VAfooter Posted November 5, 2011 Admin Share Posted November 5, 2011 I tend to agree with you but isn't strange that all of these Alberta exaggeration occurring in the same general area, and stopping in 1984? Could it be possible that the first report was overestimated and several of the follow-ons, having heard of the first report, just reported the same thing? Eventually, as more reports flowed in, the size came back down to "normal" standards as the estimates became more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Xion Comrade, on 04 November 2011 - 10:53 PM, said: And the tallest report I have ever heard that had evidence to back it up was pushing 12 feet tall by the estimation of the witness(It was standing near a abandoned trailer home I think). It had left some footprints, pretty good ones, at around 25 or 26 inches if I am not mistaken....It was over 22 inches anyway(To lazy to look it up lol)... If you find or remember more details please post it. Thanks. If this report is from Oklahoma, I have heard a similar one or the same one from a well known researcher. Edited November 5, 2011 by GEARMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I will go as far as to say that there are no 12 foot tall Bigfoot. I think it's either made up stories or exaggerations due to stress. No way a 12 foot tall animal that weighs nearly a ton would stay hidden for long. It's malarky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I will go as far as to say that there are no 12 foot tall Bigfoot. I think it's either made up stories or exaggerations due to stress. No way a 12 foot tall animal that weighs nearly a ton would stay hidden for long. It's malarky On the old BFF some joker in Canada started a thread about a 12ft bigfoot they claimed to have observed and had photos of tracks in slush on the roadside. However when cross examined they eventually were exposed as hoaxing the story. I'm posting my graphic one more time to illustrate the folly of 12ft bigfoot. But wait the most innane book on the subject I ever read had BF at 15ft tall! Most likely there is no bigfoot at all let alone 12ft specimens. Do the people that make these gargantuan claims ever stop to consider that BF would be the largest land animal in North America and the largest animal since the mega-fauna of the ice age. If it seems to big to be true then expect it not to be true. Yes there are big humans but we have those big humans well cataloged with names, ages, and the conditions (if any) that allowed for the great size and height. When subscribing to mega sized bigfoot stop to realize that it's a virtually unknown and unproven animal that would be towering over most everything in it's territory and just how well can something that big stay hidden? The fact that humans claim to have seen them in places where humans go means that these mega bigfoot are not so sequestered in the unknown/unreachable corners of our deepest wilderness. Unless they are shape shifters they'll get spotted again and again. But shape shifting BF are even more problematic than the garden variety of merely mega sized bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I will go as far as to say that there are no 12 foot tall Bigfoot. I think it's either made up stories or exaggerations due to stress. No way a 12 foot tall animal that weighs nearly a ton would stay hidden for long. It's malarky I agree it is as close to incomprehensable to believe theyre some out there at up to 12'. Being a believer in 7-8 ft and maybe up to 10 but considering the larger 21, 23 and up to 26 inch tracks that have been found, something very big is making those tracks. It still blows my mind to think how. Timberghost claims to have seen one like that towering above the back side of a old trailer home in the Kiamichis and noted it being 6' high at the back when in 4x4 mode. It takes see to be believing on ANY Bigfoot and this is waay behond that but I can't have any absolute thoughts either way without more personal experience. Perhaps time with answer this within the next few years if everyone holding back there big projects and evidence throw all their cards down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Don't forget that Polar and Kodiak bears can stand up to 10/11ft in height and weigh 1,500lbs. Granted they aren't often standing up but they are still pretty huge animals. A solitary giant bear could remain hidden somewhere like the wilds of Alberta or BC. It's feasible. 12ft or so may sound huge to us (which it is of course) but it would still be dwarfed by the terrain (trees, bushes etc) and remember it would only be the occasional freak individual......not a whole bunch of 12 footers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Xion Comrade, on 04 November 2011 - 10:53 PM, said: And the tallest report I have ever heard that had evidence to back it up was pushing 12 feet tall by the estimation of the witness(It was standing near a abandoned trailer home I think). It had left some footprints, pretty good ones, at around 25 or 26 inches if I am not mistaken....It was over 22 inches anyway(To lazy to look it up lol)... If this report is from Oklahoma, I have heard a similar one or the same one from a well known researcher. Bingo, we are talking about the same thing then it looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Here's the thing; we just don't know anything useful about them. We have only rarely glimpsed them, never clearly caught an image of one and we have seen no elders or children at all, statistically. We have never found a camp or dwelling. We basically have seen them when they don't care or are distracted. Since we know zip about their society or even if they have one, it is not unreasonable to suppose we only see scouts or youngsters sowing thier wild oats. Where are the adults? What do they look like? How tall are they? Suppose they are a race of giants, that is suffering from some genetic issue. Those suffering from this affliction sometimes reach beyond usual human boundaries, but suffer other afflictions attendant to the condition, like circulatory issues and bone distortions. This population's elderly would be quite lame as they grew older. Suppose the real biggies don't hunt or even move around much. How would that look? I don't think it would look any different. There would be multiple reports of them escorting people away from the camp. We'd rarely see elders or kids. I think the Patterson footage supports this, if anything. Leaving doubts aside, the film apparently shows an older individual surprised while taking on water. Like an old human she is arthritic and walks favoring her heels. This actually is kind of compelling. Big old men with arthritis walk like that. Hang around a football team and you'll see them. Notice she doesn't run, even though Gimlin had a rifle leveled at her. As an aside, if it was a hoax, they evidently completely took in Patterson's horse. LOL! The woods might be full of twelve footers, we'd never know. We see errand runners and look outs and we sensibly run away when we spot them. I