Guest Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 7.4 x 12 = 88.8 88.8 divided by 14.5 = 6.1241379 6.1241379 x 21 = 128.6 128.6 divided by 12 = 10.7 feet 10.7 feet is pretty tall, around here anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest uprightchimp Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 well, when you look @ the comparison photo of the 3 bigfoots, I'd say most likely without a dought that our harry kin can & does get the size of that one on the middle (I think that one is around 9-10 ft. tall) & @ least 12 feet tall still aint out of the question, no one really knows just how tall a male bigfoot can get, thats really the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 My theory is that the biggest BF would probably not be seen as much because it would be the dominate male and therefore get to chose the best territory. One could assume that would likely be a place where humans would not travel to as often as less desirable locations closer to civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) StankApe, I believe Bill Munns more accurately determined that Patty's height is 7' 4" in the PG film. See The Munns Report Munns also concluded that Patty's foot length is 14.5" plus or minus an inch. I think Munns is wrong.... I see no evidence t support the claim of 7'4 inches... Sorry, the pictures taken by other expeditions later from a similar distance show a size of being in the mid 6 feet. Not to mention that I understand perspective and did my own height analysis based on the 14.5 foot size and came up with 77 inches. I seriously doubt that I (and many other analysis of the data) could be off by nearly a foot. It's highly unlikely... Edited November 2, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LittleFeat Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I think Munns is wrong.... I see no evidence t support the claim of 7'4 inches... Sorry, the pictures taken by other expeditions later from a similar distance show a size of being in the mid 6 feet. Not to mention that I understand perspective and did my own height analysis based on the 14.5 foot size and came up with 77 inches. I seriously doubt that I (and many other analysis of the data) could be off by nearly a foot. It's highly unlikely... Munns determined that the scale was off because other analyses of the PG film used the wrong camera lens in their calculations. IMO, his evidence looks pretty convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I agree that the further north you go the bigger critters get (look at deer, in Canada you have Moose in Key West you have Key deer which are dog sized). As far as less calories, I think that only could possibly work if it involved a period of hibernation. Look at Polar Bears (largest bear in the world) they have to eat a lot of seal blubber to make it and keep their pups alive. It's a rough existence. I just don't think that a 12 foot tall animal that weighed a ton could subsist in a harsh winter climate without hibernating or having something high energy like seals available to eat. (remember the exponential growth thing, I reckon a 12 foot bigfoot would have to weigh at least 2000 pounds) Even IF a northern Bifoot was bigger and required less calories PER POUND to survive it would still require many many calories due to it's enormous size to begin with. They eat bark and roots for a large part of their winter calories. High value, especially white pine bark. Bracken root, cattail root, etc. etc. Plenty of forage in the winter in a montane environment. Deer liver, lung, and blood is especially high value winter food, not to mention salmon. Pine bark is something they have been observed to eat with some apparent gusto and enjoyment... "like corn on the cob" if I recollect the story. Don't necessarily think in terms of requiring a high animal protein diet, there's plenty of forage for an omnivore with big strong teeth that are ideal for stripping bark and grinding fibrous food. With the size and content of their scat they have a lot of roughage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 There is at least one individual in Oklahoma with a 26" track. The Southern theory of being shorter doesnt really hold water. Most are reported leaner build but also bulky ones topping 10' have been report down by me in Texas too. The 26" track finds have been as recent as this year and last year and recently a cast collection was exchanged with another researcher that had a 26" track from ten years earlier and within ten miles as the crow flies of the recent one. Note these are impressions in loose gravel and sand not of good detail but were in a trackway with up to a as much as 9' stride. It is very difficult to accept or imagine a 12-13' footer let alone an 9' -10' footer but as it is,, there ya go.. Tracks and witnesses over the years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 to clear up a few remarks made about my analysis work "The Munns Report" 1. I've never made any determination about the size of the foot. Descriptions from original PGF researchers say the foot measured 14.5" but I personaly do not have any evidence to verify that nor do I have any reason to challenge it. But since i do not have any firsthand knowledge of the foot size issue, I tend not to rely upon it in my analysis. 