Guest Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Wadlow had gigantism, which would have allowed him to grow and grow as long as he was alive. Probably could have passed 10 feet had he not died(at22). It serves no purpose to discuss him when talking possible sasquatch heights. Yes it does. It shows what the extreme vs the norm difference is. There are large numbers of people between 7'6" and 8'6' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people And that's not even taking into consideration the historical accounts of recovered NA remains in that same height range. He is an extreme outlier and certainly not indicative of normal human potential. Neither are reports of overly tall sasquatches. Unless you are suggesting a sasquatch afflicted with the same disease, which would do the same to them as it does to us, and when the bigfoot became too big for its skeletal system he would become very brittle and alot easier to catch. Would it? Depends. If their physiology is far more robust than ours to begin with (which it would have to be) then even a weakened sasquatch could still be far superior to any human in terms of robustness. Gonna have to do better than that denialist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Here's the tallest human for which there is concrete evidence (8'11.1"): http://en.wikipedia....i/Robert_Wadlow an average human is about 5'9.2" http://pediatrics.ab...avg_ht_male.htm that makes the tallest man ~1.5-1.6x taller than average Let's apply that to Sasquatch with an average reported height of 8' That would make the tallest theoretical squatch consistent with what is known about bipedal physiology ~12-13'. Before someone brings up circulation problems, keep in mind that that is for a HUMAN. BF anatomy is designed to support a larger creature, which logically implies better circulation to the limbs than in humans. I wasn't aware anyone has been able to study a creature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 There are large numbers of people between 7'6" and 8'6' Hmmmmmm. I guess that depends on whether you consider 47 to be a large number, out of a human population of some 6 or 7 billion people. Thats 1 in 149 million, or 0.000000067%. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Just my two cents worth... The circulation claim has no merit, period. Many, many examples of enormous animals... The crude formula is 7.5 times the length of the track for an estimate of the height. Example, a 17.5" track we casted in Arkansas equates to 131.25 inches, estimating the animal at 10.9'... I don't remember where the formula comes from. It was easy to use, so I kept it. I's have to research where I got it. That being said, Stan Courtney has been reporting a monster 22" or 24" track, I forget which.. 22" inches converts to a crazy 13.75' and 24" makes for a monster of 15' even.... Impossible numbers to believe.. TT I must correct myself.... I did a little digging and found the following: It brings Stan's 24" track to roughly equal 9.5'... still an impressive animal no doubt. Height and Height Factor No complete body print has been measured in conjunction with foot prints of its respective owner despite the fact that a few such rare artifacts have been observed (as is the case for hand, knuckle, knee, and butt prints). However, in 89 cases, the height of an observed sasquatch was estimated and its footprint length measured subsequently (Fig.5). Dividing the height by the foot length produces a "height factor", a multiplier to calculate height from foot length. This value, however, is not a constant but varies systematically with increasing size. The factor is 7 or higher for the smallest feet, about 6.0 for the mean and near 5.0 for the largest prints. Human ratios that I have sampled range from 5.1 to 7.2 and probably exceed these values below and above. This shifting ratio can be expressed mathematically in a so-called allometric scaling formula, which is explored in detail in the full article. It shows that sasquatch feet grow in substantial excess of general body dimensions (hence the justifiable moniker "Bigfoot"). This foot growth in excess of the rest of the body makes sound biological sense, since the weight increases as the cube of the height of the individual, but the support surface, the sole, only by the square. Therefore, the foot would experience increasing loading pressures unless this tendency was compensated for by differential growth. The Patterson sasquatch, whose height has been derived by photogrammetric means by Glickman, is 7’3" tall, foot length 14.5", with a height factor of 6.04. The statistics suggest an average height for the population of 7’10" (foot length 15.6", factor 6.025), meaning females and males combined. Thus, the Patterson sasquatch, being a female, is below the population average for both foot length and height. A 24" footprint predicts a height of 9’5". Link to full article here. "Sasquatch Demensions & Traits" by Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, Ph.D. http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/sasq_traits.htm TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I wasn't aware anyone has been able to study a creature? Not needed. Logically, the biological characteristics of any creature are designed by it's dna for functionality and optimal survivability. This is basic bio-mechanical science, and is not in any way in dispute. (Another good example is the structure of the BF foot with it's broader width, lack of arch, mid-tarsal break, etc.) The objection was made that there could not be overly large BF because they would face circulation problems if they grew to over a certain size. My point was and is that this would be true for a humanof that size. A BF, being a larger, more physically robust creature, would logically and necessarily have a larger, more robust circulatory system and would not therefore necessarily have circulation problems to it's feet at the same size. Hmmmmmm. I guess that depends on whether you consider 47 to be a large number, out of a human population of some 6 or 7 billion people. Thats 1 in 149 million, or 0.000000067%. Mike The point, Mike, is to demonstrate the degree of variability in size. If humans can successfully grow as much as 1.5 to 1.6 times above "normal" or "average" height, if only in individuals, then for a creature who has a larger average size, that same proportionate variation is an entirely valid proposition. The Patterson sasquatch, whose height has been derived by photogrammetric means by Glickman, is 7’3" tall, foot length 14.5", with a height factor of 6.04. The statistics suggest an average height for the population of 7’10" (foot length 15.6", factor 6.025), meaning females and males combined. Thus, the Patterson sasquatch, being a female, is below the population average for both foot length and height. A 24" footprint predicts a height of 9’5". Link to full article here. "Sasquatch Demensions & Traits" by Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, Ph.D. http://www.bfro.net/...sasq_traits.htm TT To be fair, Texas, that height is currently the subject of some dispute and is being further evaluated. I would refer you to Bill Munns' "sticky" post in the Films section for more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 That being said, Stan Courtney has been reporting a monster 22" or 24" track, I forget which.. 22" inches converts to a crazy 13.75' and 24" makes for a monster of 15' even.... Impossible numbers to believe.. It was a 26.5" track. http://www.stancourtney.com/wordpress/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Ok, sorry, 26.5. I knew it was the largest I had ever heard of.... By the good Dr's math, that makes for an animal about 11' tall... Do you realize how HUGE that thing is... It's truly is scary to think about... WOW. TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PigDog Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Does anybody know Ranae's credentials? I know she's a biologist, but what's her actual biologist background? I'm just curious as to what kind of field work she's done and where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The point, Mike, is to demonstrate the degree of variability in size. If humans can successfully grow as much as 1.5 to 1.6 times above "normal" or "average" height, if only in individuals, then for a creature who has a larger average size, that same proportionate variation is an entirely valid proposition. That may have been the point, Mulder, but to need a population of hundreds of millions to even get to a very tiny likelihood that you would get an individual 25% tall than the average rather makes the opposite point to the one you intended. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 ^That assumes you need a population of 100s of millions to achieve that. Genetic disfunctions such as what you are talking about could be far more prevalent in a "sick" gene pool (lack of genetic diversity due to inbreeding). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 very good point Mulder..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Does anybody know Ranae's credentials? I know she's a biologist, but what's her actual biologist background? I'm just curious as to what kind of field work she's done and where. I think she works for the fisheries department or something like that. It's not anything to with primates or large mammals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 very good point Mulder..... How so?...Not being a jerk, but he's simply throwing out an idea to fit his beliefs. I fail to see how that is a "good point" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Meaning a smaller/shallower gene pool may very well be pre-disposed to more "abnormalities" r/t inbreeding. Meaning, yes a agree with you statement Moulder.... Does that clarify for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 How so?...Not being a jerk, but he's simply throwing out an idea to fit his beliefs. I fail to see how that is a "good point" No, I'm suggesting an explanation, one consistent with what we know of biological science, that permits the observed phenominon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts