Jump to content
Cali209otherworlder

What is the biggest you believe Sasquatches can get? (They get bigger than you think)

Recommended Posts

MIB

When I was interviewed by Henner Fahrenbach for BFRO regarding the tracks, he said the biggest reported track they hadn't been able to debunk / find signs of hoaxing in was 27 inches.   

 

There's a location in Nor Cal where friends report 20 and 22 inch tracks.   They seem to think the approximately 10 foot individual that has been seen a time or two, including a twilight almost face to face "encounter", is responsible for the 20" tracks.    These are fairly vague, I mean, clear impressions, but they're impressed into a crushed gravel road surface and don't leave fine detail, just a whoppin' track with the impression of 5 toes up front.   Considering how much force it takes to leave permanent impressions in gravel, some of those weight numbers take on a more serious context.

 

Y' know ... I don't know.   Some things I need to see for myself.   I'm not laughing.   Good enough chance of being real .. I just need to see it.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Ya know, MIB? I'm not laughing either.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pdub

15’ is difficult to believe. I’m dead even 6’ tall, 2.5 times my height? I played a lot of basketball in my younger days, the top of a regulation hoop is 13’. To be 2’ above that defies belief. From the most reliable source online, Wikipedia, avg shoulder height of male African elephants is 10-13’. 

 

Foot length is not a direct correlation to height without multiple track lengths to measure. I used to work with a guy my height (6’) that wore size 15 shoes (yes his feet looked goofy). I played football/basketball in high school with a 6’5” guy that only wore size 11. He forgot his shoes once and wore my backup pair size 12 and told me they were too big.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
26 minutes ago, Pdub said:

15’ is difficult to believe. I’m dead even 6’ tall, 2.5 times my height? I played a lot of basketball in my younger days, the top of a regulation hoop is 13’. To be 2’ above that defies belief. From the most reliable source online, Wikipedia, avg shoulder height of male African elephants is 10-13’. 

 

Foot length is not a direct correlation to height without multiple track lengths to measure. I used to work with a guy my height (6’) that wore size 15 shoes (yes his feet looked goofy). I played football/basketball in high school with a 6’5” guy that only wore size 11. He forgot his shoes once and wore my backup pair size 12 and told me they were too big.

 

For an undiscovered creature, there does seem to be a lot of accepted math that correlates foot size to height.

 

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
32 minutes ago, Pdub said:

To be 2’ above that defies belief.

 

I understand this, relate to some degree.   However, it has to be said that truth is not constrained by what we believe, rather, what we believe should be constrained by truth.    I'm interested in learning that truth, whatever it is, and not very interested in having anyone tell me what they'll allow the truth to be.  

 

6 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

For an undiscovered creature, there does seem to be a lot of accepted math that correlates foot size to height.

 

I'd like to refer you to an article by Henner Fahrenbach.   It's an analysis of empirical data.   http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm

 

MIB

Edited by MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Lets assume that there are 10' BF.    I have been out of the military nearly 20 years.    But at the time I retired, I saw satellite imagery that could easily resolve something 10 feet tall with pretty good definition.    I am sure military satellite imaging has much improved in that 20 years.    The expectation when I retired was that we would soon be able to read license plates from orbit.     While our assets are likely not imaging US soil,   the Russians are.      They have to have imaged BF in the wild around US installations.    I have wondered if Russian larger scientific acceptance of their BF type  (Almas)  has something to do with what they may have imaged in the US.      Maybe rather than pour money into DNA testing we should be trying to buy Russian images.    That would likely have to be under the table deals because it would reveal their capability.   But like they say money talks.   

 

Looking at the Almas information I found something interesting I had not seen in Wikepedia.    

 

"Another case is said to date from around 1941, shortly after the German invasion of the USSR. A "wild man" was captured somewhere in the Caucasus by a detachment of the Red Army. He appeared human, but was covered in fine, dark hair. Interrogation revealed his apparent inability (or unwillingness) to speak, and the creature is said to have been shot as a suspected German spy. [12]"

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Lets assume that there are 10' BF.    I have been out of the military nearly 20 years.    But at the time I retired, I saw satellite imagery that could easily resolve something 10 feet tall with pretty good definition.    I am sure military satellite imaging has much improved in that 20 years.    The expectation when I retired was that we would soon be able to read license plates from orbit.     While our assets are likely not imaging US soil,   the Russians are.      They have to have imaged BF in the wild around US installations.    I have wondered if Russian larger scientific acceptance of their BF type  (Almas)  has something to do with what they may have imaged in the US.      Maybe rather than pour money into DNA testing we should be trying to buy Russian images.    That would likely have to be under the table deals because it would reveal their capability.   But like they say money talks.   

 

Looking at the Almas information I found something interesting I had not seen in Wikepedia.    

 

"Another case is said to date from around 1941, shortly after the German invasion of the USSR. A "wild man" was captured somewhere in the Caucasus by a detachment of the Red Army. He appeared human, but was covered in fine, dark hair. Interrogation revealed his apparent inability (or unwillingness) to speak, and the creature is said to have been shot as a suspected German spy. [12]"

 

By extension then shouldn't we have photos of Almas in Russian? 

7 hours ago, MindSquatch said:

The Bigfoot as my avatar has to be minimum of 10 feet tall because of where it's head is in the video I took. He is on the opposite side of the creek from me, maybe 20 or so feet up from the creek on a mountain side. I want to say 11 to 12 feet tall,  but I feel that's really pushing it. But that's how tall he would have to be for it to be possible where his head is from ground level. 

 

Can you post a larger (better) photo?  I apologize but the avi looks like dryer lint stuck in some twigs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I dont see something weighing 4000-5000 lbs as being bipedal. Thats the size of a Rhino!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot

Thanks for the link to the research paper @MIB.

 

What I struggle with was that the size/foot multiplier is all based on measurements from PGF. I believe the film is real but anything based off of a movie of a creature no one has a body of seems iffy at best. Even if he is spot on, Patty could be way outside of the norm for all we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
10 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Depending on where a sighting occurs misidentification of something 15' tall can be ruled out. I mean what if anything out there  is 15' tall? A big Grizzly standing up might reach 10'? In other words, what would a 15' tall Sasquatch be misidentified as? There would have to be some other animal in that same area that would have to be that tall in order for misidentification to be a possibility. And I haven't a clue as to what that other animal might beDo I make any sense saying that?

I agree that is why I said that . Height is obviously exaggerated and that l,so in my opinion it makes me think they are confusing not only the size ,but the creature for a shorter animal such as a bear.

or it is a Sasquatch if they truly exist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
15 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I agree that is why I said that . Height is obviously exaggerated and that l,so in my opinion it makes me think they are confusing not only the size ,but the creature for a shorter animal such as a bear.

or it is a Sasquatch if they truly exist.  

 

I cannot believe an even remotely intelligent person could see a bear, especially in the Eastern US or anywhere where Grizzlies don't exist and then come up with a description and explanation that is a bipedal ape/human.

 

You have very little faith in mankind, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oonjerah

Robert Pershing Wadlow was 8' 11".

Suleiman Ali Nashnush 8'8".

  ...  basketball players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
1 hour ago, NatFoot said:

 

I cannot believe an even remotely intelligent person could see a bear, especially in the Eastern US or anywhere where Grizzlies don't exist and then come up with a description and explanation that is a bipedal ape/human.

 

You have very little faith in mankind, apparently.

I have very little faith in eyewitness reports of large man apes. I deal in facts. For instance a  type a specimen is required for examination 

to document and catalog the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
12 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I have very little faith in eyewitness reports of large man apes. I deal in facts. For instance a  type a specimen is required for examination 

to document and catalog the subject. 

That is fine.

I get it.

You also have to believe that the PGF is a hoax.

You also have to believe that every report is made up.

You also have to believe that every eyewitness here is also a liar.

 

Since you are not a psychologist, why in the hell do you waste precious minutes of your life on Earth conversing with the crazies?

 

I feel sorry for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×