2. On the matter of Patty's height, my original calculation, 3 years ago, was a range of 7' 2" to 7' 6" based on an optical formula as the calculator, and a 15mm lens as one of the imput numbers. However, once new additional data was made available, to me, I decided to reconsider the lens issue and while there is still work to be done, I think that the 15mm lens is no longer a viable option. That nullifies the height estimate above. Until the lens is finally determined with confidence, I do not make height estimates at this time. As an additional note, I remain confident that the lens was not a 25mm standard lens. A 20mm lens is under consideration as an option to test further. The ongoing analysis will consider other lenses as well. Persons wishing to know more about the status of the lens analysis should look at a two part PDF release comparing John Green's filming of Jim McClarin to the PGF, where the consideration of the 20mm lens and the reason the 15mm lens is no longer viable, is explained. Repeating, I do not have a current height estimate and the 7' plus estimate no longer appears appropriate since the lens needed to deliver that estimate does not now seem likely to have been used. Bill Munns 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 For what it's worth, I have an acrylic mold of one of the Patterson tracks. It measures 14" by 6.5." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LittleFeat Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 to clear up a few remarks made about my analysis work "The Munns Report" 1. I've never made any determination about the size of the foot. Descriptions from original PGF researchers say the foot measured 14.5" but I personaly do not have any evidence to verify that nor do I have any reason to challenge it. But since i do not have any firsthand knowledge of the foot size issue, I tend not to rely upon it in my analysis. 2. On the matter of Patty's height, my original calculation, 3 years ago, was a range of 7' 2" to 7' 6" based on an optical formula as the calculator, and a 15mm lens as one of the imput numbers. However, once new additional data was made available, to me, I decided to reconsider the lens issue and while there is still work to be done, I think that the 15mm lens is no longer a viable option. That nullifies the height estimate above. Until the lens is finally determined with confidence, I do not make height estimates at this time. As an additional note, I remain confident that the lens was not a 25mm standard lens. A 20mm lens is under consideration as an option to test further. The ongoing analysis will consider other lenses as well. Persons wishing to know more about the status of the lens analysis should look at a two part PDF release comparing John Green's filming of Jim McClarin to the PGF, where the consideration of the 20mm lens and the reason the 15mm lens is no longer viable, is explained. Repeating, I do not have a current height estimate and the 7' plus estimate no longer appears appropriate since the lens needed to deliver that estimate does not now seem likely to have been used. Bill Munns My apologies to Skankape and Bill for me misinterpreting the conclusions of The Munns Report. I obviously haven't read the updates to Bill's original analyses in quite awhile. Thanks for your feedback. I feel that the analysis that Bill is performing on the PG film will lead him and/or others to a more accurate estimate, but that's outside the scope of this thread. Kudos to Bill and others for utilizing their knowledge and experience to unravel the mystery of the PG film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I don't remember where but I saw a report online a few years ago that said there was a 12'+ bigfoot standing by their home looking at them through a second story window. It had a drawing of the house and the bigfoot looking into the window. I personally believe they may be able to grow up to around 8'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 No harm no foul Little Feat!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spader Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 :I once read a really BAD bigfoot paperback and the authors were claiming 15 ft bigfoot. So I made up this graphic to show just how off the wall some of these height figures are. The man in the jphoto stands 5'9", the pole is exactly 12" tall. So imagine a 12ft tall bigfoot. It's pretty crazy as we're getting into the size of Mighty Joe Young which was fantasy. Thanks for the work you put into the photo comparison. I'm 6'3" and am aware that I'm taller than most people in a crowd. 6'3" compared to the guy who is 5'9" is barely even noticeable in a picture. Compared to the Bigfoot next to him the difference is almost unbelievable. How did you come up with the formula to gauge the height of each individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Dr. Matthew Johnson described the BF he saw as being over 8' tall. He said it dwarfed him and he's 6'9". He gives one of the most compelling eye witness accounts I've ever heard. He actually suffered from PTSD after his encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 :I once read a really BAD bigfoot paperback and the authors were claiming 15 ft bigfoot. So I made up this graphic to show just how off the wall some of these height figures are. The man in the jphoto stands 5'9", the pole is exactly 12" tall. So imagine a 12ft tall bigfoot. It's pretty crazy as we're getting into the size of Mighty Joe Young which was fantasy. I'm guessing the 3 Bigfoot are 8', 10' and 12' respectively ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts