Guest Kerchak Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 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" Seeing as your own username describes you as a denialist, I would assume you won't ever see any "good points" when it comes to the pro bigfoot side of the debate.
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 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" So I wouldn't call you a jerk on the general forum, but I would say that your posts are rather *jerkish* in nature the majority of the time. At times they border on *trolling* in all sincerity. I might call you a jerk in the Tar-Pit of the Premium area if you were a PMP member. But I would never do so on the General Forum.
AaronD Posted June 15, 2012 Posted June 15, 2012 the bear was actually ten feet high and weighed between 1,000 and 1,200 pounds. Yup! You are correct...but any of the stories ("versions") on that page are plausible since we already KNOW grizzleys exist are do come in some mind boggling sizes...and not too far fetched to think they might eat a hiker
Guest Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 So I wouldn't call you a jerk on the general forum, but I would say that your posts are rather *jerkish* in nature the majority of the time. At times they border on *trolling* in all sincerity. I might call you a jerk in the Tar-Pit of the Premium area if you were a PMP member. But I would never do so on the General Forum. Hey HR, I respect your opinion here...I've been around since 06 on bff 1.0(different screenname) and have always enjoyed your posts. I have no intention of trolling, but I will call people to the floor on certain things. It may seem to believers like I'mbeing an ass, but I'm really just asking the tough questions. Janice carter is nuttier than squirrel poop, and I hope you wouldn't be offended if I asked her tough questions about fox taking garlic. But since you seem to take offence at myquestioning,would you mind answering one more? Do you think they reach 15 ft. tall?
Incorrigible1 Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 Not speaking for HRP, bur I think anything over ten feet is a stretch, pardon the pun. Here's a question for you: Do you think perhaps your handle, "Denialist," might just be a little provocative upon the Bigfoot Forums?
Guest Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 Not speaking for HRP, bur I think anything over ten feet is a stretch, pardon the pun. Here's a question for you: Do you think perhaps your handle, "Denialist," might just be a little provocative upon the Bigfoot Forums? Hey Inc., yeah it is, but my intention was only to let people know where I stand. As you know there are plenty of non-believers on this site as well and I always figured having a screenname that said as such would clear up any confusion(my bff 1.0 name was showmebody). But I chose "denialist" because it was the popular skeptic name at the time.
AaronD Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 It's all good with me, denialist...I personally don't believe in a lot of things commonly discussed in here (forum rules forbid me from saying much more), but I do keep an open mind for the BF subject in general and I have my own theories. Someone local to where I live found some skeletons in a cave on his property that were 10-12 feet tall. He never said they were squatch, just "human" but, of course, as soon as he contacted authorities in hopes of seeing his find in a museum, federal somebodies showed up and took them--never to be heard of again. NO, I'm not trying to get off the point here, very relevant to the thread they were giants 10-12 feet tall. Since they were snatched away, we'll never know how old they were or if they were really human, if dna matched Ketchum's sample etc etc
Guest TexasTracker Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 Aaron.... what part of the country was that???? I "know of" someone who claims to have very large bones in a cave on their property and I'd LOVE to go get these things.... I recently contacted Dr K about a possible sample I have. When asked if she would be about to return the sample afterwards, I was simply told that I would only be informed whether or not the sample "tested in" or not. The Oxford study is focusing primarily on hair samples.... Does anyone know who we could use/trust?? Side note... for all I know these bones could be/probably are just bear bones or some other known animal, but you better believe I intend to find out.
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 I know of.. 24 in tracks and one 26 in. I have been in discussions regarding tracks larger but I did not measure them or see any verification.. perhaps there are books out there now in the new rush of things that have these images with ruler or other size indicator. I doubt that forumulas include every case of ratio out there regarding footlength and height. I have heard references to twelve feet in height which sounds ridiculous. But there are a lot of ten foot references. If that is so, and I do not know for sure that those individuals were actually ten feet tall, then why could we not have some taller exceptions? There was mention of fifteen foot in Apes Among Us by John Green. If this is repeat information feel free to delete. Thanks for your comments Salubrius. Just reread the topic posts and great points on accuracy of height comments.. I think things shrink when measured often....add excitement, questionable viewing conditions, distance etc.. lot of factors..
Guest TexasTracker Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 To go outside and actually measure something to a height of 10', 12', 15' is just flat-out scary.... It takes me a certain amout of courage to hit the woods in total darkness and prepare myself mentally for an encounter with something possibly 8-9' tall... Even in that mindset, it's still quite alarming when "activity" starts up around you. I think if I were to actually see something 12' or larger I'd simply lose it. I'd probably feel like I was something closer to a dinner snack that soemthing to be interacted with....
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Cant disagree with you there at all. The literature suggests much more curious than aggressive or defensive ... so banking on that . In talking with people who have stated 12 feet... I can only admire them for their patience, control and desire to add more information to the subject. My personal footprint so far is only 16 in lol Cannot imagine Stans 26.5 incher or the dude who struck that one .
Guest TexasTracker Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Nothing to brag about, the largest I have personaly seen was only 17.5" (casted)... many questionable tracks/prints/impressions... vast majority subjective at best. The soil down here just isn't that right substrate.... Rarely does it work out... Even on the rivers, often it goes from muddy or sandy to hard-packed dirt....
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Salubrious made a drawing of his encounter, with some pretty detailed notations of dimensions according to the lane in the road and the height of the head relative to the height of his eyes sitting in his vehicle. With this link I took his drawing and stretched it so the drawing is scaled correctly (height to width) according to his dimensions: http://bigfootforums...__1#entry564738 Now, if this particular BF was to stand up, then from the top of the head to the buttocks would probably be at least 7' and the legs would add another 4-5'. Very conservatively we could estimate 10' tall and very likely taller than that.
Guest MikeG Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 This is what I worked out from the above: I have just tried to sit in that position myself. I couldn't manage it, as my thighs are too long and arms too short to make it work. Thus if they were sitting as drawn, they clearly don't have the same proportions as me (and I'm pretty normal). Furthermore, getting the closest I could to that position, then taking the equivalent horizontal measurement gave an absolute maximum possible dimension of 4'-3". Now, even allowing for a bit of error in both mine and his, that extrapolates to a height of 114 / 51 x 71" = 159" or 13 feet and 3 inches. That is one tall creature!! As a matter of interest, the vertical dimension put through the same exercise produces a very similar result. Useful corroboration of the drawing, if nothing else. No wonder he thought it looked like a bale of hay! Mike Mike
Recommended Posts