Guest openminded skeptic Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 I have a feeling this has been discussed before .....somewhere, but I'm new to this so here goes. Let's all assume, for the sake of argument, that bigfoot exists....Has anyone ever reported seeing a bigfoot with breasts, outside of the Patterson-Gimlin film? Did anyone ever report seeing a bigfoot with breasts before the Patterson-Gimlin film was made? If the answers are no and no, or "very few" and no, then that's evidence that the Patternson-Gimlin film is a hoax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 So, how do you think they feed their babies ....assuming they exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Changed the title slightly. Let's use caution to keep this thread as clinical and as fact based in nature as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotta Know Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 If you really wanted the answer (instead of having others basically "google" it for you), you'd spend some time on the many boards that feature sightings reports. But the short answer is that yes, there are MANY reported sightings of females, based on the observance of breasts as well as their mannerisms. I don't have any footnoted, but my guess is that there would be a number of them pre-PGF. I have a feeling this has been discussed before .....somewhere, but I'm new to this so here goes. Let's all assume, for the sake of argument, that bigfoot exists....Has anyone ever reported seeing a bigfoot with breasts, outside of the Patterson-Gimlin film? Did anyone ever report seeing a bigfoot with breasts before the Patterson-Gimlin film was made? If the answers are no and no, or "very few" and no, then that's evidence that the Patternson-Gimlin film is a hoax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence... Just sayin'. Please feel free to elaborate on your PGF lack of breasts theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 December 1959? The published story anyways... Unknown date on the underlying account Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Slabdog, isn't that picture from roger pattersons book? Pre PGF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 The was the picture that Patterson copied From True Magazine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) December 1959? The published story anyways... image.jpg Unknown date on the underlying account I believe that is from the William Roe sighting from 1957 http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/roe.htm Roe's sighting was in 1955, but he swore the story out in 1957. There is also the Albet Ostman story from 1924, where I don't think he mentioned breasts but did say two were female. Edited May 29, 2013 by Rockape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/3600-bigfoot-mating/?p=57731 Even if half the Bf are females, they might not be seen as often as males. But they are seen often enough from what I've read on this forum. See the habituation threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Bigfoot does exist. To answer your question, YES, there have been quite a number of reports where the witness described seeing breasts on sasquatch. And in fact, the breasts we see in the PGF simply add to the likelihood that the film is authentic, in that it depicts an actual bigfoot. There were reports before and after the PGF that describe females. And it is obvious they are females mostly because they have breasts. I believe that in many cases a person may be able to tell whether they are looking at a male or female, based solely off of the impression they get, even without visual identifiers like breasts. When I saw a bigfoot I did not specifically look for breasts, or notice that they were not there; I simply "knew" I was looking at a male. It was probably in part because of the animal's build, but it seemed as if I just knew that it was male. I am not sure how I knew, although I suppose that subconsciously I could have noticed the lack of breasts. I was viewing it from more of a side angle, not from its front, but I am positive that it was not female. Younger females may not have breasts that are highly visible, so the larger the creature is, the bigger the breasts will be, if it is female. I would speculate that determining sex is much harder in adolescent sasquatch than adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 From what I can gather from reading hundreds of reports, the Class A encounters are predominantly with males, not females. But, yes, you have female sightings in there. Far and away, most of them are where the observer doesn't provided any sexually distinguishable characteristics to allow the reader to draw any conclusions. My personal belief is that the encounters ARE predominantly with males, even when unspecified, due to the tendency of males in almost all mammalian species to roam more in search of new territory and mating opportunities, but also to protect the territory they have by confronting intruders and making displays. I believe the only report I've seen where the observer was able to definitively confirm "male" was an encounter on a mountain trail where he and his companion heard slurping noises as they topped a little rise. Ahead, facing away from them and bent/squatting over to drink from a spring was a sasquatch with clearly displayed gonads. Oh, and another report from Alaska of two BF's mating in the "missionary" position. (We can only presume!). Pregnant BF sighting with engorged mammary glands? Yep, got a couple of those in the database too. Mother clutching an object either presumed to be an infant, or observed to be? Many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Bigfoot does exist. To answer your question, YES, there have been quite a number of reports where the witness described seeing breasts on sasquatch. And in fact, the breasts we see in the PGF simply add to the likelihood that the film is authentic, in that it depicts an actual bigfoot. There were reports before and after the PGF that describe females. And it is obvious they are females mostly because they have breasts. I believe that in many cases a person may be able to tell whether they are looking at a male or female, based solely off of the impression they get, even without visual identifiers like breasts. When I saw a bigfoot I did not specifically look for breasts, or notice that they were not there; I simply "knew" I was looking at a male. It was probably in part because of the animal's build, but it seemed as if I just knew that it was male. I am not sure how I knew, although I suppose that subconsciously I could have noticed the lack of breasts. I was viewing it from more of a side angle, not from its front, but I am positive that it was not female. Younger females may not have breasts that are highly visible, so the larger the creature is, the bigger the breasts will be, if it is female. I would speculate that determining sex is much harder in adolescent sasquatch than adults. I would argue the opposite is true. Isn't the prevailing idea that Patterson fashioned Patty from that illustration in his book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 ^ That's one thing that has always bothered me about the PGF. Patterson has a drawing in his book of a female BF with breasts and he then films one with breasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Obviously (to the witness) female sasquatch have indeed been reported. Many times. ^ That's one thing that has always bothered me about the PGF. Patterson has a drawing in his book of a female BF with breasts and he then films one with breasts. Not me. The drawing? Based on the Ostman account in which two females were prominent. And you know, females exist if they're real. Coincidence maybe but no stunner. In fact biology leads me to believe odds were P and G would see a female. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts