Zodiackillersite.com

12.5" inches is a size 16.

http://www.zappos.com/c/shoe-size-conversion

Dunnow how big feet in US are, but found an average correlation between the foot and the body size. According to this, Z was about 5'8'' to 5'9'' tall.

QT

Quicktrader wrote:Dunnow how big feet in US are, but found an average correlation between the foot and the body size. According to this, Z was about 5'8'' to 5'9'' tall.

QT

Link please?

Found some articles about why people's shoe sizes are getting bigger, and also some interesting ones about shoe sz related to penis size

You're in luck then

I found this chart, no idea if it is accurate

Yes 5'8" to 5'9" sounds good 70-71 inches. But it's not a great indicator.
Somebody of 5'8" can range from size 8 to 14.

I don't think there is any standard. I am 5'8" and would wear a 6.5 in men's shoes.

morf13 wrote:

Quicktrader wrote:Dunnow how big feet in US are, but found an average correlation between the foot and the body size. According to this, Z was about 5'8'' to 5'9'' tall.

QT

Link please?

http://durchschnittliche.de/koerper-mit ... i-maennern

German link, nothing of use imo as human bodies differ sometimes.. maybe Leonardo da Vinci was correct with his drawing, however. Personally I do believe he was 6'0''-6'2''..me 6'5'' so I guess he was 'average tall' rather than 5'6'' or 6'5''. His height was nothing special. Being fat? I got 220, not the slimmest but not barrell-chested either, imo he could have carried 180-200 without looking barrell-chested. Could give him 240-260 (not 300..) or was it his disguise? Guess Fouke and likely Johns had the best view on him, both did not describe him as fat. Protruding belli? Yes, that's the Zodiac beer sign..

Quicktrader wrote:

morf13 wrote:

Quicktrader wrote:Dunnow how big feet in US are, but found an average correlation between the foot and the body size. According to this, Z was about 5'8'' to 5'9'' tall.

QT

Link please?

http://durchschnittliche.de/koerper-mit ... i-maennern

German link, nothing of use imo as human bodies differ sometimes.. maybe Leonardo da Vinci was correct with his drawing, however. Personally I do believe he was 6'0''-6'2''..me 6'5'' so I guess he was 'average tall' rather than 5'6'' or 6'5''. His height was nothing special. Being fat? I got 220, not the slimmest but not barrell-chested either, imo he could have carried 180-200 without looking barrell-chested. Could give him 240-260 (not 300..) or was it his disguise? Guess Fouke and likely Johns had the best view on him, both did not describe him as fat. Protruding belli? Yes, that's the Zodiac beer sign..

We don't know if Johns was definitely picked up by Zodiac