Jump to content
Cali209otherworlder

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

Recommended Posts

Patterson-Gimlin

No you don't obviously.

I am hoping for proof positive that the creatures do in fact  exist

I have no explanation for the Patterson film. I am in fact  a fan of it and have a deep appreciation for the film

It is what got me interested in the creature .There is lot of good people here and I have read the reports and or told by them .

I believe they do believe what they saw is in fact a large man ape. I was not there and I don't know what they experienced. 

i enjoy their  testimony. My personal belief is irrelevant. 

Please don't feel sorry for me. My life is very  satisfying. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

A misidenitification with a bear could only result with someone totally unfamiliar with the woods and wildlife.  I'll concede those reports by city nerds from NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, and the like, who have their one-day-a-year hike in the woods and have no idea what they're looking at.  "OMG, it's so large and it's moving; it must be one of those bigfoots! Let's get out of here now William!"

 

Let's contrast that with reports from seasoned hunters who know every living creature in the forest. They is no way they are going to misidentify. Often, they have benefit of binoculars or their rifle scope to see exactly what it is. Those cases, and they are many,  the only option is it's either a sasquatch or a hoax.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Make that a sasquatch or a "very good hoax" if hunters are looking through a rifle scope.    Even the best movie portrayals of BF with good budgets for costuming the BF characters look like men in brown pajamas.  Most remind me of kids in pajamas with feet in them.    Admittedly the movies have never had the funding for the best GGI work Hollywood is capable of producing.    But some hoaxer in the woods has to be in a costume without a large budget and CGI is not at play.    Oh by the way, where is that famous Patty costume?    That would fetch millions of dollars if someone could produce it.   That no one has,  pretty much tells me it never existed.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cali209otherworlder
On 11/9/2018 at 9:14 AM, MIB said:

Same situation for me.   I tried for years to figure out a way the first one I saw could be shorter than it truly had to be so that it'd be more acceptable but it just doesn't work.   I "want" it to be 9 to 9.5 feet tall  but between body segment proportions and the locations of a pretty reliable ruler,  it could not be less than 10'3" to 10'6"; it could have been 1.5 feet taller yet.  I didn't want to be laughed at so I didn't report the sighting when I was reporting the earlier trackway find to BFRO.    My research partner has some charts correlating height and width which guestimate the height of the track maker near 12 feet based on step length and track dimensions.   

 

While those sizes seem huge, out in the woods it there are seldom immediately obvious "rulers" to use.   We subconsciously scale what we see to what we expect and what we see around it.  If it doesn't fit, we revise our assessment of what we see around it before considering that we really see what we seem to see.    A truly large thing has to be fairly close so that we, ourselves, become part of the "scaling" before we truly grasp how big it is.

 

MIB

 I'm glad you posted this. I know its hatd to digest the sheer size of how big something must be to have left tracks that big, but I'm getting my estimates from the fact that the 2nd biggest one had a foot about 5" longer than a sledge hammer. Which is all we had to measure with besides a fishing pole i found in the woods while looking at tracks.  I measured a different sledge hammer (not the most accurate measurements but I'm good at measuring stuff beause ive done a fair amount of carpentry and other forms of construction) and it measured 31". It had a 6ft gait walking uphil from its toes in the back foot to the heal in the front. And the mega one had 7-8" on top of that one and was at least 14"  wide. I couldnt believe what i had seen. I'm trying to see if any of my homies still have a picture of where it barely touched the snow with its foot and left a light imprint. But it shows the sheer size of this enormous creature. It had about 8ft between the toes of its back foot and the heal if its front walking uphill. So people have to tell me how big that is. It changed my whole perspective on what is out there in the woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cali209otherworlder

There is absolutely no possible way this was a misidentification. I had also seen very clear bear tracks the the area woth sasquatch prints following them and they made the bears prints look like a fetus's compared to a human. Even the 3rd biggest one had feet way bigger than that. I had actually seen a couple very very clear prints of the smaller one at the beggining which there was no way to deny. I then found all the other shittier prints in the area that you had to know what to look for to see trying to find the clear prints again. But the messy prints were for sure prints because i followed them for a long time using the fishing pole i found to mark how big they were and every print left and right would be the same size. After a while i noticed that there were actually 2 different ones and they walk in each others steps. Also the night before some of us had seen what looked like 2 giany blue orbs between some trees in the area we found the prints at. What was weird was they were on one top of the other not side by side and at least 9ft up betweem some trees. It freaked us out a little bit but we didnt think it could be a giant predator hominid. It also didnt blink very much if at all that we seen so we didnt think they were eyes. But they were absolutely gigantic. They went away after a few minutes and we kept hearing branches broken (the area was buily up with branches on the ground that i will explain later). I really hope i can get a picture of the big one if anyone still has it. It probably wont be taken serilusly because it didn't put its foot all the way down in the good picture so people will try and say we made it. But i dont really care if people take it seriously or not. Im not here to get famous. Im here to share my story to those who may wanna hear it. I don't wanna to be on any tv shows or anything like that. What was weird was we were doing everything people would think would make them stay away. Playing loud music, walking through the forest a litte bit at night, talking loudly, laughing, etc. I guess all ofthat made them curious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

SWWASAS, you're singing to the choir. No way a suit will fool people who have the time to carefully view the subject. I doubt a suit would fool any of us if we had benefit of a binoculars or a scope however, having said that, sometimes one only gets a fleeting glimpse of a moving object walking through brush or a heavy forest. That makes it difficult to determine, in the moment, whether it was a suit or not. That fleeting glimpse will not fool the seasoned hunter whether it was a bear or sasquatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Fire a shot above its head. If it yells, "DON'T SHOOT" then.........don't shoot.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug

I Know that there was a Sasquatch that had a waist hight that was around 5'6" ( with bent knees) in the Coast Range of Oregon in 1976. It's waist would have been taller if standing fully erect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
2 hours ago, Doug said:

I Know that there was a Sasquatch that had a waist hight that was around 5'6" ( with bent knees) in the Coast Range of Oregon in 1976. It's waist would have been taller if standing fully erect.

