A Bigfoot can't possible be this big -- can it?
Bigfoots are typically 8' tall and that's about as big as they get. 10' is stretching it -- but 15'? No fricking way! This person took a picture of one, and writes: "The fall of 2014 I filmed in person (not with a trail cam) a giant 15'-16' Sasquatch at the Dunes watching me. He was standing 150 yards away on the far ridge when I recorded him with a blind pan. At 13'-14' feet there's a branch in the follow up I used to help gage his height. Also there's others in the treeline but this giant Bigfoot was standing in the relative open beside a tree. I did some research and the largest Sasquatch I could find on record was 10'-12' feet tall. And that was only submitted sighting reports, Not Filmed! I don't know who keeps track of these stats but that huge Sasquatch is one for record books."
You can watch the video here: Largest Sasquatch Bigfoot Ever Filmed
shazam
ReplyDeleteTo whomever wrote the introduction, 15 - 16 feet is the extreme range, not 10 feet. Many of the older adult males reach 10 feet and taller. Often times the tallest reports are from Canada, and that's where this one was.
DeleteHere's the problem I have. I poured over the video and I can't tell which tree the bigfoot was next to in the follow up video. Moreover, the follow up video is from a different position; so, it's impossible to tell if the sasquatch was just a shadow in the woods or not since the follow up video is from a different angle. If you want to show that the bigfoot was there, then it left, you have to show a before and after from the same angle. It's really stupidly done. He evidently measured the tree; where's the video from being next to the tree?
Would your knowledge of bigfoots come from the same source as your knowledge of zoo gorillas BenD Dover? Like the time you claimed a gorilla in a zoo, was actually a bigfoot. You swore that footage was of a bigfoot, and you looked like a fool, and still do for that matter. You have no knowledge on anything bigfoot.
Delete15ft bigfoots? That is extremely hard to believe.
DeleteThere are reports of them that tall. Just like among humans we get extra tall people, they do too.
DeleteHere's a story that's not too old about a 14 foot one sighting in Northern California near the Oregon border.
http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/844-14-foot-1200-lb-sasquatch-seen-in-happy-camp-calif/
Here's a story of one shot and killed in the 1800's, and they measured it after death and it was 13 feet tall.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2000/03/12/liv_283783.shtml#.VToKGqwvoe0
Haven't been to this site for a while but I remember the days when a Joe Fitzgerald would link to old newspaper stories about giants. Those were just stories as well with nothing substantial to back them up (unless of course you believe they are hidden away in some Smithsonian vault). Those old photographs and stories indicated those skeletons were human or very close to human and I believe he indicated that he thought that Bigfoot was more human than animal. Here is a link which explains that such sizes would be HIGHLY unlikely for a human or close relative of.
Deletehttp://okthisisawesome.com/2013/04/16/biology-awesome-physics-awesome-this-video-exploring-human-bigness-awesome/
I'm sure with a little searching one can find other sites supporting this view as well. I use to believe in Bigfoot (a long time ago) but no longer so I'm not up on the latest stuff but to date I have seen nothing to change that view but when it comes to these kind of stories I would not even consider the possibility.
Nice to see Joe carrying on conversations with himself like usual
DeleteCurious at 6;09 ...I doubt you`ll be back for a while after this short but instructive visit ..eh ?
DeleteWhy did you remove all the posts calling the BS on the Mitch Waite thread Shawn, but leave all the vile comments?
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ae/2015/04/breaking-news-veteran-researcher.html
8:37 - that is usually the case but here I am again. My interest in Bigfoot has diminished over the years but I still visit several Bigfoot sites from time to time to keep up with the news. The stories on this site move so fast I can't keep up with them. I posted on this story because I thought that information was useful and glad to see you found instructive.
DeleteOk Curious... I've just checked, and though Joe would post newspaper articles, it's science journals that are the ace card Joe used to post links to... There is a massive difference, especially when these come from the anthropological authority of the day bar none (Smithsonian).
DeleteYour angle comes from the view point that the giants found in burial mounds would be modern human in classification, which goes against their archaic features very regularly documented, even photographed;
http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/
https://thedavisreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/red-haired-giants.jpg source 2: http://www.lovelockpaiutetribe.com/History.html
... The skull has an occipital bun, reminiscent of Paleo peoples, and Neanderthals. A feature of the Lovelock skull is the large protrusions of the nuchel crest which is for the attachment of large neck muscles. Sasquatch are widely accepted to have no necks. Oh, and the measurements of that skull leave the subject when living in the region of 6.5 to almost 7 feet tall. We have archeological discoveries of giant human skeletal remains in burial mounds and other long referenced areas in line with some native cultures who have legends of sharing such or having violent encounters with Sasquatch, who they agknowledged to be giant human tribes. Back up evidence? We have a hominid skull paper with the exact morphology that would adhere to Sasquatch traits (brow ridge, receding forehead, large jaw, higher nose bridge, extra bone in neck for more neck & shoulder muscles), from a place where the nearby native peoples have always stated that giant canibalistic tribes resided. This in turn exactly the same as nearly every native tribe in North America that have the same legends intertwined in their understanding of Sasquatch. Also... We also know that Cro-Magnon, and the Amercian equivalent Otamids, were far more robust and slightly larger due to us branching off because of the development of agriculture... But that's not that half of it. Because "At least two notable gigantic skeletons of Saxon men, towering 7 ft, to 7 feet 4 inches tall have been documented from 6th and 7th century A.D. Saxon graves in the 20th century at two independent sites in Northern, and Eastern Britain.
First is the “Burgh Castle giant.” On Display in the Royal Ontario Museum in 2012 (Apparently no longer on display as of Oct. 2013). Acquired in 1967 – 68, this skeleton was found near a Roman Fort in a 7th century Saxon Castle in Norfolk, England.The height of the man was approximately 7 feet 4 inches (2 m, 23 ) and his age was around 40 years at death. The Burgh Castle Giant was not a pathological case of pituitary Gigantism in the opinion of a Dr. Rideout, but was a healthy, strong, and long lived individual for his era. His bones showed uniform growth, were very strong, and his skull showed no signs of pathology."
... Now this is a giant modern human, with no signs of pathology.
First off, Bigfoots do not grow to 10-15 feet! Any body reporting that, is all BS! Bigfoots even at the 8 foot range is very rare!
ReplyDeleteMost Bigfoots are in the 5-6 range.
And that's a fact!
Can pretend bigfoots grow that big?
ReplyDeleteSome people here actually believe they know what and how a Bigfoot is... IT'S A MYTHICAL CREATURE! FFS!
ReplyDeleteWHAT'S NEXT A UNICORN? FFS!
Somebody teach this fool about perspective.The ground rises up to that tree.It's nowhere near as tall as he says.Besides...that's just a shadow......
ReplyDeleteI've seen a 37 foot tall bigfoot so YES they do get above 8 feet.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, they can be whatever height that you say they are.
Maybe for you they are 8 feet tall. Maybe that will change.
Don't infringe on OUR make believe and restrict them to 8 feet. That's your bigfoot limitation. Don't limit us!
i've seen a 53 ft bigfoot
ReplyDeleteit all depends on the food source available hy are near dumpers they grow to huge sizes
i`m told the secret is wheatgerm sandwiches
Deletesorry tha was a typo it was 43ft. my bad!
ReplyDeleteI thought so. Above 50 ft tall is kind of unrealistic.
Deleteo please ! you shittin me tight!
ReplyDeleteNewsflash:
ReplyDelete15 foot tall shadow spotted in the wild. But we could only see the top 3 feet, so we will just call it a Bigfoot and then it will be news.
About 12 years ago I was on a bigfoot site called International Bigfoot Society and read a story where a mam named Rich Grumley saw a bigfoot watching him standing beside a tree. The next day he went with others and measured the limb where the sasquatchs' head was next to and it was 17ft, I will never forget that story because in my mind I said, "Now I know where the story of King Kong came from."
ReplyDeleteAbout 12 years ago I was on a bigfoot site called International Bigfoot Society and read a story where a mam named Rich Grumley saw a bigfoot watching him standing beside a tree. The next day he went with others and measured the limb where the sasquatchs' head was next to and it was 17ft, I will never forget that story because in my mind I said, "Now I know where the story of King Kong came from."
ReplyDelete