Guest DWA Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Well, if they're saucer pilots with ESP and invisibility, I for one would not put it past them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Back to this. Eight-foot stride. OK, I just scanned around for an example, no inseam measuring or jumping couches. First (it's a "picture" and I can't edit it), measuring walking stride (they included the link in the "picture," hope it works for you): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first formula takes your height in inches and multiplies it by .413 if you are a woman and by .415 if you are a man. So a 6-foot-tall woman would have a stride length of 29.73 inches while a 6-foot-tall man would have a stride length of 29.88.Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/438560-the-average-stride-length-in-running/#ixzz2XA0zI5au --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (No Lance jokes.) OK. Not saying sasquatch are humans (I've already used that demurrer here.) But that general ballpark works for many trackways found, with 3-to-5-foot stride lengths, if one takes sighting estimates for salt and postulates a 7-to-10-foot height. (Note I said "general." Reports mention very long strides.) Now, for running: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Another formula is based on research done on 100 m sprinters. If you are a top sprinting athlete, you are likely to have a stride length of 1.35 times your height in meters. One meter equals 39.37 inches. So for a 6-foot tall person, that's 1.8 m times 1.35 for a stride length of 2.5 m. That translates to a stride length of 98.42 inches. A longer stride length is one factor involved in running speed. Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/438560-the-average-stride-length-in-running/#ixzz2XA27q5Dz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure it's too far off ballpark to figure that an animal living by its legs outside in winter is gonna be pretty athletic by human standards. Animals generally are. (And Usain Bolt, from reports, isn't catching a bigfoot.) Sprinters have a stride length 1.35 times their height? Or 2.5 meters, for someone six feet tall? This isn't a very farfetched track for a sasquatch. It would barely have to be jogging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted June 24, 2013 Right so far, but what about toe and heel drag approaching the footprint? If "postholes" with neither, then the foot is going straight up and straight down ... not a natural foot movement for a runner. I'm not buying the "rabbit" explanation, doesn't look right. At the same time, that step length does seem pretty extreme for any biped that isn't running and the tracks don't appear to be running because of how they post-hole. Yet a hoaxer should leave sign. For now this is a real solid case of "I dunno what to make of it." I'm ok with such "conclusions", willing to set the question aside 'til I have additional information to make a more informed decision on, other people are not, they'd rather rush to a conclusion even if it proves wrong. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) Some small observations. It wasn't Larry Battson that was at the track site in Keller. Apparently, it was an unnamed "informant" who chose to remain anonymous. Battson just passed the story and photo along. Without any other information that would support what is claimed for the tracks, such as the stride length, we really don't know what we are looking at with certainty. And this probably is unimportant, but the track does seem to alter its path slightly so as not to brush against some small bushy limb. I wonder if a humongous bipedal ape walking upright would avoid that little obstacle. Edited June 25, 2013 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Right so far, but what about toe and heel drag approaching the footprint? If "postholes" with neither, then the foot is going straight up and straight down ... not a natural foot movement for a runner. I'm not buying the "rabbit" explanation, doesn't look right. At the same time, that step length does seem pretty extreme for any biped that isn't running and the tracks don't appear to be running because of how they post-hole. Yet a hoaxer should leave sign. For now this is a real solid case of "I dunno what to make of it." I'm ok with such "conclusions", willing to set the question aside 'til I have additional information to make a more informed decision on, other people are not, they'd rather rush to a conclusion even if it proves wrong. MIB I think I agree with you, MIB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 (edited) Some small observations. It wasn't Larry Battson that was at the track site in Keller. Apparently, it was an unnamed "informant" who chose to remain anonymous. Battson just passed the story and photo along. Without any other information that would support what is claimed for the tracks, such as the stride length, we really don't know what we are looking at with certainty. And this probably is unimportant, but the track does seem to alter its path slightly so as not to brush against some small bushy limb. I wonder if a humongous bipedal ape walking upright would avoid that little obstacle. Animals generally take the path of least resistance, you'll find animals using groomed snowmobile trails in Yellowstone even. So your certain that Larry wasn't actually at the site? If so, why would he involve himself to "pass it along"? Interesting. I trust Saskeptic in the fact that I think his napkin arithmetic was in good faith. It seems that a 8 foot stride might be a stretch for even our biggest hypothetical Sasquatch. If that is not a Sasquatch track, I would be forced to say that it's a Mule deer bounding. But I have never been around Mule deer tracks in which it's not possible to continue following and make it out. For example, about 15 years ago a buddy and I were packed into the Paysaten wilderness, which is the NE Cascades/Okanogan country. After getting