Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Whoops. Correction. The tallest ever (recorded, remember), was only 8 feet 11. Only the top 10 were eight feet tall. (And only two of them were women.) Eight feet is more than two feet taller than the average male human...but right in the midrange of male sasquatch. Which makes ten-footers or even higher not out of the question; and since we don't know how gigantism works in an animal we haven't confirmed, we don't know whether it might be more prevalent in their species than in ours.

Edited by DWA
Posted

Well I asked because the tallest recorded human was Robert Wadlow at 8 feet 11 inches, so the answer is that there have been no verified humans taller than nine feet.

But if that is wrong then I would genuinely like to know?

Posted (edited)

^^^^Look above you (edit). Actually, can anyone else tell us about any species that exhibit, with any regularity, individuals so far out of average size range as we (and maybe sasquatch) do?

Edited by DWA
Posted

Ok. Apology accepted.

Posted

No problem, particularly since it makes my point.

Posted

Naaah. Imagination doesn't conduct wildlife biology, and fear doesn't do bell curves.

Guest Cervelo
Posted

Naaah. Imagination doesn't conduct wildlife biology, and fear doesn't do bell curves.

Bell curve away....doesn't mean much without a body ;)

Seriously folks???

ED835AC1-EFF9-4FF7-AB0F-A022AFE42DCB-285-0000003C1774FF32.jpg

Posted

Folks are working on that. I'm content to wait.

Guest Cervelo
Posted (edited)

Yes we are!

Have been a good portion of my life haven't bagged one yet, but everywhere I go I see broken trees, strange bedding areas and hear strange sounds....but for some reason no Bigfoot!

Seen almost every other creature but no Bigfoot hmmmm maybe I'm not holding my tongue just right LOL!

Edited by Cervelo
Posted

No problem, particularly since it makes my point.

Sorry, how did your error prove your original point?

Posted

'cause it, uh, wasn't one, as I just showed. Eight, nine, oh, sorry, one inch short of nine....read it again.

Posted

Not only sexual dimorphism, but gigantism could be in play here. These animals could just exhibit those more than humans, who of course have generated individuals over nine feet in height (much bigger compared to our average than to that for sasquatch).

You said the above in post 27 - that there were humans over nine feet tall - that was an error which you then corrected in post 31.

Posted

8 feet 11, nine feet...difference one inch. Either way my point: ten-foot sasquatch aren't out of the question. Eleven: you got me.

Posted

So, your point is that you are of the opinion that ten feet tall Sasquatch are not out of the question. Ok, no problem.

You seemed to initially justify your opinion though on your additional statement that "humans, who of course have generated individuals over nine feet in height". I thought this was incorrect and so asked you who these humans were, to which you initially responded "Names? Google it" before then changing the post to admit your error. After this you stated that your error had proved your point. When I further queried this you stated that there wasn't an error and that I should "read it again", before now saying that you were only one inch out.

Lots of people make honest mistakes, particularly in this field. Subsequent contradictory statements just serve to lessen the point though.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...