DaleyWoodbeater Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 How much height exaggeration do we see in the squatch world? 7/8 feet seems believable. But, 10 feet? 12 feet?? I've even seen 14 feet mentioned while browsing this site. Surely not?! DOUBLE the height of a 'normal' 7 footer!! Are the really tall ones proportionate in build? This topic makes me think of the Bobo size comparisons on Finding Bigfoot! Quick question - do any of the Finding Bigfoot team post on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Cliff has posted in the past, usually follow ups to FB episodes that have ran. I am also aware of estimates to 12 feet, but they are very rare. There is a great deal of consistency around adult males topping out in the 7 to 8 foot range. I think most people would be quite good at estimating heights in that range- a bit taller than the tallest person they might have encountered and shorter than the height of a basketball net. Welcome to the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 Let's say you were Mork from Ork and landed in the rain forests of Brazil. You saw "humans"--little ones at 5' short. Then, you were transported to Sudan and saw Manute Bol who stood 7'7". You wouldn't believe your eyes that the same species could exhibit such vast size ranges. The "tall one" was over 50% taller than the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nipissing Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Robert Wadlow, at 8 ft 11 inches, tallest man known to have ever lived: How big basketball players really are: https://www.viralhoops.com/15-pictures-of-tall-nba-players-making-regular-people-look-tiny/ Shaq (7 ft 1) next to a life-sized cutout of Wadlow: Personally I don't think a sasq of 10+ feet is at all plausible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nipissing Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said: Let's say you were Mork from Ork and landed in the rain forests of Brazil. You saw "humans"--little ones at 5' short. Then, you were transported to Sudan and saw Manute Bol who stood 7'7". You wouldn't believe your eyes that the same species could exhibit such vast size ranges. The "tall one" was over 50% taller than the other one. Shaq and Verne Troyer (2 ft eight) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 There are only 10 entries in the SSR of Sasquatch 12 feet or more, one of which was just added a few minutes ago. Two of them are from the same general location in Alberta. Only 4 of the 10 entries show a height of 13 feet or taller. The tallest report is 16 feet, and it's always been my opinion that it is an exaggeration, made by kids in Ohio. (link) I first reported that my own sighting was of a sasquatch 10 feet tall. After further investigation, I changed it to 9 feet. I only saw an arm as it ducked away, and the top of that arm was at about 8' 4". It was my own experience that showed me how difficult it really is to determine height. You need to have something to compare to, like a tree branch, to get it right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nipissing Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Sixteen feet is approaching giraffe height; imagine that baby is a 6 ft tall person: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, DaleyWoodbeater said: How much height exaggeration do we see in the squatch world? 7/8 feet seems believable. But, 10 feet? 12 feet?? I've even seen 14 feet mentioned while browsing this site. Surely not?! DOUBLE the height of a 'normal' 7 footer!! Are the really tall ones proportionate in build? This topic makes me think of the Bobo size comparisons on Finding Bigfoot! Quick question - do any of the Finding Bigfoot team post on here? Some, but not always, not even in the extreme cases. A friend reports a habituation setting at her father's house. They saw a bigfoot duck slightly to go under a branch on a tree by the shop. Might have hit, might not have, but very close. She says they measured that branch from the ground and it is very very near 14 feet. The first one I saw was .. well, I spent a lot of years and a lot of brain sweat trying to make it more acceptably short, but with water 4-1/2 to 5 feet deep .. hits me under the chin and I'm 5'9" .. hitting the bigfoot at crotch level, and their leg length is proportionally less than ours, I can't see any way to conveniently turn what I saw into a more acceptable 9-1/2 feet, it had to be 10-1/2 feet or a little taller. So part of the question of estimating height is "do you have a reliable yardstick of some sort you can compare the bigfoot to, then measure later." And in both cases, hers and mine, there were indeed things for reliable comparison. So you can either accept my report of what I saw, and the size, or you can call me a liar. There is no third option. What you could do, if you want an educated understanding of height, is take a look at Henner Fahrenbach's data. Real biological critters' physical attributes will generally follow a bell curve distribution. Delusions and attention getting attempts do not. So look at the data and decide. One caution ... the big ones start small and grow. Also, we are more likely to see adolescent males out misbehaving as our own adolescent males do than mature adults who are more cautious. Taken together, that skews the data slightly downward regarding average size. While you're looking at his height data, take a look at the height vs foot size comparisons. 3/4ths of a mile from where I saw the very large dude walking down the river, I found a line of tracks that were 24-1/2 inches long with 6-1/2 feet between consecutive steps, left and right. It was in thin mud over a layer of hard rock so any tracks of a hoaxer within 15-20 feet would have been glaringly obvious. If it was a hoax, someone managed to step, walking, not running, 6-1/2 feet in 24-1/2 inch long "shoes" carrying upwards of 800 pounds on their back. To me .. not feasible. Those tracks were what they appeared to be, nothing more, nothing less. MIB Edited July 10, 2020 by MIB 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyASize12 Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 I treat most height estimates with caution. Years ago, a member here setup a photo of an object and gave folks a week or two to enter their estimates for sizes before he revealed the actual dimensions. The photo you were looking at had very little in the way of reference objects. I felt it was a fair test of spotting a squatch in the woods or a field....except you did have as much time as you wanted to ponder...not 10-30 seconds. it was illuminating how OFF almost all the estimates were. The height-estimates I have more confidence in are where the viewer can use a reference (a branch the squatch passes under say) that ideally can be checked after the sighting. That said, I suspect these things have a normal distribution of sizes. I suspect there are a few REALLY big ones out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2020 I'm a hunter, lifelong, somewhat rabid. Judging size in the field is hard. You can be off just by being wrong about distance, and if you see something really big, you are likely to assume it is something smaller closer. For frequently encountered game animals we have cues from the critter itself. Look at a buck's antler width compared to its ear tip width. Look at a bear's ear size and location on the skull. And so on. Those come with familiarity, familiarity we don't have with bigfoot. I've played that game with myself ... ask myself, "self, in this setting here, how big is 10 feet tall? What does it look like?" Unless the distance is fairly short, 10 feet isn't ginormous looking. My first sighting where I had depth of the water as a solid yardstick gives a reliable height. The BF ducking under the branch that was later measured gives a reliable height. Another friend had a sighting of a BF he put at 6-1/2 feet. We measured it at 74 feet distance later using my laser rangefinder. It doesn't happen every time, or even most times. When we do get a chance to take a real measurement rather than just offering an estimate we should take advantage of the opportunity to do so. 32 minutes ago, OnlyASize12 said: That said, I suspect these things have a normal distribution of sizes. I suspect there are a few REALLY big ones out there. I agree. I read somewhere that the early Canadian researchers were not convinced the Northern California -type tracks were real because they were proportionally wider than what the Canadians were used to. (I'd love to have Thomas Steenberg comment on that.) Those 24-1/2 inch tracks I found were comparatively narrow, about 8-1/2 inches at the ball of the foot and about 6 inches at the heel, didn't have as much taper as some of the CA tracks, and they were very slightly curved .. not an arch, but a curve. That, along with the reports of 2 slightly different types, roughly the same size, but with one more muscle-bound looking and having more ape-ish facial features, the other quite bulky but slightly smoother with more human facial features (and more human-like speech) make me wonder if there isn't something to the hybridization notion. If the process were not complete, the DNA not mixed throughout the population evenly yet, then you might well expect to see that level of variation. If the big dude I saw was a wanderer from a parent population in Canada, it could be normal for there but abnormal for SW Oregon where I saw it. We know little. We need to do good science before we treat something as truth ... but we remain free to ponder possibilities. We should encourage that pondering so long as it does not take on the mantle of dogma without substantiation. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyASize12 Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 31 minutes ago, MIB said: That, along with the reports of 2 slightly different types, roughly the same size, but with one more muscle-bound looking and having more ape-ish facial features, the other quite bulky but slightly smoother with more human facial features (and more human-like speech) make me wonder if there isn't something to the hybridization notion. Cryptozoology A to Z has a brief article about the True Giants. Conceptually, this is something other than an "normal" Sasquatch that is much taller..and explains of the truly gigantic reports. I personally lean toward the idea that those 14-15 foot tall estimates are exaggerations from the speed, shock and fearful nature of a sighting... but I could be wrong. Won't learn more if I don't keep an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleyWoodbeater Posted July 11, 2020 Author Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) What's the biggest reported female squatch height? Edited July 11, 2020 by DaleyWoodbeater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNskeptic Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 I'm 6'5" tall and wear a size 16 shoe. My foot is 14" long. According to Fahrenbach's foot/height conversion formula I would be a 7 1/2' tall Sasquatch. Since his computations were based on known footprint sizes, together with corresponding eyewitness height estimates, there are two conclusions I immediately drew: 1) either humans have a larger foot to height ratio than even 'bigfoot', which seems unlikely or, 2) eyewitness height estimates were exaggerated, which seems more likely. There are other possible explanations, but these were the first ones that popped into my head. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 4 hours ago, MNskeptic said: I'm 6'5" tall and wear a size 16 shoe. My foot is 14" long. According to Fahrenbach's foot/height conversion formula I would be a 7 1/2' tall Sasquatch. Since his computations were based on known footprint sizes, together with corresponding eyewitness height estimates, there are two conclusions I immediately drew: 1) either humans have a larger foot to height ratio than even 'bigfoot', which seems unlikely or, 2) eyewitness height estimates were exaggerated, which seems more likely. There are other possible explanations, but these were the first ones that popped into my head. Interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted July 20, 2020 Share Posted July 20, 2020 (edited) On 7/11/2020 at 2:35 PM, DaleyWoodbeater said: What's the biggest reported female squatch height? From John Green's database: 12 ft. tall, daytime sighting, June 1963, Clark County, WA. Redish/Brown female with pendulous breasts carrying a young one: "Stan Mattson driving by Lewis River Canal below a dam near Yale, saw 200 yards away a reddish-brown creature, estimated 12 feet high, carrying a young one under its left arm." Note the distance, though. 200 yards and there is no info for how that 12 ft. height was determined beyond "estimated". Edited July 20, 2020 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts