Where Have All The Giants Gone?

[Guest]

Hold on just a moment fella.  Now let me get this straight the propencity of giant bigfoot sightings just all happened because they were seeing the freaks?  You mean those big reallt really real bigfoot track just happened to be the freaks?  Oh my there sure were a lotta freaks.  In fact mostly freaks.  In fact by the standard of the times Patty is a shrimp.

 

 

 I said THE MODERN BIGFOOT  MYTH/ERA STARTED WITH JERRY KREW!  The operative work is modern era.  The pre modern era is little more than campfire stories.  I also have stated that authors claiming a 15 ft FB made a plywood cutout of the one they claimed they saw.  Having once owned the book I know what was in it.  Also those same authors claimed a bent road sign that just happened to have a nice scar in the metal like a truck or other object had actually caused the damage that evenin my young adult pro bigfoot mind seemed a bit shall we say suspect.  .  No you're going to try and tell me that the really really big really really real bigfoots didn't play a role in the structure of the mythology.  BS back at you point blank BS!  Why do you think they call them forest giants?  Maybe you should remove your bigfoot tinted glasses they tend to block out the uncomfortable incredulous elements of the myth.  Here read up on some really really big really really real bigfoots.   

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/tallest_bigfoot.htm

 

 

 

So you point me to a page, saying the ONE biggest BF ever reported was 15ft,  out of several thousand reports.... and try to go with "Oh my there sure were a lotta freaks"  are you reading what you post or is it autospew at the moment? Yes, one outlier representing 0.0005 or less of reports, and unsurprisingly, to those knowing what a bell curve looks like, there were more reports of 11, 12 and 13ft. ...

 

So here we go again with the scoffltical or denialist bigfoot being defined as exactly uniform in size, of rigidly fixed habits, no smarter than the average squirrel and so easily cowed by homo sapiens sapiens superiority that it can be herded into a cage at whim. The charge is that bigfoot proponents believe in a ridiculous creature, it's nothing to the utterly biologically impossible one the scofftics believe in.

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

Hello Crowlogic...

 

 Why do you think they call them forest giants? 

 

To somebody 5 foot tall, a creature that is 8 feet tall would probably seem like a giant.

 

So that we can help you get the answers you seek, can you tell us how big is a "Giant" or "Freak" mythological Bigfoot?

What book are you talking about in the post above? Link?

Do you believe that "Every" bigfoot sighting is a lie or a hoax or just the giants?

 

How many reports of giant Bigfoot are you aware of? I read through the link you thoughtfully provided and only see a few mentioned.

If this is all then they may be statistically insignificant. Do you have links to more?

 

The linked page does contains a possible explanation for reports of 12, 13, and 15 footers. Maybe they are just exaggerations by frightened observers.

 

However nobody said 15 feet again, it was 12, 13 feet tall, but never a 15 footer. Normal sized sasquatch height reports in this area also happened, leaving modern research to conclude these may be gross exaggerations by frightened observers.

 

So why didn't we giant size as well? We are the Apex predictor and sure as heck were able to take down mega fauna for food in those cold O2 rich times.  But I suppose an O2 rich atmosphere is a better way of explaining people reporting giant apes in 1969 than the hoaxers leaving giant footprints that gave rise to the notion that there's something big on 2 feet in them woods. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

Hold on just a moment fella.  Now let me get this straight the propencity of giant bigfoot sightings just all happened because they were seeing the freaks?  You mean those big reallt really real bigfoot track just happened to be the freaks?  Oh my there sure were a lotta freaks.  In fact mostly freaks.  In fact by the standard of the times Patty is a shrimp.

 

 

 

 I said THE MODERN BIGFOOT  MYTH/ERA STARTED WITH JERRY KREW!  The operative work is modern era.  The pre modern era is little more than campfire stories.  I also have stated that authors claiming a 15 ft FB made a plywood cutout of the one they claimed they saw.  Having once owned the book I know what was in it.  Also those same authors claimed a bent road sign that just happened to have a nice scar in the metal like a truck or other object had actually caused the damage that evenin my young adult pro bigfoot mind seemed a bit shall we say suspect.  .  No you're going to try and tell me that the really really big really really real bigfoots didn't play a role in the structure of the mythology.  BS back at you point blank BS!  Why do you think they call them forest giants?  Maybe you should remove your bigfoot tinted glasses they tend to block out the uncomfortable incredulous elements of the myth.  Here read up on some really really big really really real bigfoots.   

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/tallest_bigfoot.htm

 

 

 

So you point me to a page, saying the ONE biggest BF ever reported was 15ft,  out of several thousand reports.... and try to go with "Oh my there sure were a lotta freaks"  are you reading what you post or is it autospew at the moment? Yes, one outlier representing 0.0005 or less of reports, and unsurprisingly, to those knowing what a bell curve looks like, there were more reports of 11, 12 and 13ft. ...

 

So here we go again with the scoffltical or denialist bigfoot being defined as exactly uniform in size, of rigidly fixed habits, no smarter than the average squirrel and so easily cowed by homo sapiens sapiens superiority that it can be herded into a cage at whim. The charge is that bigfoot proponents believe in a ridiculous creature, it's nothing to the utterly biologically impossible one the scofftics believe in.

 

Ok so the workers were scared and overestimated, it was possibly a more moderate 11, 12, or 13 footer. Haveyou or any other proponent considered that you are proposing an animal on the scale of Might Jo Young?  But as the article states the giants weren't reported after 1984.  Could it have been that by 1984 enough folks had woken up to how downright insipid  the notion of a 12 foot Mighty Joe Young ape man in our woods and by then practically everywhere in America was?  If you want to play the game you bring something believable to the table.  

 

Or to put it another way it was determined that nobody buys that 12 foot tall stuff anymore so better make it 8 feet tall.

[JDL]

 

 

Hello Crowlogic...

 

 Why do you think they call them forest giants? 

 

To somebody 5 foot tall, a creature that is 8 feet tall would probably seem like a giant.

 

So that we can help you get the answers you seek, can you tell us how big is a "Giant" or "Freak" mythological Bigfoot?

What book are you talking about in the post above? Link?

Do you believe that "Every" bigfoot sighting is a lie or a hoax or just the giants?

 

How many reports of giant Bigfoot are you aware of? I read through the link you thoughtfully provided and only see a few mentioned.

If this is all then they may be statistically insignificant. Do you have links to more?

 

The linked page does contains a possible explanation for reports of 12, 13, and 15 footers. Maybe they are just exaggerations by frightened observers.

 

However nobody said 15 feet again, it was 12, 13 feet tall, but never a 15 footer. Normal sized sasquatch height reports in this area also happened, leaving modern research to conclude these may be gross exaggerations by frightened observers.

 

So why didn't we giant size as well? We are the Apex predictor and sure as heck were able to take down mega fauna for food in those cold O2 rich times.  But I suppose an O2 rich atmosphere is a better way of explaining people reporting giant apes in 1969 than the hoaxers leaving giant footprints that gave rise to the notion that there's something big on 2 feet in them woods. 

 

 

We may have.  The Si-Teh-Cah may have been that version of us.

[JDL]

Anyone remember a link to an old book of indian stories from the early 20th century with a story in it about a giant that prevented summer from coming, creating a never-ending winter?  When the indians outwitted the giant, summer came and the giant died.

 

This interested me because if giant (8 foot) humans existed in numbers during the ice age, but were not robust enough to handle the change in climate, they could well have declined markedly as the Ice Age ended.  The story could actually capture and relate two legends.  The end of the ice age and the decline of a race of giants that lived during that time.

[Redbone]

So why didn't we giant size as well? We are the Apex predictor and sure as heck were able to take down mega fauna for food in those cold O2 rich times.  But I suppose an O2 rich atmosphere is a better way of explaining people reporting giant apes in 1969 than the hoaxers leaving giant footprints that gave rise to the notion that there's something big on 2 feet in them woods.

 

I think maybe you are responding to the wrong posts. I don't know anything about why we would or would not giant size. I really don't think O2 levels in 1969 were that much different than they are today but I'd be interested in that study...

 

Ok so the workers were scared and overestimated, it was possibly a more moderate 11, 12, or 13 footer. Have you or any other proponent considered that you are proposing an animal on the scale of Might Jo Young?  But as the article states the giants weren't reported after 1984.  Could it have been that by 1984 enough folks had woken up to how downright insipid  the notion of a 12 foot Mighty Joe Young ape man in our woods and by then practically everywhere in America was?  If you want to play the game you bring something believable to the table.  

 

Or to put it another way it was determined that nobody buys that 12 foot tall stuff anymore so better make it 8 feet tall.

 

 

This seems more like the response that was meant for me. I am not really proposing anything other than there seems to be extremely few reports of 15 footers. Maybe no "Giants" reported after 1984 simply means that none were observed.

 

Can you show me where proponents ARE saying animals this large exist? link?

 

I asked you a string of specific questions earlier. I assume you missed them so I will politely ask again. I'll even let one of them go...

 

Can you please tell us how big is your idea of a "Giant" or "Freak" Bigfoot? Oops! You answered that 11, 12, and 13 footers are moderate so I guess we are only talking about 15 footers? There are only two reports of animals that big that I know of, one of which I linked and also mentioned I did not believe it. The other 1969 report was in your link. Thank you for that. I have no opinion on that report but I am leaning toward it being inaccurate.

 

 

(from your link) From the late 1960's until 1984, there was a rash of very large creature reports, all happening within a hundred mile radius of Nordegg in Alberta. However nobody said 15 feet again, it was 12, 13 feet tall, but never a 15 footer

 

So I have commented on ALL of the reports I know of. How many more reports of 15 foot Bigfoot are you aware of?  Do you have links to these reports?