up for a morning hunt in a blizzard, and coming back at noon to about three feet of snow and still coming, we decided to pack camp up and head for lower ground. On the way out we had jumped a lone Mule deer buck on the trail, I never saw him but his bounds in front of me were as plain as day in the snow. I got off and walked the trail leading the string, and after about six or eight bounds he broke into a canter if you will and broke down hill into a creek bottom. We had about 20 miles to go, and it was still snowing very hard, so I let him go. The track way my father and I encountered we followed for all of one hundred yards and it never broke into anything but what it was. Also, it came off of a bank down onto the logging road, and was walking slightly up hill. That's another strange thing, if it was a deer that had spooked it should have ran down hill, just crossed the logging road and kept going....... I will say this, I'd like to encounter a track way like that again someday. Back to this. Eight-foot stride. OK, I just scanned around for an example, no inseam measuring or jumping couches. First (it's a "picture" and I can't edit it), measuring walking stride (they included the link in the "picture," hope it works for you): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first formula takes your height in inches and multiplies it by .413 if you are a woman and by .415 if you are a man. So a 6-foot-tall woman would have a stride length of 29.73 inches while a 6-foot-tall man would have a stride length of 29.88.Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/438560-the-average-stride-length-in-running/#ixzz2XA0zI5au --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (No Lance jokes.) OK. Not saying sasquatch are humans (I've already used that demurrer here.) But that general ballpark works for many trackways found, with 3-to-5-foot stride lengths, if one takes sighting estimates for salt and postulates a 7-to-10-foot height. (Note I said "general." Reports mention very long strides.) Now, for running: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Another formula is based on research done on 100 m sprinters. If you are a top sprinting athlete, you are likely to have a stride length of 1.35 times your height in meters. One meter equals 39.37 inches. So for a 6-foot tall person, that's 1.8 m times 1.35 for a stride length of 2.5 m. That translates to a stride length of 98.42 inches. A longer stride length is one factor involved in running speed. Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/438560-the-average-stride-length-in-running/#ixzz2XA27q5Dz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not sure it's too far off ballpark to figure that an animal living by its legs outside in winter is gonna be pretty athletic by human standards. Animals generally are. (And Usain Bolt, from reports, isn't catching a bigfoot.) Sprinters have a stride length 1.35 times their height? Or 2.5 meters, for someone six feet tall? This isn't a very farfetched track for a sasquatch. It would barely have to be jogging. But I think what we have been talking about is that those tracks above do not look like something running, simply because the foot falls don't exhibit wash out from the foot coming in at a more extreme angle and leaving it. But yah, if you 10 feet tall, I have no problem considering an eight foot stride, if some steam is built up. Thanks for running those numbers. Edited June 25, 2013 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 ^^^ Stotting deer. No question about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Well, actually, I think there's considerable question about it. I think the tracks were made in that snow just the way we see it - already melted and consolidated. Doesn't look like the best use of effort to me. And deer are very effort-conservative in winter. What I can't figure though is why we don't have photos of individual tracks. One thing for sure: you are gonna see a footprint in one of those craters if that's a four-legged critter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoelS Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 <snip> What I can't figure though is why we don't have photos of individual tracks. One thing for sure: you are gonna see a footprint in one of those craters if that's a four-legged critter. I expect the reason we don't have a photo of an individual track is that it shows very clearly that they weren't made by this board's subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Might be, might not. God knows there are more than enough trackways for which folks did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 <snip> What I can't figure though is why we don't have photos of individual tracks. One thing for sure: you are gonna see a footprint in one of those craters if that's a four-legged critter. I expect the reason we don't have a photo of an individual track is that it shows very clearly that they weren't made by this board's subject matter. Then why would a wildlife educator put his stamp of approval on it? Free advertising? But that could back fire............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 I'm going to go out on a limb and say a sasquatch did not make that trackway. How confident do I feel in making that statement? [Don Jefrrey Meldrum] "Very confident." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 This covers a lot and was interesting.. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 It's possible some clever person came up with a method to do this and it isn't an animal of any kind. Just because no one here can conceive of a way this was done doesn't mean it's impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 It's possible some clever person came up with a method to do this and it isn't an animal of any kind. Just because no one here can conceive of a way this was done doesn't mean it's impossible. You must have missed my helo hypothesis..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts