Jump to content

How Fast Can Bigfoot Run?


Guest Tontar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Tontar

Now we're seeing yet another big split in presumed BF anatomy and behavior. Sasfooty above states that they have seen BF's running on all fours, and that they are faster on all fours. Seeing one bigfoot is an amazing accomplishment, seeing three is even more incredible. Seeing two run on all fours begs the question of possible mistaken identity; whether the quadrupeds were bigfoots, or in fact something else like black bears, for example.

Concerning running on all fours, that opens a whole 'nuther can of worms. I am positive that there will be a huge slice of proponents that will not go for 4x4 running. The feet do not support a 4x4 running style. I would wager there are no trackways that indicate knuckle walking, or flat palm walking. Back to Patty, if she is representative of a real bigfoot, then no way could she go down on all fours for running. Running on all fours requires a back length to leg length relationship, and a hip geometry that can support the extreme forward hip flexion.

Since you claim to have seen a couple of BF's running on all fours, can you describe the sort of gait they used? Did they run like chimps on all fours? Like gorillas? Like dogs? Like bears?

Forgive my skepticism, or disbelief, but if bigfoots are built anywhere near like a human, I can't see any way they could run on all fours faster than anything else. They simply would not have the necessary geometry for high quadrupedal speed. Primarily, leg length, shape, muscle distribution, hip shape and angle, foot length and design, and arm and hand configuration.

Things that go well on two legs, generally don't go well on four, and vice versa.

Edited by Tontar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BFSleuth

First, I did NOT say that they "are faster on all fours". I said "I saw two running very fast on all fours, & the only one I have seen "running bipedally" was in more of a trot". I speculated that they might not be "all that fast" bipedally. I did not state that they are positively faster on all fours. Only what has been my observation.

The reason I mentioned that the ones I saw were running quadrapedally, was because it is presumably my account of that incident that started the uproar in the first place. All the speculation has been about comparing them to human bipedal runners, which is totally irrelevant in that case.

Since the ones I saw were obviously not Patty, it's also irrelevant whether she could have done it or not. There has been conjecture that there are more than one variety, so it's possible that some are more suited to quadrapedal travel than others.

I have no intention of arguing as to whether they have the necessary geometry for high quadrupedal speed or whether they travel that way. If you look around a little, you'll find that this isn't a new observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tontar

First, I did NOT say that they "are faster on all fours". I said "I saw two running very fast on all fours, & the only one I have seen "running bipedally" was in more of a trot". I speculated that they might not be "all that fast" bipedally. I did not state that they are positively faster on all fours. Only what has been my observation.

Actually, you said (bolding is mine, for reference):

I've only seen one running bipedally, & it was more of a trot than a run. It could be that they aren't all that fast unless they're going on all fours.

I will say that the two I saw that day were running as fast, or faster than any "animal" I've ever seen.

You said that they were as fast or faster than any animal you've ever seen. Assuming you've seen a few animals, that would mean that they were extremely fast on all fours

The reason I mentioned that the ones I saw were running quadrapedally, was because it is presumably my account of that incident that started the uproar in the first place. All the speculation has been about comparing them to human bipedal runners, which is totally irrelevant in that case.

There have been many comments about BF running at high speeds, jumping greta distances, jumping great heights, swimming long distances, staying under water for very long times... There are no shortages of bigfoot reports that claim extraordinary things. Whether they actually can accomplish such feats is, until such time as some sort of objective verification can be made, only as strong as the individual reports.

Since the ones I saw were obviously not Patty, it's also irrelevant whether she could have done it or not. There has been conjecture that there are more than one variety, so it's possible that some are more suited to quadrapedal travel than others.

Yes, I have heard the opinions that there are likely many different varieties of bigfoot. Browsing through reports would suggest that there are almost as many varieties as there are personal observations. I think most of us would be happy to verify even just one variety of bigfoot, much less any number of varieties. It's not as if it's difficult to promote a single breed of unknown, unverified, giant primate in NOrth America, but to propose that several different varieties or species, or sub species exist?

I have no intention of arguing as to whether they have the necessary geometry for high quadrupedal speed or whether they travel that way. If you look around a little, you'll find that this isn't a new observation.

I realize it is not a new observation. But then again, neither is their psychic abilities or cloaking abilities. I'm sorry if I have a problem with bigfoot being all things to all people, with almost unlimited morphology and behavior. But we just don't see parables in the known world, so how should it be that there would be such variety and capability, and super behavior in the unknown world? Even chimps and gorillas, which are quadrupedal most of the time, can't run faster than any other animal. How could one argue that a bigfoot, which has a body apparently designed to walk upright, not on all fours, somehow be able to shift gears and configuration, go down on all fours, and run like the wind? If they're out there, they're biological animals, not Transformers, not capable of changing shape and geometry to suit the terrain, or task at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BFSleuth

Even chimps and gorillas, which are quadrupedal most of the time, can't run faster than any other animal. How could one argue that a bigfoot, which has a body apparently designed to walk upright, not on all fours, somehow be able to shift gears and configuration, go down on all fours, and run like the wind? If they're out there, they're biological animals, not Transformers, not capable of changing shape and geometry to suit the terrain, or task at hand.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that BF is the fastest animal on the planet, unless we take into account some of the much higher estimates of speed. I think the safer estimate of their speed is reflected in the middling range of about 40 mph based on sighting reports, which is pretty much the only thing we have to go on at this point.

Regarding whether they can run quadrupedally, I would think this would certainly be possible based on the very long arms noted in so many sighting reports and the fact that observations of quadrupedal motion usually note that their back is not horizontal or sloped back to front (ie. the legs are proportionally the same as human) but note that their back is sloped front to back, running more like a gorilla.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tontar

Sasfooty claimed that the ones he/she (don't know Sas's gender) saw running on all fours were faster than any animal the ever saw. Of course, Sas may not have seen cheetah's run, nor our dogs, but I'm presuming they've seen some fast animals, including horses, other kinds of dogs, deer, and so on. Running faster than those animals, is pretty fast on all fours.

So, if we're going to accept that bigfoot can just as easily run on all fours, then I would propose that Patty is not one of them. Her legs are far too long and her arms are far too short to approximate a gorilla like quadruped stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tontar, you often use the more fantastical fringe claims when discussing these things, and I find it frustrating that you attempt to strengthen your argument using this tactic. Honestly, I think it does more to damage your argument, rather than bolster it.

There are a lot of comparisons made to our own anatomy, or to an apes, when we talk about Bigfoot, but there are some obvious clues that theirs is a different anatomy, unique to them. For example we do see evidence of a mid tarsal break, and as a result, half tracks. There have been incidents where as the stride lengthened, half tracks occurred. A clue to their bi pedal running style?

Reports of them running on all fours. This is not surprising, a survival technique to evade, through a lower profile, combined with better mobility in denser area's? It would enable them to follow bear trails more efficiently, and rapidly as well.

Its hard to "guess" at how efficient, or whether they are built for it, but we can guess their hips are not the same as ours, considering the tendency to inline track ways.

It would make total sense to me if a large, woods dwelling primate, was also adapted to moving on all fours. The advantage's of being both bi pedal and having quadrupedal abilities is pretty obvious. From hunting, to survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tontar

There are a lot of comparisons made to our own anatomy, or to an apes, when we talk about Bigfoot, but there are some obvious clues that theirs is a different anatomy, unique to them. For example we do see evidence of a mid tarsal break, and as a result, half tracks. There have been incidents where as the stride lengthened, half tracks occurred. A clue to their bi pedal running style?

How many half tracks are you aware of? Doesn't Dr. Meldrum have the biggest collection of casts in the country? How many does he have? If half tracks are a common occurrence, then there should be quite the track history, and cast record of them. I have only seen him reference one.

Are you suggesting that as they start to run, instead of going up on their toes like we do, they go up on the front half of their feet, keeping the rear elevated? I suppose that would be possible, but with such a short lever arm postulated with a hinged foot, it seems mechanically unsound. Also, I don't think that there's a documented trackway demonstrating multiple in line half tracks. If there are, maybe you could direct me to those. If they're running on their forefeet, they should produce a consistent string of half tracks indicating that happens.

Reports of them running on all fours. This is not surprising, a survival technique to evade, through a lower profile, combined with better mobility in denser area's? It would enable them to follow bear trails more efficiently, and rapidly as well.

Its hard to "guess" at how efficient, or whether they are built for it, but we can guess their hips are not the same as ours, considering the tendency to inline track ways.

It would make total sense to me if a large, woods dwelling primate, was also adapted to moving on all fours. The advantage's of being both bi pedal and having quadrupedal abilities is pretty obvious. From hunting, to survival.

I agree, it might be quite the advantage to have the ability to both walk upright as easily as a human, and as some have argued, even smoother than a human, yet when necessary drop down on all fours and navigate even more swiftly. However, while I agree it would be an advantageous thing, I think it would be a tall order to produce the proper anatomy to pull it off in a bigfoot. Besides, as tracks are the foremost line of evidence for their existence, there doesn't seem to be evidence to support such a mode of travel. I would submit that there are no documented tracks that indicate bigfoot goes on all fours. Certainly not running, and not walking. I don't think there are even documented trackways showing them running, unless I am wrong about that. Again, I'd refer to Dr. Meldrum for his database and cast collection as likely the best record of tracks.

Other than reports form people that claim to have seen it, and the idea that it would be a great way for them to get around, is there anything more tangible to support it?

By the way, what fantastical fringe claims do I make regarding bigfoot? I claim no special abilities, features, anatomy or biology. I don't even claim fantastical behavior. I may refer to other people's claims of such things in an effort to illustrate how broadly people's reports or imaginations might reach, but I do not make such fantastical claims myself. I'm much more rooted in the ordinary, normal, natural suppositions, based on what we already know about in the wild kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^So how does the perfectly natural and fluid shift from 4x4 to bipedal locomotion square with the emerging idea of bigfoots as another species/subspecies of human? Our lineage appears to have been fully bipedal since Australopithecus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find many reports not only tangible, but compelling. Skeptics often actually escalate the status of Bigfoot and its surrounding "culture", in order to make it sound like spotting Bigfoot has become somewhat like a fictional "where's waldo". They like to claim all the attention the subject gets contributes to the game. I am sure on some levels this is true. However, over all, I think its the other way around. Its the very number of reliable sightings that actually fuels the "culture".

I do not keep close track(pardon the pun), of tracks or casts. Most people are content to photograph, or otherwise document tracks rather than cast them. I myself am not overly fond of hauling around the material to cast tracks, on the slim chance I might find a good enough track or two to cast.

It will be interesting to have a good look at the casts made recently from the long clay track way. Considering the substrate, and the shear number of casts Tontar, you have to admit, its exciting, we should get a pretty good overall idea of foot flexibility, toe placement, ect.

Yes I think there is a lot of tangible, compelling evidence out there,enough to warrant investigation, and research. I don't need that solid "block" of proof. I do not believe every witness is a liar, or deranged, or "fooled" by circumstance.

I do not believe I know more, or am smarter than Krantz,Meldrum, Bindernagel, or any other number of reputable people who know far more about some things than I do.

I do believe there are a number of witness's out there who are accurately describing what they saw. I do believe that a number of prints out there are authentic, and something left them there. I do believe some of the audio evidence out there is amazing.

So you see......I don't require that "block" of proof, there is plenty of evidence, even if fifty percent of it is fake, misidentified, delusional, or an out right lie, there is still, plenty of evidence that something unknown is out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

Of course, bears sometimes stand up to fight or scratch their backs on trees, etc, and may stagger a few steps, and thus could look like a bipedal animal. My first encounter with a bear, closeup, resulted in my impression that they could move faster quadipedally than any other animal. In retrospect I think that was because of my adrenaline level, and my surprise. Fortunately, he did not run at me, but went up the nearest tree. I was carrying only a bow and arrows and a .357, neither of which I could have sufficiently organized to make a second decent shot in the time it would have taken him to be on me from 15 yards. I think it is likely that bears account for these reports of dualpedality.

Edited by parnassus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats all part of the mystery Saskeptic, again we keep falling back on traditional beliefs based on existing evidence,as if that evidence we base it on is the complete and all knowing picture of the past. There can't possibly be anything revolutionary left to discovery,thats preposterous,we have all the answers right? So logically thinking, we are all so knowing, we can proclaim it all bunk, rather than pursue, and continue what evidence does continue to show it self.

But then, every single generation of science has had this attitude, and yet we continue to discover new things. Science sometimes acts like an old man set in his ways, I read somewhere the best advancements come with generational change," the new guard" so to speak. I don't know how true it is, but it would not surprise me.

I genuinely believe science is making an error, that the enormity of the evidence does deserve a better, more careful look. We hear about funding for some of the most ridiculous things, why not some funding for some academic field research for Bigfoot, no matter the results, it would still be a great educational opportunity to gain field experience for some of the students.

Yes Parn, that may account for a percentage of the reports. But it does not "prove" that it accounts for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tontar

I don't think Saskeptic was saying there is nothing new to discover. But the thing is, primates have evolved to be quadruped or biped, based on their environment mostly. We're the only known bipeds, and our long line of ancestors and near relatives that have been bipeds have all had relatively similar feet, and similar hips. You have to go back a long ways to find one that has more ape like or should I say arboreal adapted feet. Bigfoot feet have basically the same toe orientation, and aside from the apparent lack of an arch, are nearly identical to ours. No known primate feet that have a mid-tarsal hinge look anything like ours. That configuration is limited to opposable big toed feet, feet that climb, not toes that are parallel like ours. That's not to say that BF's could have some sort of vestigial hinge that was not lost as the toes converged, but it makes no sense whatsoever for it to be that way. It would be like having ear muscles but no ears for them to move.

Humans are the bomb. We rock, We are the most highly evolved specialists for primate bipedalism. Our feet are the absolute best design for bipedal primate walking and running. Why would nature evolve such an impractical bipedal foot for bigfoots that had a hinge in the middle, defeating the entire benefit of aligned toes, and upright walking?

You talk about science as if it's composed of a bunch of fuddy duds, old, codgerly attitudes, rejecting anything new (what is that rock and roll junk anyway, just more jungle music, bah!). And what, the young generation, the ant-establishment scientists, the non-science scientists, the cryptozoologists, are the ones making all the revolutionary discoveries? Come on, new discoveries are not made by only the fresh, young generation X of science. How little faith you have in science as a discipline of study.

Science would be all over bigfoot if it could manage to find one. Problem is, there has never been a single bigfoot available to "science". Science does not reject bigfoot, there's just not enough evidence for science to take it seriously.

It's kind of like crop circles. It's well known that people make crop circles. It's well known how they do it. It's well known that the most complex and complicated crop circles can be made by people, because they have been. So, when there is a fringe group of people that insist that not all crop circles are made by people, that some are still made by aliens, it's kind of hard not just for "science" to take it seriously, but for everyone else to as well. There is too much evidence to support the idea of hoaxing, and not enough evidence to support the idea they really exist. That is the problem "science" has with bigfoot. Making bigfoot "work" is a problem. And add to that the wild, wide ranging descriptions of bigfoot like we're talking about. It stretches the imagination of even the younger generation of scientists. Like the ability to switch between elegant bipedal gait, and super athletic quadrupedal gait, it's a situation that has no equal in the world. It is unprecedented. Unprecedented, incomparable, unbelievable, and implausible does not go well with the scientific community, I'm afraid.

Just a quick aside, do you think that there should be funding for other cryptic theories? Like the Loch Ness monster? Or the Thunderbirds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some... evidence is non credible one moment and then in the next argument becomes fact and then reverts back just as quickly to fantasy in the next argument. In other words call anything a fact if it supports your argument and deny it's factual if it doesn't.

"Science does not reject bigfoot, there's just not enough evidence for science to take it seriously"

Actually science is all over Bigfoot as we write.

"Our feet are the absolute best design for bipedal primate walking and running."

Is that why we spend so much on shoes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, this is a perfect example of reverse engineering bigfoot to fit a preconceived notion of what they should be like. Giving bigfoot desired characteristics, and then manufacturing biology to achieve those characteristics. Let's see, let's give bigfoot a larger liver so it can store greater amounts of glycogen. And then we'll make sure it has lungs big enough to stave off fatigue. And then we'll install a greater blood volume so they can have more glucose reserves. That is bigfoot by design, not bigfoot by nature, and certainly not bigfoot by evidence.

When dealing with Bigfoot sightings, I think it is best to restrict the discussion to one sighting, and then to explore both sides of the issue. Do an analysis of it assuming that it is an entirely factual account, and do your best to come up with an explaination as to how, or to assume that it is fake, and come up with an explaination as to how.

That is precisely why I don't think it's illogical or incorrect to do as JDL did. In fact, I find it very logical indeed, analyzing an observed behavior and attempting to figure out the biomechanics behind it. I mean, what would the alternative be, analyzing a behavior that has never been observed?

In determining the validity of a sighting of an animal that is hard enough to observe on the outside, let alone the inside, coming up with biomechanical reasons a Bigfoot could not run at 40-45 mph is of little use. Attempting to come up with reasons why they can makes much more sense, though it should be understood that what is being done here is pure conjecture, again, since we can't cut one open and find out.

Now, I am no expert in what makes animals faster. I know things like lung capacity, foot size, foot shape, traction, and muscle density has to do with it, but not knowing how every configuration of the variable works out, I cannot say what is impossible. However, if one can come up with features that would potentially(because, on the internet, potential is just about all we have to go on) allow a Bigfoot to move at 40-45 mph and also be able to switch between bipedal and quadripedal movement, then it should be conceded that it is at least possible.

If one cannot suppose a series of characteristics that would allow for it, then it should be, at least for the time being(to allow for ignorance) conceded as being impossible.

That, at least, is how I work out things for myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...