Does anyone have a good method of figuring out an individual sasquatch's height and weight in regards to their foot size? For example, I have a 17-inch cast that goes almost an inch deep into what looks like dry, rocky dirt. Anyone got, like, a chart or graph or even an equation to estimate the body dimentions based on foot dimensions?

Lots of metrics were developed here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry372164

I have tried myself to figure that out by using my friends chimp because a chimp at 4' 9" weighs from 140 lbs. to 150 lbs.
but it has not worked to well although I do think 92% of BF's body weight is muscle. thats just my opinion

Well, yeah, but I'm looking for something along the lines of "If I have a foot cast X-inches long, the individual that made it is Y-feet tall". Like a simple equation or method of some sort.

Try this,

Forensic Scientists can approximate a corelation between height and foot length, it's not 100% accurate but seems to be close in most cases. This is for HUMANS now, not bigfoot so we can't really mix apples and oranges.

Forensic Chart

The measurements on the chart are in Metric so using an online converter here are the approximations:

Height
5' = foot length 9.06"
5' 3" = foot length 9.45"
5' 6" = foot length 9.84"
5' 8" = foot lenght 10.24"
5' 11" = foot length 10.63"
6' 1" = foot length 11.02"
6' 4" = foot length 11.42"
6' 7" = foot length 11.81"

Looking up some famous people's shoe sizes I compared their height to reported shoe sizes to see how close they were. The majority of them were quite close usually within 1/2" of the correct shoe size, using the conversion of size to inches chart found here.

Dustin Hoffman is reportedly 5' 6 3/4" tall, according to the chart above he should have a foot about 9.84" long, which would give him somewhere around a size 7 1/2 shoe, he actually wears a size 5 which is less than 9" long.

Shaquille O'Neal is 7'4" tall (the chart shows for every 3" in height difference there's an increase of approximately .4" in footh length). Shaquille would be 9" taller than the listed 6'7" which would be a foot length 3.6" longer or 15.41" in length. He actually wears a size 22 shoe which is according to a shoe manufacturer's website, 14 11/16" long, so still only about 1/2" shorter than what you'd expect.

If we could make a direct comparison between human and bigfoot regarding foot size to height, then taking Shaq's 14 11/16" foot compared to your 17" cast we need to see what height would equal a gain of another 2.25" of foot length. Above we figured .4" in foot length per 3" gain in height. 2.25/.4=5.625 5.625x3=16.875" of more height. Which would come out to approximately 9' 1" in height.

Here's Henner's paper with an interesting way to estimate.

The answer to your question though is 'no,' no one has way of figuring it out because there is zero hard data (and maybe not any such animal!). But Henner probably comes closer than any estimator you'll find for another species (human, chimp etc).

Apeman

I second Apeman's reference to Henner Fahrenbach's paper. However a better, more complete (with height formula) version of the paper can be found at http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm

For some problem, I can't upload the image file of the formula.


Anyway, using Fahrenbach's formula and 17 inch track, your purported Sasq. would be 97.5 inches tall, or 8.1 feet tall. There's a false sense of precision here, so your animal could probably be many inches on either side of 97.5, but it would be hovering around there somewhere.

Say it's from a Sasq. "around 8 feet tall."

From briefly looking at the chart, Dr. Fahrenbach seems to be using the Glickman estimate of Patty's size at over 7.5 feet. I beleive that is faulty data and Patty is no more than a little over 6' not correcting for stoop. That would make the 17' track scale to a 7' tall individual if Patty is indeed that size, they are proportional and he stands with the same posture.

Actually that's not quite right Bob. Firstly, Glickman's estimate was 7' 3.5" (or ~7.29 feet) but Henner did not actually use that for his estimate- he used totally anecdotal data! He used a regression from a scatter plot of eyewitness height estimates (cough!) but goes on to explain why it's likely not a linear relationship and is also likely influenced by sexual dimorphism. By Henner's equation sasquatches would average 7'7" for a 14.5 in track like that those cast at the PGF scene, so males > 7'7" and females smaller. As TsiakoVS said, Henner's formula for a 17" track yields a height of 8.13 feet.

Note that Henner reported a dataset range up to 13' tall for sasquatches! That would be an average 6' man standing on top of Shaq's head....

So Bob's point is well taken that, however he got there, Henner's calculation is very likely an overestimate, unless you believe 1. These animals (exist and) can be up to 13' tall, and 2. the average person can even reasonably estimate their height during an encounter.

No offense to Henner or anyne else, but maybe I was wrong in my initial assumption that these numbers were better than other estimators?

Apeman

Thanks for the correction Apeman. I just looked at the 14" and saw 7' 6" which obviously is not consistent with Patty.

If Patty is somewhere in the range of 6' - 6.5' tall, this would obviously make me and I am sure alot of other folks more open to the possibility that the film is somehow hoaxed. I have always believed in the authenticity of the film, but on that same note, alot of that was based on the fact that "Patty" was supposedly over 7 ' tall... Not enough evidence either way at this point to really correlate foot size to body size in my opinion, and although this may be beating a dead horse, until a body surfaces, we will never know...

The above image was made to compare Patty to Charles Barkley if she was just 6' tall. That guy is huge and has played at 300 lbs in the NBA as a power forward. Patty's arms are so much bigger that it seems nearly impossible that a normal human could have such a large arm. Patty is a girl. She is a man in a suit or a sasquatch. Is it possible for there to be a man in a suit based on size, yes. Is it possible for a rodeo cowboy to have such a sophisticated suit. Well that doesn't make much sense to me. There is probably not a freak of her proportions in the world. If someone built a suit that matches the fluidity of movement, I would think they would be a world famous costume designer. If there were such a person, why hasn't he stepped up to claim credit for the Patterson film. It would obviously be easy to prove if he built it.

Before anyone starts picking apart Bob's image, please scan this thread in which a number of other comparisons are made between the PG figure and various 'solid' body shapes. I think they will help make Bob's point.

Apeman

I met Charles Barkley in a bar a while ago, and was surprised that he wasn't much taller than me (I'm 6'2"), but I'm not a basketball fan and don't have much feel for how big NBA forwards get.

I think BobZenor's comparison with Patty, with Patty set at 6', looks right and is useful for comparing bulk. BobZenor wasn't saying that Patty was 6' tall.

Apeman, it always struck me also that Fahrenbach's formula overestimated Patty's height (she obviously doesn't have a walking height of 7"7" if you do a quick and dirty height estimate using her full foot for measurement). My impression is that he didn't want to rely on a single datum to derive his formula.

But, then, of course, he had to use instead height estimates from sightings, with all of the variability that introduces. Indeed you can see a rough measure of the imprecision by seeing the wide scatter of the data. Presumably the real animal population wouldn't be so variable.

And who knows what kind of systematic observer bias is involved in the estimates. It seems intuitive that people, when they are startled by a very large animal, would tend to overestimate its size. But the reverse could also happen: you see a human shaped figure, and your brain tries to downsize it to more familiar heights. Maybe both biases happen, depending on conditions and observer, tho if Patty is representative of all Sasq., regardless of sex, observer bias seems to overestimate some.

Probably the most useful point of the foot length x height comparison, as Fahrenbach notes, is the slope of the regression which shows that Sasq. feet get larger more quickly than height increases. This would be a natural, and expected, phenomena (and a good argument for Sasq. being a real animal). Foot area may be directly, one to one, proportional to body mass, and not height.

I know with human if they hold there arms out, and measure from tip to tip, that is how tall they are. I am 6'4" tall and i am a 1/2 inch taller than my arms. I also have a size 16 shoe. I guess i am built like a BF. I am sure there feet are bigger and wider because of their bulk more than height. Anything that looks 7' tall would appear bigger. IMOP