Bigfoot - Extreme Giants

[Trogluddite]

not trying to rain on the parade, and yes its probably considered an estimate.........but wouldn't a computed table using BF foot length to determine height, chest and weight  actually need a foot , chest etc.  to measure to be computed accurately ?

Doc, 

 

Dr. Fahrenbach did the height to foot length table, I believe, as part of a much longer paper on biometric measurements for Bigfoot.  I assume there's a thread somewhere here, pushed off the front page ages ago by newer threads, that discusses his mathematical modeling.  I have not read the paper in its entirety, but have both the stand alone chart and the paper if you'd like me to zap them to you.  

 

The values given on the foot length to height chart seem high to me.  I have a 12' long .... foot and I'm not 7-foot tall.  I would love if someone found a comparable human chart, for example showing the foot lenth v. height of NBA and NFL players.  

 

I've made a note to myself, some day in the far future, to breakout reports where Bigfoot is seen and then tracks are found to see if the data from those encounters matches this chart.  Its a low priority now, perhaps someone wcan pick up that ball and run with it.  

[Guest]

Would near human plus testosterone explain a number of differences? One, two hundred k ago a significant hormone change in a population, hormone change was successful enough at the time to produce a small isolated population? Speculation here for sure.

 

Can you expand on this Indie?

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Found this online

 

standard deviation implies that 99.73 percent (± 3 S.D.) of the footprints of the population are going to fall between 6.3†and 24.9â€

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm

 

That's an interesting chart and well thought out too. But, what about the width of the foot? Shouldn't we take a measurement of the width as well as the length to factor in for the height/weight estimates? I do.

 

The larger the creature, the wider the foot needed to support the weight, in addition to the increased length.

Chris B.

Edited January 3, 2015 by ChrisBFRPKY

[Guest crabshack]

 from the link,

 

 

 

 

Ball Width and Width Index

 

One of the characteristics of Sasquatch footprints that sets them apart from their human counterparts, aside from length, is the disproportionate width at the ball of the foot (Fig. 2), a ratio that is reminiscent of the foot of a human infant. The width is subject to more alteration during walking than is the length due to lateral expansion in different substrata, but no allowance for this error source can be made.

Descriptive statistics of the collected footprint widths are as follows:

 

N = 438

Range = 3â€â€”13.5†(7.6—34.3 cm)

Mean = 7.2†(18.3 cm)

Median = 7†(17.8 cm)

Standard Deviation = 1.69†(4.29 cm)

Standard Error = 0.08†(0.2 cm)

 

This width can be represented directly in relation to foot length (Fig. 3), but a more common display, favored by the shoe manufacturing industry, is the ratio of width divided by length, called the width index, a dimensionless number that reduces two variables to one ratio. If these values (0.46 for the mean foot size) are plotted against foot length (Fig. 4), the calculated re­gression line shows a minimal decrease in the ratio, i.e., the width increases as the 0.83 power of length (R = 0.705). This means that the width increases slightly more slowly than the length. The scatter of the data is such that this regression line is primarily included to serve as comparison to the change in the human foot. This identical tendency has been studied in human feet over a range of 6â€â€”12†(15.2—30.5 cm) (adult men and women; N = 897) (Robinson 1990), where, however, the progressive narrowing of the foot with increasing length is much more pronounced and more tightly documented (Fig. 4, lower line). Almost the entire set of graphed Sasquatch footprints has a greater width index than average human feet do.

It is obvious from the scatter of the data that enormous individual vari­ations exist, partly by dint of embedded presumptive sexual dimorphism. Although sufficient data are not available, the feet of females may be nar­rower than those of males. The Patterson film female has a width index of 0.41, comparable to that of human infants (0.43; Roche and Malina 1983). Similar individual and sex-linked variations can also be found among hu­mans.

Heel Width and Heel Width Index

 

Heel width statistics were anticipated with particular interest, since Krantz (1992) speculated that the width of the heel would have a direct and possibly predictive relationship to weight. He adduces the observation that the width of the talus represents a stable proportion of the human heel width, and is a function of the bearing strength of the pertinent joint cartilage. At first sight, the heel width histogram (Fig. 5) mirrors that of the foot lengths rather closely, though being lower in numbers. The widest Sasquatch heels chal­lenge one’s credulity unless one has seen the proportion of the heel to the size of the whole foot.

Descriptive statistics of the collected heel widths are as follows:

 

N = 123

Range = l.5â€â€”9†(3.8—22.9 cm)

Mean = 4.83†(12.3 cm)

Median = 5†(12.7 cm)

Standard Deviation = 1.17†(2.97 cm)

Standard Error = 0.105†(0.27 cm)

 

As is the case with the ball of the foot, the heel does not grow isomet­rically with the length of the foot, but lags behind (Fig. 6), as does the human heel. The Sasquatch appears to rely less on the heel plant in walking, but rather bears more of its weight on the broad anterior part of the foot, distal to the metatarsal hinge (Jeffrey Meldrum, personal communication) or, for that matter, more evenly distributed over the entire sole in the absence of an arch. Placement of the Sasquatch foot on a suitable substratum has been observed to produce a slapping sound, implying a foot placement that is not congruent with a heel plant and a subsequent forward rolling of the foot, as occurs in the human foot with its rigid arch. In an expertly docu­mented track of footprints (Heryford et al. 1982), the footprint changed from a normal shape during calm walking to a roundish footprint (i.e., the anterior half of the foot) during running (step length changing from 4’ to 9’; 122 to 274 cm), in which the heel never touched the ground. The scatter of the heel width data argues against using these values in weight estimates.

 

[Guest]

Crab Shack and Chris B, excellent information and details and easy to follow histograms.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

 

 from the link,

 

 

 

 

Ball Width and Width Index

 

One of the characteristics of Sasquatch footprints that sets them apart from their human counterparts, aside from length, is the disproportionate width at the ball of the foot (Fig. 2), a ratio that is reminiscent of the foot of a human infant. The width is subject to more alteration during walking than is the length due to lateral expansion in different substrata, but no allowance for this error source can be made.

Descriptive statistics of the collected footprint widths are as follows:

 

N = 438

Range = 3â€â€”13.5†(7.6—34.3 cm)

Mean = 7.2†(18.3 cm)

Median = 7†(17.8 cm)

Standard Deviation = 1.69†(4.29 cm)

Standard Error = 0.08†(0.2 cm)

 

This width can be represented directly in relation to foot length (Fig. 3), but a more common display, favored by the shoe manufacturing industry, is the ratio of width divided by length, called the width index, a dimensionless number that reduces two variables to one ratio. If these values (0.46 for the mean foot size) are plotted against foot length (Fig. 4), the calculated re­gression line shows a minimal decrease in the ratio, i.e., the width increases as the 0.83 power of length (R = 0.705). This means that the width increases slightly more slowly than the length. The scatter of the data is such that this regression line is primarily included to serve as comparison to the change in the human foot. This identical tendency has been studied in human feet over a range of 6â€â€”12†(15.2—30.5 cm) (adult men and women; N = 897) (Robinson 1990), where, however, the progressive narrowing of the foot with increasing length is much more pronounced and more tightly documented (Fig. 4, lower line). Almost the entire set of graphed Sasquatch footprints has a greater width index than average human feet do.

It is obvious from the scatter of the data that enormous individual vari­ations exist, partly by dint of embedded presumptive sexual dimorphism. Although sufficient data are not available, the feet of females may be nar­rower than those of males. The Patterson film female has a width index of 0.41, comparable to that of human infants (0.43; Roche and Malina 1983). Similar individual and sex-linked variations can also be found among hu­mans.

Heel Width and Heel Width Index

 

Heel width statistics were anticipated with particular interest, since Krantz (1992) speculated that the width of the heel would have a direct and possibly predictive relationship to weight. He adduces the observation that the width of the talus represents a stable proportion of the human heel width, and is a function of the bearing strength of the pertinent joint cartilage. At first sight, the heel width histogram (Fig. 5) mirrors that of the foot lengths rather closely, though being lower in numbers. The widest Sasquatch heels chal­lenge one’s credulity unless one has seen the proportion of the heel to the size of the whole foot.

Descriptive statistics of the collected heel widths are as follows:

 

N = 123

Range = l.5â€â€”9†(3.8—22.9 cm)

Mean = 4.83†(12.3 cm)

Median = 5†(12.7 cm)

Standard Deviation = 1.17†(2.97 cm)

Standard Error = 0.105†(0.27 cm)

 

As is the case with the ball of the foot, the heel does not grow isomet­rically with the length of the foot, but lags behind (Fig. 6), as does the human heel. The Sasquatch appears to rely less on the heel plant in walking, but rather bears more of its weight on the broad anterior part of the foot, distal to the metatarsal hinge (Jeffrey Meldrum, personal communication) or, for that matter, more evenly distributed over the entire sole in the absence of an arch. Placement of the Sasquatch foot on a suitable substratum has been observed to produce a slapping sound, implying a foot placement that is not congruent with a heel plant and a subsequent forward rolling of the foot, as occurs in the human foot with its rigid arch. In an expertly docu­mented track of footprints (Heryford et al. 1982), the footprint changed from a normal shape during calm walking to a roundish footprint (i.e., the anterior half of the foot) during running (step length changing from 4’ to 9’; 122 to 274 cm), in which the heel never touched the ground. The scatter of the heel width data argues against using these values in weight estimates.

