A 24-inch cast from Don Monroe and his co-researchers, one of a trackway in Idaho

It took presentation of an extraordinary 24-inch cast for me to decide to tackle the foot to height ratio of Bigfoot.

I begin with the body proportions of Bigfoot. We cannot certify their origins in our family tree, but my own personal guess is Denisovans. They were adapted for high altitude and climbing hillsides more than an even run on a flat track like we were built for the plains.

The Bigfoot have legs are one third of their height, putting their bodies very long, chests barrel-shaped and arms longer - ideal for climbing hillsides, grabbing rocks and such. If we are going to compare to an archaic man, Neanderthal is ideal

*(we do not have body proportions of Denisovans other than they evolved in the same region as Neanderthal and were quite large. In this way, we could say Neanderthal was the chimp of the archaic man world and Denisovans more like the Mountain Gorilla).*

So, the closest relative we know who has these same proportions as Bigfoot are the Neanderthals whose legs were shorter and body and arms longer.

As you can see in this comparison below, those adapted for climbing situations have longer arms, longer bodies, shorter legs, but we who were built for straight runs have very long legs in proportion. Whereas primates and Bigfoot have legs one third their height, if I had such proportions, I would be 8' tall!

Here is a model (below) of the size of the print presented to me that started me on this course of wondering how such a large print could exist.

If this foot size followed our proportions, this guy would be such an exceptional height it would baffle our minds -

*close to 16 feet tall*. But, given the body proportions of Bigfoot, their feet are likely larger for the height than us, just like Neanderthal who had the same sort of proportions.

Neanderthal males averaged 5'5" tall, 171 pounds, and 10" footprints (rather large feet for that height compared to Homo sapiens). Utilizing these proportions I extrapolated track print size and correlating Bigfoot height.

24" Sasquatch footprint would be 140% more of a Neanderthal's, so height would be around 156" (13').

20" Sasquatch footprint would be 100% more of a Neanderthal's, so height would be around 130" (10'8")

18" Sasquatch footprint would be 80% more of Neanderthal's, so height would be around 117" (9'7-1/2")

16" Sasquatch footprint would be 60% more of a Neanderthal's, so height would be around 104" (8'6")

14" Sasquatch footprint would be 40% more of Neanderthal's, so height would be around 91" (7'6")

*Figuring weight to height*-

Using the same comparison for muscle mass is difficult, as they may have the same proportions of limb to body length, the muscle mass of a Neanderthal applied to the height of a Sasquatch would make an 8'6" Sasquatch 274 pounds which I think we can all agree is a typical man of 6'5" in our culture and we know these people are much more muscle dense, as they are enormously muscle-bound and their prints show that they leave a huge impression in the ground.

If were were to go by doubling a Neanderthal's body mass, we might see this in weight ranges -

**24" foot, 13' tall, 821 pounds**

**20" foot, 10'8" tall, 684 pounds**

**18" foot, 9'7-1/2" tall, 615 pounds**

**16" foot, 8'6" tall, 547 pounds**

**14" foot, 7'6" tall, 479 pounds**

What I have presented here is the best comparison available for the height of a Bigfoot based on their foot size. It may be that the Bigfoot are even more muscle dense than double Neanderthal.

Many researchers have extrapolated using our proportions, but our feet were not adapted for what their feet were. We were made to walk across the plains of Africa and there is no doubt in my mind that the Bigfoot's ancestors were built to climb hillsides and rocky environments with a very tough sole to the foot, adaptations for high altitude and necessary barrel chest, as well as tolerance to climate extremes.

I believe what I have provided offers the best ballpark estimation for the size of a Bigfoot.

*Expect me to continue this line of investigation, as I do with all aspects of the Tall Ones ongoing.*

*If you use your own foot as a size comparison, here's a chart of US men's shoe sizes and inch length. Now, you have something that might give perspective to translate -*

For example, if you wear a size 12 shoe, your foot length is likely 11-1/4".

Excellent

ReplyDeleteThe width of their foot suggests they are much heavier than us. Almost twice the width = twice the weight.

ReplyDeleteTheir feet would need to be designed differently to accommodate the great weight. Great job!!

ReplyDeleteThis is way off. Its 2 inches of footprint is equal to one foot of height. This is very accurate as I have measured this myself. The weight also seems to be on the light side.

ReplyDeleteYou are basing it on eyewitness accounts of prints and ones you have seen around, but unless you see that individual make that print, it's erroneous. If we are to use any kind of indicator for height to foot measures - we need to base it on their basic body structure which resembles the proportions of a Neanderthal and not a Homo sapiens. So, my formula is based on a race of people estimation. If you were to see one of us in public and find prints, you might make guesses about our proportions but by trying to base it on individuals that you cannot tie exactly to a print, it's a stab in the dark. Our own feet can vary. I have a friend who wears size 12 and is my height and had a brother who was 6'1" and wore size 12. There are variables, but at looking at body proportions, we cannot equate them to our proportions, but must go into an archaic who was similar. We cannot equate their height to prints found unless we witnessed them making that print.

DeleteYour weight estimates are way off. Weight is related to volume, which is cubic in relation to length. ( a taller bigfoot is wider and thicker than a smaller bigfoot). 5'5" neanderthal = 65" 13' bigfoot = 156" 156/65 =2.4 then 2.4x2.4x2.4 = 13.84, then 13.84 x 171 lbs gives 2364 lbs for a 13' BF. You can try with Shaq, if you want. But 2364 lbs is polar bear weight , or large horse weight, so it makes sense there as well.

ReplyDeleteAccording to Dr Wolf H. Fahrenbach foot length has an allometric relation to height. This is basically what you found yourself. Fahrenbach took 89 cases where sasquatch height was directly observed/estimated and the respective sasquatch foot print measured. He came out with an allometric formula of H=29.624xL^0.42054, where H=height and L=foot length.

ReplyDeleteHowever keep in mind that the formula is accurate at the middle of the sasquatch foot length spectrum but somewhat overestimates height with very small foot lengths while underestimating it at the large foot lengths.

Using the formula, and accounting for the underestimation of height with very large foot sizes, a sasquatch with a 24" foot print should be around 9'6" to 10'0".

The reason foot size has an allometric relation to height is because taller primates are proportionally heavier. Primate weight increases by-the-power-of-2.9 to height, and this applies to sasquatch as well. Therefore, a 10'0" male sasquatch of average build will weigh around 1,320-lbs. This is assuming a 6-foot scaled weight of 300-lbs. If you were to extrapolate this out to 13-foot, the sasquatch would weigh 2,824-lbs.

I don't personally believe a 13-foot, 2,824-lb sasquatch exists, as he would have to have a foot-length of around 40-inches to support his weight.

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm