Guest Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Okay let's say a human female and an unknown hominid male did mate thousands of years ago, what attributes to the height of your average squatch sighting? Weren't Neanderthals shorter than us? (Just an example) I don't know anything about genetics but some of these male individuals are 9+ feet tall. Is it just something that occurs when 2 compatible species mate? Or have we been fed crap about hominid existence in general?
Guest Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Please forgive me, but I think the height of some of the reported sightings is problemattic and perhaps overblown by overactive imaginations and tricks of the light. So how was the height of Bigfoot established and might they be smaller than is generally believed?
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) I used to classify sightings for the BFF's database and I remember that most eyewitnesses believe they saw something between 7-8.5 feet tall. I mentioned liger because a liger is an example of a hybrid animal that is generally bigger than both parents. Largest cat on earth actually Edited March 31, 2013 by OntarioSquatch
Guest DWA Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 It is entirely possible that a lot of the crap we are being fed about this, we are being fed by those who think sasquatch is the result of the mating of a human female and an unknown hominid male thousands of years ago. Just sayin'. And wish I knew why my words are underlined. Didn't put it on; can't take it off.
Guest Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 Liger and mules are both good examples of how the product of two different species can be larger than the parent species. DWA, either click the U in the editing menu directly at the top of the entry box, or press ctrl and u at the same time and it will turn off the underlining. OS - there used to be a place in eastern Idaho that raised ligers called Ligertown. In 1995 about 40 animals (lions, tigers, ligers and hybrid wolves) escaped.
Guest Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 I have no idea about the origins of Sasquatch, but strictly talking height, I tend to dismiss, or at least take with a grain of salt, any reports over 9 feet. Not all the workings of an animal's body scale upwards, and a hominid of upwards of 9 feet seems highly unlikely, even impossible, to me.
Guest Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 I agree, FT. DWA it takes far more than just two individuals to perpetuate a species, despite what creationists would have us believe, that aside I think you might be right about possible intermingling of the species that has resulted in the current Bigfoot.
kbhunter Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 DWA, I fixed your post and removed the underlined. KB
salubrious Posted April 1, 2013 Moderator Posted April 1, 2013 Please forgive me, but I think the height of some of the reported sightings is problemattic and perhaps overblown by overactive imaginations and tricks of the light. So how was the height of Bigfoot established and might they be smaller than is generally believed? I was able to establish the height because I saw one right by my truck. So I know it was at least 10 feet tall.
Guest DWA Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) DWA, either click the U in the editing menu directly at the top of the entry box, or press ctrl and u at the same time and it will turn off the underlining. Thanks, but I tried both methods and no soap. And not the first time something like this has happened. KB: merci. Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA
Guest Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Please forgive me, but I think the height of some of the reported sightings is problemattic and perhaps overblown by overactive imaginations and tricks of the light. So how was the height of Bigfoot established and might they be smaller than is generally believed? I was able to establish the height because I saw one right by my truck. So I know it was at least 10 feet tall. Really?! Wow, how did that encounter happen and how did you take measurements? I've always thought anything over 8 feet is skeptical but if you have evidence to the contrary please share.
Guest DWA Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 I've seen enough encounter reports of 9-to-10 footers that I see no reason to doubt them. And there's really no biological basis for doing so. So chalk up one more reason to push for scientific involvement in this issue: to answer that question.
salubrious Posted April 2, 2013 Moderator Posted April 2, 2013 Really?! Wow, how did that encounter happen and how did you take measurements? I've always thought anything over 8 feet is skeptical but if you have evidence to the contrary please share. Here you go:http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/29115-colorado-sighting-of-two-bf-in-the-road/
Recommended Posts