 

I would like to hear about that.  PM me if you're not comfortable elaborating in public.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite
BFF Donor

First point I'd like to make is that it would help if the researchers at various groups did a better job of interviewing - first lock in a height estimate by finding out distance to target, lighting, and clarity of the target, then get the witness to lock in a height during a recreation (a la Finding Bigfoot), then measure, and then afterwards, have the witness guestimate the height of a couple of humans w/a known size.  

 

Anyway (end of rant), out of 352 reported encounters in New England & eastern Canada, only 208 (if my math is correct) had any height reported.  Of those, a full 57, or just over 1/4 of the reports had only a subjective description of height, which I then had to subjectively figure out what they meant by it.  The long and short of it (or short and tall of it?) is that there are very few reports of Bigfoot over 10 feet tall, even if you bump the "Giant/Huge" reports over one.

 

Oh, yeah, and once again there is a biometric bell curve.  Call me a skeptic, but I'm not seeing a bunch of faked reports, or miss-identifications of known creatures, creating a bell curve of heights once someone sorts through it all.  

 

Height

< 5/5

> 5

> 6

> 7

> 8

> 9

> 10

6

17

45

40

14

6

3

 

“squat”

“big/tall”

“large/very tall”

 

“giant/huge”

 

 

1

26

23

 

7

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
10 hours ago, hiflier said:

Fire a shot above its head. If it yells, "DON'T SHOOT" then.........don't shoot.

 

I like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
7 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

Oh, yeah, and once again there is a biometric bell curve.  Call me a skeptic, but I'm not seeing a bunch of faked reports, or miss-identifications of known creatures, creating a bell curve of heights once someone sorts through it all.  

 

I'll certainly agree with you on this point.    This is one of the reasons I say that according to Occam's Razor, bigfoot's existence IS by far the simplest explanation.     People seeking attention are constantly trying to "out whopper" each other as they vie for attention.   They do not produce a biologically consistent data set.   For a biologically consistent series of hoaxes, cooperation and conspiracy are required.   Since the data goes back more than 400 years, the conspiracy would have to as well .. and yet, despite all of the other secret groups we know about, these particular folks manage to stay concealed?   Not even vaguely believable. 

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug

MIB, here you go; My family and several others went on an Easter picnic in at a remote little park high up in the Oregon Coast Range. My buddy and I decided to go on a hike through the second and old growth heavily timbered mountain side on an elk trail that was about 2 feet wide cutting horizontally along the hill side. There was a road about 200 yards above us and a creek with a road on the opposite side of the creek about 150 yards below us. The incline was such that you would have to use hands to pull your self up if you were climbing up and if you were to go down the hill you would take one step into the soft duff and slide 10 feet, fall on your butt, get up and take another step and slide another ten feet.  As we hiked along, we had gone about a1/4 mile when we saw a great "trail" going down to the creek from the road above. It looked as though a heard of elk had busted down the hill sliding and plowing up the ground. As we approached this slide area, we couldn't believe what we were seeing. "Something" had slid down the mountain and came to rest on the elk trail and then stepped out and slid on down the mountain. There on the trail was two giant rounded heel prints with soft dirt and duff around them into the trail. On the bank above the trail was a giant naked butt print perfectly preserved in the soft dirt. Beside the butt print was a giant hand print complete with a forearm and elbow print. We had a great deal of difficulty coming up with an explanation of what we seeing. We thought maybe a giant hunter, but, no hunting season and no boot prints. A fisherman? Why would a fisherman go through the trouble to slide all the way down to the creek when they could drive down and easily access the creek. I was right at 5 feet tall. When I stepped into the heel prints and lay back on the bank fully upright, the butt print was right behind my head. The forearm print was longer than my whole arm and my open hand with fingers spread wide didn't fill up the palm. 

Later that day, we finally came to the conclusion that a Bigfoot slide down the mountain side, when it's heels hit the trail, it fell back onto it's rear end and forearm and pushed off with it's hand and stepped on out to continue sliding down the mountain. Later that week my mom came into the living room while my brother and I watched TV and said that she had heard or saw ( I don't remember which) on the news that a fly fisherman had seen a Bigfoot standing in the creek less than a mile away from the park. It took 20 years for me to feel comfortable to go back up there. Excellent deer and elk hunting there by the way.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MindSquatch

Butt prints are awesome due to the fact that they are extremely rare to find compared to foot prints, especially with hand prints. I can pretty much picture in my mind what it looked like, probably similar to the one I found in the Sierra's up on a peak where this rock is where you get an awesome view. One day when I was going up there to sit, there was this massive butt print on a layer of soil on top of this same rock I was going to sit on. There were no tracks in the soil up the steep mountain side leading to it, so the Bigfoot must of came from over the peak from the other side which would be dangerous without any climbing gear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×