Could Bigfoot be as tall as claimed

[Carnoferox]

1 minute ago, the13bats said:

Really?! His theories were so um, 70s,

I can see it, i mean some think meldrum is a bigfoot God i find him an ego driven attention junkie with very little substance.

His hypotheses were really "so 40's" considering they were based on Franz Weidenreich's work from that decade.

[the13bats]

5 minutes ago, TomHaider51 said:

At least he had those in his possession to examine and not just speculate.

Actually, even with the jaw and teeth laying on his desk krantz did about 99.9% speculating the rest, making it bipedal and connecting it to bigfoot, his proof was because he says so, sorry i need more than that.

[Guyver]

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

The argument for giants often attempts to get around the fact that our body form is not conducive to being over 8 feet.

Any thoughts on this?

Why wouldn’t anyone think almost anything is possible is my question.  If you believe in evolution, and have studied it to some degree, then you consider that every living thing which has ever existed is derived from a single common ancestor - a single celled  organism much like some forms of modern bacteria.  

Each year new species of plants, animals, insects and microbes are discovered and this has been happening for some time.  When a species developed a chance for survival, it tends to and so do its ancestors.  Relative size for many species is dependent upon the environment in many cases.

Dwarf mammoths existed on the Santa Barbara Channel Islands for tens of thousands of years in recent history- descendants of their full sized ancestors before them, and then they were gone.  The argument that giants couldn’t exist, or would have a hard time existing is kinda silly in my mind, since it’s observably apparent that they can and do exist.

Not to mention the fact that in the fossil record there is an example of a giant ape.

[Carnoferox]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Why wouldn’t anyone think almost anything is possible is my question.  If you believe in evolution, and have studied it to some degree, then you consider that every living thing which has ever existed is derived from a single common ancestor - a single celled  organism much like some forms of modern bacteria.  

Each year new species of plants, animals, insects and microbes are discovered and this has been happening for some time.  When a species developed a chance for survival, it tends to and so do its ancestors.  Relative size for many species is dependent upon the environment in many cases.

Dwarf mammoths existed on the Santa Barbara Channel Islands for tens of thousands of years in recent history- descendants of their full sized ancestors before them, and then they were gone.  The argument that giants couldn’t exist, or would have a hard time existing is kinda silly in my mind, since it’s observably apparent that they can and do exist.

Not to mention the fact that in the fossil record there is an example of a giant ape.

When you actually study the evolution of bipedalism in hominids, an 8 foot-tall bipedal hominid becomes significantly less likely. The naive view of "anything is possible" doesn't fly in scientific study.

[Guyver]

5 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

When you actually study the evolution of bipedalism in hominids, an 8 foot-tall bipedal hominid becomes significantly less likely. The naive view of "anything is possible" doesn't fly in scientific study.

Sure it does.  If one was discovered you’d be wrong, and everyone would accept it.  

[Carnoferox]

Just now, Guyver said:

Sure it does.  If one was discovered you’d be wrong, and everyone would accept it.  

In the absence of any verifiable/testable evidence, it does not.

[Guyver]

PS.  I mean, you wouldn’t be wrong, because it does seem unlikely based on what is known.  But if an 8 foot sasquatch body were discovered, then it would be known that the unlikely occurred, as it has a billion times before.

[Carnoferox]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

PS.  I mean, you wouldn’t be wrong, because it does seem unlikely based on what is known.  But if an 8 foot sasquatch body were discovered, then it would be known that the unlikely occurred, as it has a billion times before.

I and many others will be waiting for that.

[the13bats]

If bigfoot were real which has yet to be proven i would have thought under 7 foot or even 6 would have been more acceptable.

[Habitat]

No one has a photo, but people can tell how tall it is ! The laughs just keep coming.

[oldrover]

5 hours ago, Habitat said:

No one has a photo, but people can tell how tall it is ! The laughs just keep coming.

To me, it comes down to the hypothetical question of it's plausible for bigfoot to be as tall as is sometimes reported. Or if the witnesses have painted themselves into a corner with the sizes they are giving.

More like speculative evolution than trying to say anything about what is really out there, because as we know, that does not include bigfoot. 

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, TomHaider51 said:

So skeptics with preexisting biases should be taken more seriously?

You are missing the point of being a skeptic. Being a skeptic means taking the time to examine the evidence.

A biased approach is like the gullible which accept without evidence. Take some posters that assume every story is true and that observations,no matter how poor, must somehow be reliable.

The " i am expert enough with logic to know observation can often precede a full understanding. " is a great example of a highly biased attitude.

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

Why wouldn’t anyone think almost anything is possible is my question.  If you believe in evolution, and have studied it to some degree, then you consider that every living thing which has ever existed is derived from a single common ancestor - a single celled  organism much like some forms of modern bacteria.  

Each year new species of plants, animals, insects and microbes are discovered and this has been happening for some time.  When a species developed a chance for survival, it tends to and so do its ancestors.  Relative size for many species is dependent upon the environment in many cases.

Dwarf mammoths existed on the Santa Barbara Channel Islands for tens of thousands of years in recent history- descendants of their full sized ancestors before them, and then they were gone.  The argument that giants couldn’t exist, or would have a hard time existing is kinda silly in my mind, since it’s observably apparent that they can and do exist.

Not to mention the fact that in the fossil record there is an example of a giant ape.

Evolution is bounded by the mechanics of the situation.

There are no giant humans in the fossil record despite the huge number of stories of such creatures in lore.

Just because there are a few humans that reach heights of 7 feet and do well in athletics does not mean that you can have a species that reliably works at height over that size.

You mentioned insects. Are there any 9 foot tall insects in the fossil record? No. They can't get that big due to their body design. Spiders about the size of house cats were possible when  the oxygen content of the air was around 32%. That can't happen today.

You write "since it’s observably apparent that they can and do exist." That is not the case with humans. Where are the races of 9 foot tall humans or 10 foot tall humans? Today the tallest country in the world is the Netherlands. They are not giants.

And sure there is a giant ape that went like today's gorillas - on all four limbs.

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

Sure it does.  If one was discovered you’d be wrong, and everyone would accept it.  

There have been plenty of claims of giants in stories around the world. The logic some propose is that there must be truth to some of these stories. That is the sort of biased logic that leads nowhere.

There are many problems with height. Here is a quick list of a few items:

http://time.com/4932362/is-being-tall-bad-for-your-health/

https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2009-11-tall-short-diseases.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3429114/How-HEIGHT-affects-health-Taller-people-lower-risk-heart-disease-diabetes-greater-risk-cancer.html

Remember that the issue is having a viable population, not just a few that can handle that height.