Jump to content
Cali209otherworlder

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

Recommended Posts

Twist
3 hours ago, Old Dog said:

 

Using the multiplier ratio factor of 7.6 to your 24 1/2 in print, that would make your BF stand 15.5 ft. tall.  The largest casting I have of a print is 15 inches (height of print maker was about 9.5 ft.),  I'm trying to picture one 10 1/2 inches longer.  

 

Not that I’m discounting MIB’s account but it’s hard for me to fathom something being 15.5’ tall and a 24” foot.  How could something that massive even hide or traverse quietly.  Can you even walk quietly with feet that big?  Seems you’d always be breaking branches and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dog
23 hours ago, Twist said:

...it’s hard for me to fathom something being 15.5’ tall and a 24” foot.

 

I never discount anyone's accounting of BF, unless they get really out there, but I don't want to drag that topic up.  I can easily see a Sasquatch getting to 9 to 10 ft tall and having foot prints in the range of up to about 18 inches.  I cannot remember seeing any casting or reliable photo of a print extending beyond that range.  If they are out there, I would love to see those castings up close.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmknight

I don't think that foot length really has any relationship to height at all. For example, I have a friend who is the same height as I am, but he has size 12 feet. I have size 8 feet. I think it is totally possible to have a 9 or 10 foot Sasquatch with 24 1/2" feet. He would definitely be an oddity, but no more so than what is seen in the human world, if you really think about it. You might be able to make a mathematical equate for "average", or "typical", but there are bound to be Sasquatch which fall outside of the range of average, or typical, just as there are humans who fall outside our range.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
16 minutes ago, cmknight said:

but no more so than what is seen in the human world

 

As far as Sasquatch go, I think outside of the human world concerning my equipment and activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Giganto was a 10 ft tall ape. Largest ape that ever lived based on the fossil record.

 

15 ft?

 

Whoa.

IMG_1304.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
11 hours ago, norseman said:

Giganto was a 10 ft tall ape. Largest ape that ever lived based on the fossil record.

 

15 ft?

 

Whoa.

IMG_1304.JPG

 

It's impossible if we are talking about a flesh and blood animal with no paranormal abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Like a gorilla, giganto was likely primarily a quadruped.     One would expect BF,  which is bipedal,    be much taller for the same body mass.     A biped by its nature, has longer legs and a different distribution of weight which results in it standing taller.   The above picture really illustrates that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

It would appear that sasquatch have an ASH ratio substantially larger than humans. We already know their arm proportions have no relationship to humans. I would submit the relationship of human foot length to height simply does not apply to a sasquatch.

 

-- Robert Wadlow was 8'11" and had 18.5" feet.  That is 17.3% or a multiplier of 5.8.

-- Jeison Orlando Rodriguez Hernandez  is 7'3" and has 16" feet. That is 21.3% or a multiplier of 4.6.

 

If Patty's walking height was 6'3" and standing height 6'11"+, then her multiplier is 5.7. If Gigantofootecus was correct and her standing height was 18% more than her walking height, then the multiplier is approximately 6.1.

 

In any event, a 24 1/2" footprint is colossal and off the scales.

 

Edited by wiiawiwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

There may be several issues at play on a 24 inch print.     The medium in which it was deposited has to be looked at.   If it was snow or a mixture of frozen and unfrozen it may not be representative of the foot that made it.    Prints in snow grow as the edges melt away.   Mud is suspect as it changes dimension when it dries.     Surface drying of the surface around the print shrinks back some too as the water evaporates making the print look larger but that amount probably would not be more than a fraction of an inch.     Slippage of the foot will elongate a print in mud.     A heel first placement and transfer of weight could ride the foot forward with some resulting elongation of the footprint.    Since BF is so heavy,  maybe mud displaced by a footstep,  is squirted out,   making the footprint larger than the foot that made it?     And if you get right down to it,   hoax is always possible.    If a print over a certain size is impossible maybe it is because it is hoaxed.  

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


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

It would appear that sasquatch have an ASH ratio substantially larger than humans. We already know their arm proportions have no relationship to humans. I would submit the relationship of human foot length to height specimen does not apply to a sasquatch.