have never read or heard of someone ruching into the woods to track them to thier lair. I have heard of dogs declining to track them. I have heard of people insisting on a display, ignoring tree shakes and wood knocks until they are confronted. I have never heard of someone doggedly following a BF to thier home. I guess those that have tried haven't reported back, yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Here's the thing; we just don't know anything useful about them. We have only rarely glimpsed them, never clearly caught an image of one and we have seen no elders or children at all, statistically. We have never found a camp or dwelling. We basically have seen them when they don't care or are distracted. Since we know zip about their society or even if they have one, it is not unreasonable to suppose we only see scouts or youngsters sowing thier wild oats. Where are the adults? What do they look like? How tall are they? Suppose they are a race of giants, that is suffering from some genetic issue. Those suffering from this affliction sometimes reach beyond usual human boundaries, but suffer other afflictions attendant to the condition, like circulatory issues and bone distortions. This population's elderly would be quite lame as they grew older. Suppose the real biggies don't hunt or even move around much. How would that look? I don't think it would look any different. There would be multiple reports of them escorting people away from the camp. We'd rarely see elders or kids. I think the Patterson footage supports this, if anything. Leaving doubts aside, the film apparently shows an older individual surprised while taking on water. Like an old human she is arthritic and walks favoring her heels. This actually is kind of compelling. Big old men with arthritis walk like that. Hang around a football team and you'll see them. Notice she doesn't run, even though Gimlin had a rifle leveled at her. As an aside, if it was a hoax, they evidently completely took in Patterson's horse. LOL! The woods might be full of twelve footers, we'd never know. We see errand runners and look outs and we sensibly run away when we spot them. I have never read or heard of someone ruching into the woods to track them to thier lair. I have heard of dogs declining to track them. I have heard of people insisting on a display, ignoring tree shakes and wood knocks until they are confronted. I have never heard of someone doggedly following a BF to thier home. I guess those that have tried haven't reported back, yet. Whats up with all the absolute statements? That would be incorrect, alot of researchers I know have seen small young ones, some old ones and basically the whole range of ages. For example , our guy from Missouri had a very close sighting of a very old male that he describes in great detail including atrophy on his muscles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skaalnes Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I have a friend who is 6'7 and he is pretty lanky and skinny. His father is 6'6 and also a slim guy. Often we see people who are tall being fairly skinny and slim and not very athletic. Both of them have a lot of back problems and some problems with their legs as well. How do you guys think this is in the BF world? Does those giant 12-15 ft BFs struggle with body problems and therefore we never or rarely see them? Are they slimmer and lankier because of their length or are they just as bulky and wide as the smaller BFs? I think the more athletic and fast 7-8 ft BFs are the ones hunting and so on. They can move fast and hide more easily. Or do you guys think 12-15 ft BFs are just as athletic and fast as smaller BFs? Any thoughts? Hope you guys understand what I mean. English is not my first language so bare with me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest apaulo Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I remember a thread from the old forum that talked about really tall BF sightings. The reason is stuck with me is that there was a detail that made a lot of sense. The description of the creature said that it did not look like a normal BF, with a huge chest compared to the legs. Instead it had thick, tree trunk size legs, and the upper body tapered down. Other posters pointed out that this made sense, as that is how large animals like elephants support their tremendous weight. I think the description may even have come from Africa, and that the BF was flattening the native thatch huts in a rage. It was not a first hand report in the old thread, it was someone's recall of an older story, and I wish I could find the source or even the old thread. If any species like that ever existed in Africa, they are long gone now, but it makes you wonder about how we won the competition for scarce resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Could it be possible that the first report was overestimated and several of the follow-ons, having heard of the first report, just reported the same thing? Eventually, as more reports flowed in, the size came back down to "normal" standards as the estimates became more accurate. I don't think so in this case. The earliest I have on record was by two ladies of the Stoney nation whom were driving a single horse wagon along a dirt road, summer of 1948. The same road which would become the paved highway 11 by Abraham lake. They said they watched as two 12 or 13 foot figures were busy on a steep hill side apparently digging for something. Later on a band of first nations lead by chief Joe Smallboys returned to the woods near the town of Nordegg. A young man chopping wood reported that a 12 foot creature was watching him from some thick bushes not 200 feet away. Mr. Gummel said both creatures which crossed in front of his car in 1973 were both 12 feet tall or over. Than there was the 5 workmen at the Big Horn Dam which all said they thought the figure that was watching them had to be 15 feet tall. The last one that I am aware of the witness said he could clearly see the head and shoulders of the animal behind a thick grow of 9 foot second growth lodge pole pine trees. He to guess a height of 12 feet. Now if this type of thing continued in this part of Alberta I have not heard about it. I left for the B.C. lower main land in Sept 2002. From 1984 to 2002 I did hear about sightings of 6,7,8, foot subjects but the real tall ones seemed to have stopped. Also I think I was the only one whom noticed a pattern of this type of thing all happening in the same general area. I wrote a little about it 'Sasquatch/Bigfoot the continuing mystery', which was published in 1993. Also in 'The Sasquatch In Alberta' pub 1989. I have not been back to the Alberta side of the Rockies for some time now. But there are good researchers there. I will check to see if anything else in this size range has been reported since I left. No I don't think word of mouth could have created the size reports in this area as I don't think many of these people if any ever heard of the others? Thomas Steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts