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!
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.
