Jump to content
kitakaze

Wally - Walas Bigfoot Suit And Patty.

Recommended Posts

MIB
On 7/25/2016 at 9:40 AM, salubrious said:

One of the ones I saw was 6 feet tall while seated on its rear, and its legs looked like they were at least 4 feet long so that would make it ten feet standing up.

 

I might as well chime in and be ridiculed, too.   I wouldn't want you to have all the fun.  :)

 

The first one I saw was wading downstream in a shallow-ish section of river, though with a heavy current, where I've waded, swam, fished, etc for many years.  I've never seen the water less than 4-1/2 feet deep, 5ish is more normal (hits me under the chin before knocking me over), and as much as 6 to 6-1/2 feet on very rare years.   Gravel bars move a little, flow varies with the previous winter's snowpack in the headwaters.

 

So, bare minimum, 4-1/2 feet deep, most probably 5 feet or more.   It was crotch deep while it was wading.    What's the ratio of leg length to the total height?     For humans, leg length is roughly 45% of total height.  (Google it.)   If the water was 4-1/2 feet deep and we assume human proportions, that's 10 feet total height.   If the water were any deeper or the legs proportionally shorter as proposed for sasquatch, then it was taller yet.   

 

Oh, wait ... that's from an Asian woman fashion page I guess.   For me, it's 42%.   That returns a height around 10 feet 8 inches.   Same effects of deeper water or legs shorter, proportionally, than human.

 

I tried for years to figure out a way to tweak the numbers so it'd come out a more "acceptable" height.    I give up, it just was what it was, acceptable or not.  

 

MIB

 

Edited by MIB
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

We have two separate accounts (MIB and Salubrious) of encounters with unknown creatures alleged to have been 10 feet tall at least. That's fine - I accept your observations and am not here to dispute them.

 

I am aware that you are also both strong proponents of the PGF as being authentic footage, The subject in the PGF is generally estimated to be in the general range of 6' 3'' to 6' 10"  My question is: What are your thoughts on the fact that the subject of the PGF measures in at least 3 feet shorter than what you both witnessed? Do you think it was because the subject (Patty) was a female of the species, or possibly a juvenile or a different species altogether than what you witnessed? Any other possibilities such as malnutrition or inbreeding?  Or do we just explain away the discrepancy by the idea that these unknown creatures inherently exist in significantly varying sizes... 

Edited by OldMort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

^^ As I understand it Patty's height is still a matter of dispute, depending on what lens was used, how far Patty was from known objects and how far Roger was from her. Some say she might be a bit bigger.

 

Humans have variations- there is a teller at my bank who can't be much more than 5'1". The bass player in my band is 7'. So I'm not having a problem about her height.

 

What I do find interesting is that she seems to have similar arm proportions to the creatures I saw, and she also has the same long thigh/short shin (one of the reasons she isn't a bloke inna suit) which is also shared by the creatures I saw. I would say she is the same species as what I saw.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer
6 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Size estimates:

 

I would seem size estimates would be hard to rely on under stressful conditions.  Most of the people who would report some sort of encounter (which is an unexpected encounter) report this after seeing something really unusual.  If someone stated they thought Bigfoot was <X> feet tall, it really to me at least just means he was big.  I think of how Gimlin talked about Patty as "Massive" but Gimlin still gives some 6.5 feet type of height description.  I have no doubt there have been claims out there where people have stated they saw something which 'stood 10 feet tall"  Perspective, excitement, and so on need to be considered. 

 

Bob Gimlin right even in the beginning had conflicted with Roger's story on the size issue and arms.  He said how Roger was "getting a little excited".   Guess Gimlin was doing a poor job in his collaboration of the hoax story.  Gimlin's idea patty was Massive makes sense if you just go to the zoo to see the apes.  I would imagine if we asked 10 people going to the ape area of the zoo, "how big do you think that ape was?' the answer would be higher than reality. 

 

It is exciting and emotional to see the ape in the zoo. A bit of a gasp or 'wow' factor is there unlike going to see the zebra.

 

From the witness stand point I think we can just conclude the excited subject saw something big.

 

BD

 

 

 

What would constitute big if you were fairly small, as was Patterson, (and perhaps Gimlin?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
7 hours ago, OldMort said:

I am aware that you are also both strong proponents of the PGF as being authentic footage, The subject in the PGF is generally estimated to be in the general range of 6' 3'' to 6' 10"  My question is: What are your thoughts on the fact that the subject of the PGF measures in at least 3 feet shorter than what you both witnessed? Do you think it was because the subject (Patty) was a female of the species, or possibly a juvenile or a different species altogether than what you witnessed? Any other possibilities such as malnutrition or inbreeding?  Or do we just explain away the discrepancy by the idea that these unknown creatures inherently exist in significantly varying sizes... 

 

There's no consensus on her height.   I don't put much credence in the low to mid 6 foot guess.    I think the 7'4 to 7'6" estimates are closer to correct.   Two reasons.   First, working from Henner Fahrenbach's chart (BFRO site), that height points to a weight more likely to produce the track depth observed at Bluff Creek.  Second, Patty's stride did not seem stretched or uncomfortable.   I think a 7'4" to 7'6" height provides the leg length to more comfortably produce her step length without awkward seeming exaggeration.  

 

I suspect we underestimate their adult average size.   I think, from a behavioral standpoint, it is likely that many of the bigfoots humans report are not cautious full adults, they're teenage miscreants ... misbehaving much like I did, and like you probably did, at age 13-14-15.   I think we're mostly seeing a non-representative cross-section.    I think it varies regionally though, by Bergmann's Rule.    How much variation there is would depend on how much they travel ... whether there is enough to produce a fairly homogeneous gene pool continent-wide or whether there is enough isolation for specialization of size.   

 

I suspect Patty was at the later end of reproductive age, probably the equivalent of a 40, maybe even 45 year old woman.  My thoughts on the number bounce around so I may seem to contradict myself time to time on that.   That's the concept behind the number off a boxcar though.    I assume, but can't prove, greater sexual dimorphism in bigfoots than us, but maybe not that much. 

 

Regarding multiple species ... I don't know.   I probably have as many questions as you do.  :)   There seems to be regional differences in propensity towards bipedal vs quadrupedal locomotion.   This difference seems to track with difference in attitude ... passive and avoiding vs sometimes pushy and confrontational.   They are not absolutes in any area, just .. tendencies.   A fer-instance ... what Bipto 'n' crew seem to be trying to hunt does not seem all that Patty-like to me based on their descriptions.   The often quadrupedal ape-seeming thing Tom Burnette describes doesn't, either.    SE US, Ouichita Mountains, vs Pac NW ... different "vibe".   We call them all bigfoot ... but are they the same?    I don't really know.   

 

One of the cool things about the forum here is being able to exchange information with people from other parts of the continent to compare and contrast physical and behavior characteristics to try to get the bigger big picture of what seems to be going on.   The more I know the less I'm sure of except that there's something out there.

 

MIB

 

Edited by MIB
more details
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Wow.  I actually agree with you. I have never accepted the six foot range.   Myself being  7' 1"  have always thought we were of similar height. We giants  stick together . It takes one to know one.  I am a muscleman  and she makes me look like  a skinny punk. Lol.  

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

For a reference we can consider apes in the zoo in height, weight, and so on.  Also consider an apes daily caloric needs.  Could Patty find such food on a regular basis?

 

I know we can't know what bigfoot would eat and how much if it is real.

 

height is less important than massiveness.  Again see an ape in the zoo.  No one seems to describe a bigfoot encounter by seeing a tall Don Knotts.

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

If a population of large animals such as black bears or grizzlies can find plenty to eat, then there is no reason that a creature like a Bigfoot can't do the same.

Bears copy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

While maintaining a breeding population and never relinquishing reliable evidence. And Bigfoot does this in greater ranges than either species of bear.

 

Your adult fantasy role-play absurdity. Please stop trying to inflict the ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, kitakaze said:

While maintaining a breeding population and never relinquishing reliable evidence. And Bigfoot does this in greater ranges than either species of bear.

 

Your adult fantasy role-play absurdity. Please stop trying to inflict the ridiculous.

 

How do you know that Bigfoot does this in greater ranges than either species of bear? The fact is that you don't know if what you just said is true.

 

Let us look at who is using adult role-play fantasy here -  I make a statement that any area that can feed and fatten a bear can also support a Sasquatch. Both have been reported to eat meat and vegetation.  Your response goes beyond what I said and adds a greater area based on claims that relies on whether the reports of such a creature seen in these greater ranges are even true.  One of us stated a known that doesn't call for the existence of Bigfoot because it related to food source while the other one which you made must rely on reports of Bigfoot being in these greater ranges are true. It appears to me that it is you that incorporates fantasy adult role-play in this instance.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
8 hours ago, Backdoc said:

For a reference we can consider apes in the zoo in height, weight, and so on.  Also consider an apes daily caloric needs.  Could Patty find such food on a regular basis?

 

I know we can't know what bigfoot would eat and how much if it is real.

 

height is less important than massiveness.  Again see an ape in the zoo.  No one seems to describe a bigfoot encounter by seeing a tall Don Knotts.

 

BD

 

I have to disagree.   We can indeed know what a bigfoot would eat .. maybe not how much, because if they are real, then the bulk of the reports are real, and from those, we can get a pretty good idea about their diet based on the reported behaviors.   Choose your zoo ape carefully.   :)   Seems like you're making gorilla assumptions ... strict herbivore assumptions.    Suggestions from people who've recovered scat point towards an omnivorous diet.   Reports include hunting behaviors.    When you add meat to the menu, you need a different ape for comparison.   I think we are a closer analog than any other great ape and our dietary requirements and dietary flexibility are the best model for what bigfoot needs.  

 

While we are guessing to a degree, we have the ability to make educated guesses, we're not resorting to yanking stuff out of our collective tush as the scoftic cadre have to do. 

 

MIB

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

BFH:    I agree on the bears example. I am not saying there is not food out there. There are just unknowns where we have to decide if there is enough 'Life Support' for what the needs of a bigfoot might be.  There is nothing I can see which keeps an assumed bigfoot from finding food in the wilderness of the PNW.  I doubt based on life support needs a Bigfoot could live and thrive in Joshua Tree Deserts of California. A man like you has actually been in the deep wilderness and walked in places few people have ever stepped foot in. That is why you have a respect for the vastness of the PNW some city slicker in Chicago may not.  Having seen Bigfoots Reflection on Netflix I know you know what you are talking about on many of these issues.   You are right. If a Bear is supported by what is in the wilderness a Bigfoot could be as well.

 

Kit:  You have to admit you have no way of knowing what the range of some animal might be. Your assumptions are based on all reports of which some or even nearly all might be false.  There is different types of bears out there. If Bigfoot exists there might be diff types as well since nothing in nature conflicts with this.  There are just a lot of unknowns. It works to your narrative to think Bigfoot lives in Times Square. Yet you agree with me there would at least be a reasonable assumption should Bigfoot actually exist the PNW is a reasonable consideration for Bigfoot country.  I imagine we both are not very confident of the bigfoot in Arizona or downtown Chicago.  Could we agree if just one Bigfoot exist, it must be finding the things it needs to survive out there however that is defined.  Also, as a past player of RPG such as D&D, I can tell you these games at least teach a basic understanding of probability used in rolling dice.  I get the fact you seem to be using terms like that as a form of diminishment.  You might want to consider all this bigfoot are really just what these games teach to some extent-- probabilities.  I agree with you for bigfoot to cont to be real there would have to be some amount of a population large enough to continue the species.  Consider though even if nearly every sighting is wrong there could exist a situation where Patty was/is one of the last of a soon to be extinct group of animals. If they live 75 years and she died today she would be 25ish when she was filmed.  I am just playing with ideas here and that is the point. We don't know.  Yet, you continue to post with a heck of a lot of certainty.  I can respect where you are coming from on this stuff but you cannot be certain and neither can I. If Bigfoot does not and did not exist you are right though.  <-- That is the Q we are working to determine. 

 

MIB:  I simply pick the ape in the zoo over my neighbor's gold fish since it seems to me the closer thing I can apply.  There are a lot of unknowns.I could imagine a bigfoot would eat fish and so on from streams vs just berries.  It seems reasonable to assume if a creature is alive and living in some environment it must be finding some reasonable life support (food) or it would soon be dead.  If we assume Bigfoot country might be in the PNW then I would look around and see what is there for a Bigfoot to choose from.  I agree with you 100% we can make some pretty good educated guesses.  I guess more important to my way of thinking with just volume of food regardless of what is in the Bigfoot Diet. For instance, if an Ape in the zoo eats 5,000 Calories for the sake of a number I just made up,  I doubt a Bigfoot only needs 1,000.  I am mainly referring to the needs of the eater and what is out there to meet those needs. As BFH correctly points out, if the PNW could support a bear it could support an assumed bigfoot.

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
On 8/1/2016 at 1:30 PM, salubrious said:

 

 

No hard feelings whatsover Salub :)

 

Here is a photo of a 16 ft canoe for reference.

 

To have found 2 such beasts sitting in the middle of the same road on the same road is entirely on you my friend.

 

But seriously the canoe is 16 ft long. 

 

 

 

canoe.JPG

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Same road on the same night I meant to say.

 

edit time ran out.

 

Canoe is still 16 ft long for roadside squattingsquatch reference.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
milofarthington
On 8/2/2016 at 5:40 AM, Bigfoothunter said:

If a population of large animals such as black bears or grizzlies can find plenty to eat, then there is no reason that a creature like a Bigfoot can't do the same.

Bears copy.jpg

Those are pretty clear photos. Are there any such photos of bigfoot available anywhere? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×