"Bigfoot" **Impossible** and not just non-existent?

[Resume]

If you are going to use humans at the extreme end, then I think I would like to use bigfoots reported at the extreme end...

Such as 12 foot tall ones, or the poster here who reported a 6 foot wide by 9 foot tall one, etc.

BFRO gives the average BF height as 7'10", just for a meaningless reference.

I just love these unevidenced Bigfoot factoids.

 

[Drewbot]

I just love these unevidenced Bigfoot factoids.

So do the footers.

 

[Delvo]

I don't understand why people have mentioned Tyrannosaurs in this thread.

It was in response to a comment on the weight limit for being "bipedal", for the purpose of showing that that's not the relevant question in this case.

You could say that the fact that the animal in question here is an ape means the context already had the subject narrowed down to a weight limit for bipedality in apes, but the thread's original post quotes someone who was talking about the legs alone, not the arrangement of everything else the legs hold up.

Analogy: How heavy can a prop plane be? "Well the Space Shuttle weighs . . . "

A valid analogy would have been if the original question had actually only asked how heavy of a vehicle wings can be useful for, including a quote from someone else talking about the shapes & materials of wings. (Even if the question had come up in reference to C-130s taking off from aircraft carriers and the person asking it thought that wings were the limiting factor... bringing up other winged vehicles to show that that was the wrong was of looking at it would still make sense.)

 

[The Shrike]

You guys are spiraling down a rabbit hole of special pleading about bigfooty claims. A biomechanical bigfoot is possible. That answers the question posed in the OP. If we want to modify that question to address some specific claims about extreme large bigfoots, then a biomechanical 12', ton-and-a-half bigfoot most likely is not possible.

If you want to discuss the ecological impossibility of bigfoot, that's a separate question.

 

[Drewbot]

I still think the point you are making, that all bigfoot has to do is reproduce successfully is not true. It would have to reproduce successfully, faster than it's competition. You think guys that hunted Mastodons with spears, and Moose from birch bark canoes would be phased by a giant bipedal creature? I don't think so. There is no evolutionary advantage for a non-tool making biped to be huge. In fact, the pressures to avoid contact with humans, would seem to put decreasing size as the beneficial trait. Easier to avoid conflict with humans if you're 3' tall instead of 10' tall.

 

[The Shrike]

Bigfoot is described to be bipedal

Correct. Some have reported "4X4 mode" (which still cracks me up), but a defining characteristic of bigfoot is bipedalism.

It's also described to be a primate.

Correct. I've not seen a serious suggestion that bigfoot is something other than a primate. Certainly Krantz, Meldrum, Napier, etc. consider bigfoots to be primates.

It's also described to be HUGE.

"HUGE" is unspecified. Some have reported bigfoots in excess of 12' tall, but most of the reports I've read put their bigfoots in the 6–8' range. How heavy? Some report really massive weights - wild guesses of course - many reports simply include that the beast was "massive". (Some report rather skinny bigfoots too.)

Gorillas are massively built compared to humans, and big males in the wild seem to be in the 300–400 lb range. Take a gorilla, make it bipedal, and make it about 7' tall - that's a bigfoot. Is it POSSIBLE for a primate to be 1) that tall and 2) massively built like a gorilla?

Yes. Even in our own species, we have lots of examples of very large individuals in the range of 6–8 feet tall and, say over 400 lbs. The reason we know about a number of these very large individuals is because they were active enough to be athletes. They may have died younger than the life expectancy for smaller men, they may have had sore knees and bad backs by their 30s and 40s, but they were possible.

 

[jhunter1163]

You guys are spiraling down a rabbit hole of special pleading about bigfooty claims. A biomechanical bigfoot is possible. That answers the question posed in the OP. If we want to modify that question to address some specific claims about extreme large bigfoots, then a biomechanical 12', ton-and-a-half bigfoot most likely is not possible.

If you want to discuss the ecological impossibility of bigfoot, that's a separate question.

I tend to agree. It's no doubt physically possible for a bipedal creature to be eight feet tall and weigh 500 pounds. Could a population of such creatures find enough food to survive in any realistically sized habitat area? I'd venture to say no.

 

[River]

I tend to agree. It's no doubt physically possible for a bipedal creature to be eight feet tall and weigh 500 pounds. Could a population of such creatures find enough food to survive in any realistically sized habitat area? I'd venture to say no.

They could find the food, but they would also have to leave actual traces of their existence. It's not impossible because of the size, it's impossible because with that size/range/description we would see sign of them (verifiable sign, with lots of photos and video in HD) and by this year of 2013 would have long ago collected a specimen.

 

[jhunter1163]

They could find the food, but they would also have to leave actual traces of their existence. It's not impossible because of the size, it's impossible because with that size/range/description we would see sign of them (verifiable sign, with lots of photos and video in HD) and by this year of 2013 would have long ago collected a specimen.

That's true. All of the other top-of-the-food-chain beasties, like elk, moose, grizzly bear, mountain lion, leave verifiable proof of their existence. Squatch, on the other hand, does not.

 

[LTC8K6]

You guys are spiraling down a rabbit hole of special pleading about bigfooty claims. A biomechanical bigfoot is possible. That answers the question posed in the OP. If we want to modify that question to address some specific claims about extreme large bigfoots, then a biomechanical 12', ton-and-a-half bigfoot most likely is not possible.

If you want to discuss the ecological impossibility of bigfoot, that's a separate question.

Bigfoot, as described by prominent footers, is impossible, imo.

You are widening the definition of bigfoot to claim that it's possible, imo.

You are basically saying that bigfoot is a hairy human being, and that, imo, is far from what footers claim.

Bigfoot believers that see one the size of a human being, generally claim it was a juvenile bigfoot. Adults being much more impressive in size and weight.

I do not think you will get much agreement in footerland if you say bigfoot is in the size range of human beings.

 

[The Shrike]

I do not think you will get much agreement in footerland if you say bigfoot is in the size range of human beings.

I have many times used the 7', 300+lb Shaquille O'Neale as an example of "squatch-sized" in conversations at the BFF, and without significant objection to the premise.

I think you would find many 'footers who think the outlandish sizes some report for bigfoots are just as silly as you think they are.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have many times used the 7', 300+lb Shaquille O'Neale as an example of "squatch-sized" in conversations at the BFF, and without significant objection to the premise.

I think you would find many 'footers who think the outlandish sizes some report for bigfoots are just as silly as you think they are.

Yes, you used an extreme human.

Even so, a hair covered Shaq would be considered a below average, scrawny, bigfoot.

BFRO, bold is mine:

The sasquatch is a large, hairy, bipedal non-human primate that is distributed over the North American continent to varying degrees of concentration. Its massiveness, deviation from human bearing and different gait leave no doubt in the mind of observers that they have seen a creature different from man or known animals.

The claim here is a massive bipedal primate that differs significantly from humans. So significantly, that it's obvious on sight.

Now, why are the bearing and gait and foot structure different? Because of the massive weight.

How can we play down the weight when there are supposedly so many adaptations for it?

 

[Resume]

The claim here is a massive bipedal primate that differs significantly from humans. So significantly, that it's obvious on sight.

Now, why are the bearing and gait and foot structure different? Because of the massive weight.

How can we play down the weight when there are supposedly so many adaptations for it?

Massive, yet somehow shy and elusive. Leaving no credible physical trace of its existence anywhere in its purported range. Ever.

 

[Drewbot]

Massive, yet somehow shy and elusive. Leaving no credible physical trace of its existence anywhere in its purported range. Ever.

Yet seen by amateur Bigfoot enthusiasts on a regular basis...

 

[River]

Yet seen by amateur Bigfoot enthusiasts on a regular basis...

Dude, they have them habituated. Area x, with bipto and his smooth story telling, and at least 10 other good story tellers about having bigfoots around their homes. They trade gifts with them.

 

[mustbeso]

This^, and during the time just before Richard Stubstad passed there was a constant pleading for more samples. As I recall several alleged habituation sites were in play and these sites should have been awash in samples.

 

[The Shrike]

Yes, you used an extreme human.

So? Exists = possible.

Even so, a hair covered Shaq would be considered a below average, scrawny, bigfoot.

I doubt it. People are notoriously bad at estimating size of creatures observed in the wild. Put a coat of hair on someone Shaq-sized, have him stand on the side of a road to scare the bejeezus out of some unsuspecting passerby, and I bet the resulting description of our 7', 325 lb Shaq could easily be inflated to the 8', 400 or 500-lb variety bigfoot.

The claim here is a massive bipedal primate that differs significantly from humans. So significantly, that it's obvious on sight.

I've seen Shaq from about 30m away. His massiveness was obvious on sight.

How can we play down the weight when there are supposedly so many adaptations for it?

Because it's all made up and/or misidentified. Plus, you've got to be careful not to cherry pick references to really huge bigfoots, because I've written several times already that those likely would be impossible.

Shaq is bigfoot-sized. The biomechanics of bipedalism in primates do not make bigfoot impossible, they only make outlandishly-large bigfoots impossible. Check out the infamous Fahrenbach footprint size distribution if you want to see a potential size distribution claimed for bigfoots.

 

[Mudcat]

I think the size thing is the least of Bigfoot's worries. I've been talking with a believer who informs me that the paranormal is intrinsically a part of Bigfoot (predictably they're vague on the particulars) and throw the name of a Dr Dean Radin to support that claim (whomever that is), has ultra strength and glowing eyes.

No, you aren't misreading me. Either Bigfoot came in close contact with the galactic barrier or they have been possessed by G'oauld parasites/symbiotes because what some claim is eye shine is actually the result of the eyes emitting light instead of reflecting it. And oh yeah, they have entangled telepathic contact with aliens on the far side of universe.

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[LTC8K6]

So? Exists = possible.


I doubt it. People are notoriously bad at estimating size of creatures observed in the wild. Put a coat of hair on someone Shaq-sized, have him stand on the side of a road to scare the bejeezus out of some unsuspecting passerby, and I bet the resulting description of our 7', 325 lb Shaq could easily be inflated to the 8', 400 or 500-lb variety bigfoot.


I've seen Shaq from about 30m away. His massiveness was obvious on sight.


Because it's all made up and/or misidentified. Plus, you've got to be careful not to cherry pick references to really huge bigfoots, because I've written several times already that those likely would be impossible.

Shaq is bigfoot-sized. The biomechanics of bipedalism in primates do not make bigfoot impossible, they only make outlandishly-large bigfoots impossible. Check out the infamous Fahrenbach footprint size distribution if you want to see a potential size distribution claimed for bigfoots.

Shaq would look scrawny next to Patty, a female bigfoot. Shaq is too tall to be a juvenile bigfoot.

IIRC, skinny bigfoots were always said to be unhealthy, or starving.

Bigfoot is always tall, massive, wide, and very heavy.

Any bigfoot seen that does not match is given various excuses for it's appearance.

 

[GT/CS]

I just had an image of one of the discussions on, "The Big Bang Theory" in my head.