Its well known that Sasquatch is often reported a being massive as well as being quite tall. While I consider the upper limits of its reported height as unreliable I do think that creatures in the 7 to 8 foot range are perfectly possible. Which brings up the point of this thread. Most, if not all, photos,films and videos show a creature with basically human mass and height and seldom if ever show the towering giants that more frequently than not are described in eyewittness accounts. So it is safe to say if it isn't big it isn't real? Any thoughts?

I thought that many of the videos and photos produced were such that it could not be determined as to what the subjects' actual size was. Isn't that the case in the PG film? With out a fixed reference and knowing the exact angle and position of the filmer its hard to determine isn't it?

nightscream wrote:





Bingo.

I think it's safe to say that a lot of folks are simply mistaken in what they report.

I tend to think there is a normal distribution of creature size that might
center around that 7 ft. statistic, in other words a continuum of normal
might range from 4 1/2 to 10 ft. with an accompanying standard deviation
making that maybe a plus or minus 3 ft. I know the normal distribution of
print size has been posted elsewhere in a report, forget by whom, but without
the referents to which you allude, unless you have some type of laser measuring
capability on the majority of sightings or something it sounds like it would be
impossible to fix this distribution based on witness sighting reports. Allowing for
juvenile sightings I'm wondering what is the smallest reliable bigfoot report ever
recorded that seemed to have precise referents or any referents? Anyone venture
a guess on that?

I am really sure that these animals are not born 7 feet tall.

There would be a real need for sasquatch ob/gyn's if they were.....ouccchhh

I think at this point in the game it's not really safe to say anything as a certainty outside perhaps that they are primates. As stated previously, they are not born 7 feet tall. I would imagine that they grow in size and stature just like everything else. During a sighting we have no way of knowing the age of the subject, so we have no way to determine if it is full grown or not. If someone filmed a juvenile that was a mere 4 feet tall, we wouldn't throw the film away because someone reported seeing one 7 feet tall.

On the other end of the stick...

We as humans are notoriously bad at estimating height as an overall average. There is a reason you see those heighth markers next to the convenience store door as you leave. If a person is 5'8" and sees a creature that is massive in build compared to the stature of a normal human, and is towering over them at 7-8 feet tall, I see it perfectly understandable that they might say it was "about 10 feet tall." Our own perceptions of height are based on a comparison of that of our own. We generally let our own opinions of what "much taller" or "much shorter" are play a factor. Very seldom are you going to find a person who has the presence of mind of marking a physical spot in their mind of how tall the creature was as they have a sighting that may only last a matter of a few seconds. Such as the top of it's head being even with the branch on a particular tree as it walked by it. That being said, while it is seldom this occurs, at times the person does in fact do it, and comes up with a fairly accurate determination as a result.

Of course none of this really matters does it? What it really boils down to is a personal choice as to whether or not you choose to believe the testimony of another person or not. It's easy to sit back with pre-determined notions of what is acceptable or not in your own mind, and shoot down anything said that falls outside of what you consider correct. More times than not the person doing this sort of thing is someone who has never had a sighting, found any evidence, and/or has spent little to no time in the woods looking for these things. I'm sure some might take offense to those type remarks, but it's just my own personal opinion like everyone else is entitled to. I did the very same thing myself before I started doing field research. I could rationalize the possibility that on the absolute rare chance that someone did in fact see what we consider to be a Sasquatch creature, that anything under 8 foot tall was possible and acceptable. Anything over that had to be human error. This was based on the logic that a male gorilla can grow to a height of 6 foot, maybe a little more, if it were to be standing upright. So I figured if you threw some bipedal legs on one, and gave it a spine for walking upright, it could add a couple feet to it's heighth. Then the worst thing that can possibly happen to a researcher happened to me. I had a sighting. Not only did I have a sighting, but the approximate size of the creature was just around 10 feet in height, and at least 4 feet wide at the shoulders. The most massive and impressive thing I've ever witnessed. It's height was determined by measuring an overhanging limb it had been hunched underneath. This limb fell 10-11 feet off the ground. It shot my preconceived notions right out the window, and also put me in a position where I would have to defend myself and be looked at by my peers with doubtful eyes. To make matters worse I had multiple sightings after that. I have no way to prove it even though some of them took place with multiple witnesses, and for the most part I know that people who don't know me more than likely would refuse to believe the possibility. It did humble me though, because I now know what it feels like to be that witness that everyone questions and doubts because it doesn't jive with what they want to believe. Some of the people who are considerred the top experts and professionals in the field of Bigfoot research have never had a sighting, let alone even found a track. I'm just a guy from Oklahoma. I don't stand a chance. I don't exaggerate my claims, nor am I claiming to have had a sighting everytime I've gone out. I've had three positive sightings and a few possible sightings over the period of the last 7 years. When I had my sightings I was also spending more time in the woods than I was out of the woods. As a researcher it changed the ball game, but I am fully aware without my sightings being documented on film in one form or another it makes them pretty much worthless in regards to scientific evidence. I also know I have to question each and every individual I come across that claims to have had a sighting of their own. I just know in my own mind that nobody should be coming up with pre-determined answers that they deem acceptable.

No, cause these animals are obviously not born that size.

CrowLogic:

Referencing your original question at the start of the thread:

Here's some of the factors determining size among real mammals. Some may reach full height after puberty and maintain that height for the remainder of their lives (humans generally do) while some continue to grow throughout their lives (elephants, for example). Every species has variations of size within the species population. And many species have regional variants or subspecies where one group tends to be bigger, another group smaller (brown bears, grizzlies, and Kodiak bears).

Given we are speculating about a species for which there are no confirmed anatomical studies, variations of size does not indicate any loss of potential to be real. And human sightings and size descriptions can be highly subjective, making reported sizes more approximate than accurate.

So anyone using size discrepencies as argument for "not real" is bluffing. And I would never suggest using a size appraisal as a criteria for saying of a specific sighting or photo is real or fake. There are simply too many reasonable and natural reasons why size variation is naturally occuring over a species population.

I do not think that size discrepencies should rule a sighting out but I do think that it should be noted. As Bill stated:



To further expand on the idea of sightings being subjective, this is once again is the reason for my long term dislike of public data bases. We really don't know how many(or if any at all) reports are influenced by the already published reports. I believe some are influenced by other reports, because we don't what is what all we know is that someone saw something.

I did a thread sometime back questioning whether we see what we think we see. Found HERE> I still wonder how much information we retain after a split second sighting. Applying the question of height, IMO people have a bad sense of judgement when it comes to assessing height and overall size, especially in situations where they are startled or frightened. A black bear may look bigger than it actually is. A snake may be massive. Look at the poor dog in Maine(Monsterquest) that was killed and how it was described before the pictures were taken. If you were to go strickly on Loren Coleman's(Cryptomundo's blog on this) and then the TV's recount of the witnesses testimony, you would have thought she had seen a real dire wolf which is slightly bigger than our present day grey wolves. Maybe she thought it was that big because it scared her. Could this happen during a sasquatch sighting? IMO, I believe it does. You see a large, hairy animal on two feet for a split second and I promise you it is going to look alot bigger than it actually is. It's human nature to do that.

I hate to say this... But, I think there are people out there in the general public (and in this research) who think this animal is born weighing 500 pounds and measuring 8 feet tall.

I am often shocked at the amazement on faces when I state the obvious "Well, they were not born that tall"..... LMAO.

The larger the animal the smaller the percentage it takes up in any given population. This would make really large individuals of any species rare no matter what their population numbers entail. Getting to that larger size also comes with specific behaviors that are different then it's population nominals. Larger animals would of course be older and more experienced as well, preventing them from making fatal mistakes. Nothing really surprising.

Larger the animal above the average size, the smaller percentage it takes up in any given population. I would think that the specimens revolving around the average size would make up the bulk of most populations. Thus animals around the average size, yet, larger than adolescents would be present in larger numbers than the adolescents.

Of course, there are species that self limit their growth, Bluegill Sunfish for example, in lakes without proper predator balance, have populations with stunted growths, and the bulk of their numbers, in individual populations would be well under the average size of a bluegill. These individuals also begin spawning at a smaller size than average as well.

Something I've always found intersting is the ability to perceive height. I personally am 6'1" tall. Typically I am excelletn at judging length and height of things with the naked eye. But I have a tough time with people over about 6' or so. I will often see people at a store or just in public and think to myself how tall they are only to walk past them and realize that I am the same height or within and inch or 2. But for some reason they seem much taller too me.

Another thing is I think we judge the height of upright creatures by their torso. In the case of bigfoot based on many eyewitness accounts and even the PGF (true or not) we are looking at a creature that has proportionately short legs compared to humans. SO if you took a creature that is say 6'4" tall but has a torso measurement more on par with a 7' tall human, I would imagine that many or most humans would guesstimate height at closer to 7', most likely because they are not looking at the whole creature but at the head.in particular.