 

Thanks Crabshack, I finally clicked the link and Farenbach has completed an excellent work. I differ in personal opinion on a few aspects from some of his sources but Farenbach should be required reading for all Bigfoot Researchers nonetheless. Excellent.

Chris B.

[ThePhaige]

I'm glad to see more people referring to Farenbachs findings I think personally it is some of the most useful evidence in data out there that shows viable population models, in fact probably the most irrefutable evidence out there period.

[MNskeptic]

I'm 6'6", weigh 225 lbs, and wear a size 16/17 shoe. My foot is exactly 13" long. I'm pretty large for a human, but awfully short for a sassy - if you believe the charts. How did they arrive at the foot length/height ratios for sassy if they aren't able to measure their height? Based on guess-timates from eyewitness accounts in which prints were left?

MNSkeptic

[Guest]

^^

Good point! You raised a fair question, how does it?

[MNskeptic]

Gosh, it occurred to me that, for my height, my foot length exceeds that even of BF! Something doesn't seem right with that. Maybe I'm a homo sapien outlier? C'mon man...

MNSkeptic

Edited January 8, 2015 by MNskeptic

[Guest]

It may have been theorized they can develop some sort of goiter, thyroid issues where they don't stop growing, not sure of the condition, and that is where the really tall ones come from. Yea, heard about the 15 footers.

That disease is called  acromegaly,which causes giant growth.

[AaronD]

 

If we had people that tall at one time, why not sasquatches as big?

 

[ohiobill]

If you want, you can buy your own sculpted femur just like the one in the Mt. Blanco photo for $450...http://mtblanco.com/TourGiantArticle.htm 

 

You can pick up some extra money for the femur by giving a nice Nigerian pastor your bank account number and $200 to cover the transaction fees so he can transfer some unclaimed funds ($286,000) you are owed.

 

Story Behind the Giant

Human Femur Sculpture

From Joe Taylor

Mr. Jack Wagner sent me the following article in 1996 and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in the Middle East.  As a guide for this model, I used the femur of one of the Malachite Man females.

(What we know about this find is from a letter by the man who found it.)  

The article:

Dear Christian Friends, I was born and lived in the Middle East from 1938 to 1968.  I was Ain-Tell and Euphrates water works Engineer and was very interested in archaeology and  history and had some very interesting findings, some of which  may sound unbelievable.  I have brought with me a few silex arrow heads, etc., from the very battle-field where King Nebuchadnezzar and Pharo-Necho’s armies fought.  And what about the giants mentioned in Genesis?  In south-east Turkey in the Euphrates Valley and in Homs and at Uran-Zohra, tombs of about four meters long  once existed, but now roads and  other construction work has destroyed the spots.  At two places, when unearthed because of construction work, the leg bones were measured about 120 cms.  It sounds unbelievable.  I have lived with my family at Ain-Tell for more than 14 years at the very spot where King Nebuchadnezzar had his headquarters after the battle of Charcamish, where I dug the graves of kings’ officers and found their skeletons like sponge, and when you touch them they become like white ash, with spears and silex and obsidian tools and ammunition laying by.

Size 47."

The drawing is 38" x 8 ft. $75

Femur: $450 

P.S. If you contact the trustworthy engineer who found the original femur please try to get me some ammo for my .50 cal "Nebuchadnezzar".

[AaronD]

Well I can tell you such large bones do get unearthed and quickly covered back up by those who wish to keep us in the not-know. This I am sure of because some were found near my home. Sadly, those who find such artifacts have 2 choices: either call authorities and let the finds disappear or keep quiet and share with no one!

[ohiobill]

Or....they could document it with detailed measurements, clear photos and video before they put up a youtube video about it for free. Conspiracy theories are fine but you have to balance what is possible with what is likely. I can go on youtube and watch well made videos about nearly anything except bigfoot. Giant skeletons wouldn't be blurry and distant. If you have one you can film it in place and take your time. Which is more likely - conspiracy or tall tale? If you are willing to accept unverified written accounts as sufficient let me know the going rate you're willing to pay for each giant skeleton I find and get your checkbook out. I will start digging tomorrow! Expect some beginner's luck

I should add that I know large bones are unearthed relatively often, even in the acidic forest soils that preclude squatch bones being found. Mammoth and especially Mastodon fossils are relatively common in Ohio.