Posted by: Michael Krein on March 9th, 2013
Just been watching the rerun of the Olympic Peninsula episode–with all the snarky text boxes for added laughs. Amazingly this not very skeptical group that can’t find Bigfoot had a very hard time swallowing a recreation that indicated a Sasquatch might be 11 feet tall. They all wanted to discount this sighting due to height. Ranae was predictably incredulous, but there was Matt saying Bigfoot doesn’t get that tall. And Cliff was wondering if maybe it was standing on the log Ranae stood on.
Hey wait a moment you guys (and gal)! Since when did you all get to do a height survey on the Bigfoot population? And since when, Ranae, was it scientific to throw out evidence because it didn’t fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible???
First off, we know that the average height of a full grown male is in the neighborhood of 9 feet based on the preponderance of sightings for the past half century. In humans, the average height is under 6 feet, and yet we have many basketball players that stand well over 7. So do the math–11 feet is not that far out of the norm–in fact, I would be incredulous if, in a species where the adult male regularly stands 9 feet plus tall, there were not at least a few 10 and 11 footers. Something would be wrong–very wrong, and scientific eyebrows should be rising if we never had a sighting over 9 feet.
Sheesh I wish scientists could do real science!
Now, let’s talk experience. No, I haven’t seen one. But I have talked to eye witnesses who claim to have seen not just your usual alpha male 9 footer, but also 10 and 11 footers. I am not going to disbelieve them just because they say they witnessed an individual a couple feet taller than most reports of a creature that most people are not willing to admit even exists.
Now in my experience, I have developed a rule of thumb. I’ll call it KREIN’s rule of thumb since I’ve never heard anyone else mention it. Simply this: the height of a Bigfoot in feet can be roughly judged by dividing the footprint length in inches in half. Which is to say, your 9 foot Bigfoot is going to leave a track of 18 or 19 inches. Your 14 inch print is likely a 7 foot female. Your 16 inch an 8 foot male. Your 12 inch a 6 foot adolescent. You get the idea. Oh, and that’s roughly true for humans, too.
Now when I ran into a 30 minute old trackway of 12 inch prints in Siskiyou, I was already reckoning there was probably a 6 foot adolescent somewheres about. When I found nearby a 22 inch print (which BTW was 8 inches across the balls of the foot), it gave me pause. Because I knew that that was not the footprint of a 9 footer, but that it’s maker likely stood 11 feet tall. (One cannot help but be awestruck looking at such a large print.)
There is a 22 or 23 inch footprint cast in the Willow Creek museum, and that was not made by a 9 footer either.
So, yes, Matt, Ranae, Cliff and Bobo, there are 11 foot tall Bigfoots, IF there are any Bigfoots at all.
Discounting a report because it has tangible signs of hoaxing is one thing, discounting a report because it doesn’t fit into your preconceived view of an unproven creature is not good investigative or observational skill and also not scientific.
Oh, one last observation, Patty left a 14 inch track, and most think she was in the height range of 6.5 to 7 feet tall. And oh just one more–there are quite a number of reports of Sasquatch in Canada exceeding 11 and 12 feet tall. I even recall one report measuring out at 14 feet. Now that seems too tall, but let’s not just throw it out until we actually factually know all about Bigfoot.