 

-- Robert Wadlow was 8'11" and had 18.5" feet.  That is 17.3% or a multiplier of 5.8.

-- Jeison Orlando Rodriguez Hernandez  is 7'3" and has 16" feet. That is 21.3% or a multiplier of 4.6.

 

If Patty's walking height was 6'3" and standing height 6'11"+, then her multiplier is 5.7. If Gigantofootecus was correct and her standing height was 18% more than her walking height, then the multiplier is approximately 6.1.

 

In any event, a 24 1/2" footprint is colossal and off the scales.

 

3

 

I wasn't aware that we had a specimen to verify the bolded, underlined, and highlighted above. 

 

These kinds of empathic statements send me to the moon... NO, NO, NO... we do not know that BF's arm proportions have no relationship to humans... BECAUSE we DON'T even have proof there is a BF out there.

 

These statements should be worded "We currently suspect that BF has different arm proportions than modern humans"... that's fair.  But until you have a specimen on a slab don't make empathic statements about BF or any other cryptid for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

It  all came from a long ongoing study of the parameters regarding Patty's proportions in the PGF. Of course it has  nothing to do with her height as that has not been precisely nailed down although people are currently working on that issue. It has to do with the ratios involving the Intramembral Index (IM) index which is leg and arm proportions in Humans as well as the Great Apes. YES! We need a body on a slab but the closest thing we have to that is Patty. Studying her body's proportions and ratios is where a lot of work and research has gone. This isn't to say you do not have  valid point because you do. But there has been much time and effort invested in the PGF with regard to physical details even though it is a film and not a live specimen.

 

And as you can see there is a lot of speculating going on and people DO tend to put things in a way that sounds like something confirmed as fact but basically it is understood by most everyone here that it is for the sake of discussion and not anywhere near related to proof of discovery. At the same time your post and others like it do help to keep things in perspective and I for one appreciate it. I even thought your "NO, NO, NO" was pretty classic.

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
15 hours ago, norseman said:

Giganto was a 10 ft tall ape. Largest ape that ever lived based on the fossil record.

 

15 ft?

 

Whoa.

IMG_1304.JPG

 

"fossil record"????  Details about Gigantopitheus blacki are a guess.  Ralph von Koenigswald found molars and jaw bone fragments in an apothecary shop in 1935. He was a foreigner in the wrong place and time when WWII started. He ended up in a prisoner of war camp. After the war, he did little or nothing with  Giganto. Teeth and jaw bones represent the "fossil record". Very little to go on. The size is debated. An interesting theory as to why no skeletons exist is the infamous Old World porcupine. They chew on bones for salt, calcium and to sharpen their teeth. New World porcupine have similar cravings. Bones are ground up for medicinal purposes in the Orient. The jury is still out as far as the lack of Giganto bones.  The idea of Giganto being an upright beast is based upon a hypothetical scenario of widening jaw bone structure and possible windpipe location courtesy of Grover Krantz.

 

Creating a 'fantastical' animal from teeth and jaw fragments is a stretch. Finding a foot, femur, pelvis and vertebrae would be nice. Until then, it looks like a halloween costume.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
15 hours ago, Old Time Lifter said:

 

I wasn't aware that we had a specimen to verify the bolded, underlined, and highlighted above. 

 

These kinds of empathic statements send me to the moon... NO, NO, NO... we do not know that BF's arm proportions have no relationship to humans... BECAUSE we DON'T even have proof there is a BF out there.

 

These statements should be worded "We currently suspect that BF has different arm proportions than modern humans"... that's fair.  But until you have a specimen on a slab don't make empathic statements about BF or any other cryptid for that matter.

 

Maybe while you're on the Moon it might not be a bad idea to spend a little time and energy catching up on matters related to the PGF.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
6 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

Maybe while you're on the Moon it might not be a bad idea to spend a little time and energy catching up on matters related to the PGF.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

No need for that, bottom line you can't make emphatic statements about anything dealing with BF... I'm not going to do your homework for you either.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×