Dude, What?

[Guest]

I'm not really arguing anything, merely stating that I agree with something that was given. 

 

I mean sure, there's no way to prove that Bigfoot cant reach those proportions... but my best judgement tells me that they probably do not.

[Trogluddite]

A 14' tall 1000 + pound Biped is not hiding in our woods.

 

I put together a little scale drawing of what a 14' tall Bigfoot would look like, with both a School Bus, and a 6' tall Johnny Depp for reference.  (very nice drawing omitted)

 

These creatures would be found and killed if they existed at that size.

 

 

Aargh, look at that monster!

 

Oh, wait...it's just Johnny Depp. 

[Guest]

Moneymaker is no different than the average Bigfooter, who will also make outlandish claims casually.

[Guest]

When some is startled or frightened, the thing will likely look larger to them than in actually is.

And some of that estimate probably comes after the fact when the witness calms down and starts examining what they saw in their head. These are really good reasons to disregard fourteen foot estimates.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Who needs a 14 footer anyway. Heck, the 7 footers can eat beans off my haed as it is.

[Guest DWA]

Just read an AL account - one of Branco's - which, if the witness is right, was almost 15 feet tall.

 

I simply don't know what to say about these.  I once read one from Alberta, Canada, that gave a really outlandish height.  It's on the BFRO database, last I checked.  I'm a little disinclined to look it up, but the interested may.  Oh wait.  http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5044

 

Now in that case a potential explanation for the outlandish height estimate exists.  In this case and that AL case above?  For the former, you got me, and in the AL case either that guy is wrong or we need to know a lot more about this topic before coming to conclusions.

 

The questions I always ask:  (1) can I discount the sighting based on this alone?  (2) does this invalidate everything else I've seen and heard?

 

Generally the answer is:

 

Nope.

Edited February 11, 2014 by DWA

[Drew]

What if someone said they saw a 12' tall human?

Would you discount that?

[Guest]

Unless I saw for myself, yes. I would.

[WSA]

A 12' height estimate? I wouldn't discount it, or not discount it. I would leave it alone, or at the most, put a "hmmmm" asterik next to it,  and look for other indicators in the evidence that might be useful. You can safely throw out TONS of BF sighting reports without so much as a backwards glance, if you choose to, but still wind up with a pretty signifcant body of unexplained evidence. One report is, after all, one report. You don't like it? Chuck it. Now, how about this one over here.....?   

Edited February 11, 2014 by WSA

[Drew]

I asked; what if you heard a report of a 12' tall HUMAN, would you discount it?

[Guest DWA]

I asked; what if you heard a report of a 12' tall HUMAN, would you discount it?

 

No.  What reason would I have?  "I'm not buying that, 'coz I know everything"?

 

There are some way ...let's just say "cooler" theses about prehistory and human origins going around now than a mere 12-foot human.

 

There is nothing scientific about junking something because it just sounds odd to you.  See my signature for another take on that.

 

Edited February 11, 2014 by DWA

[Guest LarryP]

Unless I saw for myself, yes. I would.

 

Even if the 12' tall HUMAN had bioluminescent eyes?

 

(Talk about thread drift).....

[hiflier]

Hello LarryP,

Yep, a bit off topic LOL but my first question would have to be, "Is the witness sure it's Human?"

[Guest]

Off topic, yes... my sentiment that inspired the title continues to thrive...

[hiflier]

Hello ForestTone,

Indeed, it would appear so

Edited February 12, 2014 by hiflier