bipedalist
BFF Patron

Yes, I tried to find a good link to it. Check Virginia Bigfoot Research Organization (Dranginis site online). He was with a couple of government agents..... one of which stated there is an unknown behind a tree in such a such direction observing us. The BF spun out behind the tree sprinted away kicking off the base of another tree abruptly changing direction on the fly. Investigation found bark abraded at the point of foot-contact with the downhill tree pivoting point evidently.

Edited by bipedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

I'm going to feel stupid for asking, but what advantage does not having a mid-tarsal break give us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

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.

Here's something to consider when thinking that a bigfoot's weight would make an arch, whether visible or internal and masked by fatty or callous, fibrous tissue, impractical. I've heard people say that bigfoots are so heavy that an arch would want to flatten, would not be practical, and so on. How heavy do you think an elephant is? Or a hippo? Pretty heavy, right? Well, while they don't have an arch, per say, they do not have flat bottomed feet as far as the bones go. Their feet are much less flat than ours are. Their foot bones are oriented as toes pointing downward, much like if you were to do Bruce Lee fingertip pushups. Imagine the muscles involved in holding those fingers and toes up on their tips, as well as the thick tissue serving as the internal padding.

Bigfoot could have an equal or greater degree of arching in their feet than we have in ours, yet they might have a more highly developed amount of thickened tissue in the sole, which gives the external appearance of a flat, arch free foot. That padding, the thickened tissue, would satisfy many characteristics of what we see in footprint evidence and bigfoot behavior. It would allow a rigid arch, for speed and jumping and landing. It would allow bigfoot to fit in with the vast majority of other land animals, and not be some unique, one off, almost alien design. It would allow for flat footprints. It would allow for perceived flexibility as the padded tissue would yield and appear to make the foot bend.

That kind of foot would make logical sense to me. A normal, traditional, vastly common foot structure, with an also fairly common heavy amount of padding in the sole. That makes sense to me, a hinged foot doesn't for so many reasons.

I'm going to feel stupid for asking, but what advantage does not having a mid-tarsal break give us?

Primarily it serves two purposes. The first is that it allows the bigfoot to be classified as a non-human primate, more closely related to the other great apes such as the gorilla, chimps, and so on. It allows us to connect bigfoot with the only known giant primate (ape) in the fossil record, Gigantopithecus. It allows us to see bigfoot as an ape, not a human. For some, that's an important distinction, whether it be for religious reasons or for general peace of mind and fitting within one's overall world view of things.

Secondly, it allows people to make sense of some of the footprints that show soil piled up underneath the foot, as if the front pushed the soil after the rear was lifted up. The footprints that demonstrate this fore foot pressure ridge effect can be easily explained by the varying types of soil behaving that way with even a rigid foot, and other prints in other types of soil do not show the hinged action, so narrowing it down to an effect of soil composition seems to me to be far more reasonable than making a hinged foot as an answer. However, even though the prints themselves don't prove a hinged foot, and in fact many prints seem to prove otherwise, adding the idea that some of the prints have a pressure ridge showing up allows the "ape" theorists to have an additional bit of evidence to support their assumption.

In other words, the advantages of a mid tarsal hinged foot is for bigfoot proponents who want to classify bigfoot as a non-human ape. The advantages for bigfoot functionally, are more elusive than the beast itself.

Edited by Tontar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

@ Beachfoot:

I agree that humans may be the 'best' comparison to BF that we could make, I simply don't think it's an appropriate one since we don't know 'what's under the hood'.

I feel the car analogy is appropriate as you pointed out that the similarities end with them both having 4 wheels (here I can add, engine, axles, transmission), I'm saying that perhaps the similarities between BF and Humans may end at the '4 wheels' (2 arms, 2 legs, head, eyes, ears, nose) as well.

Oh, and please don't think I was directing my original post at you personally, I was making an observation where perhaps our basic assumptions (mine included!) may not be entirely accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BeachFoot
:good: ^^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

Tontar, I +1'ed that last post, the most logical argument for the lack of mid-tarsal flex I've read. I'm just wondering how your scenario will fit in with observations of great foot flexibility. It could be that simply the range of motion they have for ankle flexing is greater that human and their toes may have greater range of motion. The fatty padded bottom I believe has been mentioned in some sighting reports as well. Your post gives food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

There is a report from the Blackfeet reservation in

Montana where y a foot chases a car down a mountain along several tight turns &eventuly cut the couple off --headed them off at the pass. Would have taken considerable speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Y'know Sleuth, you are right....

Good stuff Tontar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

This interview with a witness is very interesting. I can't find the original report, but this described an incident where the witness was out mushrooming and came across a path of uprooted mushrooms that were peeled in a way that would require hands. The witness observed a female BF with young in a tree on a branch, then she saw a large male in another tree. The male swung easily down out of the trees and escorted/chased her back to the car. They then drove at speeds in excess of 30 mph down a mountain road being chased for miles by the male BF running through the trees:

http://bigfootology.com/?p=418

This would belie the idea that BF don't have stamina. Native Americans have often said that BF can run for long distances. How that matches up with such a large body mass? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

^Being chased at 30mph for miles is serious business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

Another aspect of BF physiology I've been thinking about is that they must have very heavy bones in the forearms and likely heavy callouses on the outer edge, kind of like the development of the callouses and bones in the hands of a karate expert. BF are often described as simply breaking smaller trees off with their forearms as they run through the woods in apparent bluff charges or when it seems like they want to make their presence known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

We calculated (based on measurements taken.. after) the speed of the subject I witnessed, at 28 MPH. In the forest terrain that I described in the other thread, I consider that quite fantastic. It made me consider my sighting lasted another second, and that speed was still faster than anything upright could move through, that i know of. I could barely make 5 MPH, without falling and making tons of noise. It is all fantastic.. though, isn't it ?. Seeing, is believing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Tontar, I +1'ed that last post, the most logical argument for the lack of mid-tarsal flex I've read. I'm just wondering how your scenario will fit in with observations of great foot flexibility. It could be that simply the range of motion they have for ankle flexing is greater that human and their toes may have greater range of motion. The fatty padded bottom I believe has been mentioned in some sighting reports as well. Your post gives food for thought.

Not bad for a cynic, eh? ;-) As far as foot flexibility, check out dancers, divers and gymnasts feet. Look at the high degree of foot flexibility they have, even while maintaining a "rigid" arch. Add additional foot padding to that, and you have what could be accounted for in most observations. I don't believe the PGF shows anything substantial in so far as foot flexibility, certainly not any mid tarsal bending. The film is too poor for that, and there are logs, branches and debris that cloud the observation of foot behavior while lifting from the ground. So when I dismiss the MTB evidence from the PGF, it's not dismissing that Patty has it, only that the film does not show it in a way that one can make a positive conclusion. Her foot plant is the same as a human, heel first, foot flat, toes lifted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

We calculated (based on measurements taken.. after) the speed of the subject I witnessed, at 28 MPH. In the forest terrain that I described in the other thread, I consider that quite fantastic. It made me consider my sighting lasted another second, and that speed was still faster than anything upright could move through, that i know of. I could barely make 5 MPH, without falling and making tons of noise. It is all fantastic.. though, isn't it ?. Seeing, is believing.

What was the distance and time you observed?

Your calculations are similar to the one done by the link I provided earlier in this thread with the BF that killed the hog, they measured the distance from starting point to swatting the hog at 90' (30 yards). His initial estimate was 4 seconds from start to multiple strike kill, although that time estimate was subject to being a bit longer. He was pretty shaken up about how quickly such a large animal could move and the violence of the attack. Not to mention the intimidation when it looked directly at him and sneered after picking up the estimated 100 lb hog like a sack of groceries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BFS, after the incident (it was at night, and seen through NV goggles) we went back in daylight and measured . In a straight line, from where I saw it emerge from behind trees and into a clearing, and than disappear behind dense cover.. was 77 feet. It either took a sharp turn to the left ( south ), went up a tree, or just plain disappeared (hunkered down or something). No signs of it when another investigator walked down to the area a few minutes later ( which I was quite nervous about him doing, covering him with the NV ). I've considered I might have seen it for longer than two seconds, but not much longer (maybe three) . The distance was around 45 yds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...