 

If that is all there is then I think you are suggesting that these two reports were tall tales meant to perpetuate the myth of bigfoot? They were extremely effective I guess, especially when the Ashland County, Ohio report was not submitted to the BFRO until 1997....amazing!

If I read some more reports and I believe that they are inaccurate, lying, or hoaxing I promise I will tell you so. I cannot offer further opinion on them without seeing them.

 

Thanks and have a nice day!

Edited November 19, 2015 by Redbone

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^Proponents doing show and tell 12 feet tall show and tell.

 

[Guest]

But BIGfoots, still get reported to this day... as a tiny percentage of total, I'll point out again that this is what you expect of a natural distribution of biological individuals... +/- 50% about a modal value seems not to strain the bounds of expectation.

 

http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/family-of-sasquatch-sighted-along-the-san-juan-river/

 

edit: I guess I should point out a potential for overestimation there, due to him seeing it from the knee up, and it is often remarked that bigfoot have a shorter in proportion lower leg than HSS, so someone familiar with human proportions may overestimate the length of leg from knee down. Maybe some smart guy with the patty proportions to hand coule estimate how much of an error that would be for us.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Flashman2.0

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Giants are still being seen all the time, in pretty much the same way as they were in the past. They are called bigfoot sightings, and many thousands of them exist.

[AaronD]

Jiggy? A one line post?? R u feeling ok today?

[Redbone]

(From post #28)
 

The pre modern era is little more than campfire stories.  I also have stated that authors claiming a 15 ft FB made a plywood cutout of the one they claimed they saw.  Having once owned the book I know what was in it.  Also those same authors claimed a bent road sign that just happened to have a nice scar in the metal like a truck or other object had actually caused the damage that evenin my young adult pro bigfoot mind seemed a bit shall we say suspect.

(From Post #37)
 

^^Proponents doing show and tell 12 feet tall show and tell.

 

In post #37 you showed a picture of a 12 foot plywood cutout after telling us of 15 feet plywood cutout earlier.

 

Is this a different plywood cutout?

From a different book perhaps?

 

Can you please tell me what book and authors you are referring to? I don't think I have ever seen the book.

Since I am unfamiliar, could you at least share the time and location of the sighting?

 

Thanks!

 

Editted to add the correctly scaled and seemingly accurate 12 foot plywood cutout.

The smallest person is probably right at 6 ft tall and the other guys are slightly taller.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Redbone

[Guest]

Due to human eyes being side by side instead of one on top of the other, I would not find it unusual that vertical height estimates would be less accurate than horizontal distance estimates.

 

I consider there a possibility that there is a general "proportion misjudgement" inherent in BF size estimates, due to all of us being extremely familiar with HSS proportions. I wonder how much semi conscious revision goes on in the brain, when asked to give a size estimate. I could see it happening that the brain goes, well it was definitely 4 feet across the shoulders, then does a mental juggle of that on human proportions and thinks, well that must have been at least twelve feet plus then....

 

BUT, that does not affect the shape of the data, because the same side by side eye arrangement is making the 7 or 8 foot calls as the 11 or 12 foot calls. Whether they're measured in feet or whatever bananas the local grocery has on hand, there will still be a distribution of relatively small, relatively normal and relatively big.

[JDL]

It's always good to have something in the field of vision at the same distance to provide a height comparison.

 

For example, a bigfoot concealing itself immediately behind a highway sign on the right side of the road, with its head protruding from the left to view oncoming traffic, its right hand grasping the left edge of the sign a couple of feet below its own head, such that its fingers extend past the white border line of the green sign, its left hand grasping the top of the sign midway along its length in a similar fashion, its right leg positioned on the ground at the base of the sign's left post, and its left leg braced against the sloped highway siding (both legs visible below the sign) - the dimensions of the sign could then be used to get an idea of how tall the bigfoot was.

[Guest DWA]

People seeing them every day.  You just aren't.  Where have all the wolverines and lynx in your neighborhood gone?

[JDL]

In my neighborhood half a mile from the center of town?  No wolverine or lynx.  But we have seen, in descending order of concern to the parent of a four year old, coyotes (and hear them nightly in the low wooded area just 100 yards away), bobcats, and fox (neighbor lady called the police about one in our front yard recently - she thought it was a coyote).

 

The coyotes I've seen here are absolutely huge compared to the ones I was familiar with in Nevada.  They have beautiful lush coats and clearly powerful musculature.  I've been told that they have some wolf in them.  I don't necessarily buy this, but they certainly look bigger than Western coyotes.  The foxes are correspondingly well fed.

 

To date, only one reported cougar sighting in our town, but my six year old's school has been locked down on occasion due to black bears in the area.