Bigfoots With Breasts

[Guest DWA]

Try these:

 

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/manitoba-bf-2/#comments

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160

 

 

As with Patty, backstory indicates first, that the subject in each case is a very large animal; second; that the animal bears no resemblance to anything known to live there, wild or domestic; and third, that it came on the scene, changed position, and departed the scene (in other words, it's not a "blobsquatch" terrain or vegetation feature).  In two, a man later on the scene provides scale; in the other; the hillock in front of it serves pretty well to do the same

 

In other words, blurry or indistinct aren't dismissals.  What is that?  It ain't no cow.  But it sure looks like something else, and the same something in each case.  They aren't as clear as Patty.  But anyone for whom they don't raise the same questions isn't paying attention.

 

[Guest zenmonkey]

So Roger's God!  Which answers your other question.

 

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Only, um, wait, there are several photos and video as compelling as P/G.  But I won't waste the discussion time with anyone who won't be satisfied until he sees one either in person or on TV.

anything BF is not a waste of discussion thats why we are all here! well at least i can speak for myself. i will sit and watch every video I can find and watch every video all interesting but yes i wont be satisfied until I see a real body thats just how the scientific method works. Doesnt mean it wont please others

 

    BTW thanks for the links not bad videos not as good as the PGF id say but still interesting, and the photos from OK were taken about 5 miles from my house gets me very excited!

Edited May 31, 2013 by zenmonkey

[roguefooter]

Replication goes both ways.

 

With the advent of technology in the last 20 years how could the creature in the Patterson, if real, not have been duplicated in a satisfactory manner?

 

 

Technology is only as good as the effort that people put into it.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

With the advent of technology in the last 20 years how could the creature in the Patterson, if real, not have been duplicated in a satisfactory manner?

 

Nobody really knows the answer to that question, but it could be a number of things such as the nature of the animal itself and technological incompetence on our part. But one thing we do know is that a lack of duplication doesn't necessarily mean she's a phony. Dismissing her as a fake because of a lack of duplication seems like an excuse for simply dismissing her.

 

Also, a pre-PGF picture of a bipedal hominid with breasts doesn't mean the PGF is fake. If Sasquatch are real, half of their population might have breasts. 

[Guest]

Try these:

 

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/manitoba-bf-2/#comments

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160

 

 

As with Patty, backstory indicates first, that the subject in each case is a very large animal; second; that the animal bears no resemblance to anything known to live there, wild or domestic; and third, that it came on the scene, changed position, and departed the scene (in other words, it's not a "blobsquatch" terrain or vegetation feature).  In two, a man later on the scene provides scale; in the other; the hillock in front of it serves pretty well to do the same

 

In other words, blurry or indistinct aren't dismissals.  What is that?  It ain't no cow.  But it sure looks like something else, and the same something in each case.  They aren't as clear as Patty.  But anyone for whom they don't raise the same questions isn't paying attention.

Just admit you mis spoke, and that these are not AS compelling as the PGF so we can keep an honest discourse going.

[Guest DWA]

Really.  Less compelling how?  Your analysis please.  (One of them substantiates Patty directly.  Pretty compelling, no?) 

 

If you are looking for me to calculate a Compellingness Percentage, please, I'm trying to be serious here.  You can help.

 

The next conversation I have with a skeptic who has honestly reviewed and understands the evidence will be the first.  So watch tossing that word 'honest' around.

[Guest DWA]

How would Patty be more compelling?  Wasn't it shot by two cowboys out to make money off bigfoot, hmmmmm?

 

Those three were shot by people who couldn't have cared about bigfoot one way or the other.  Pretty 10 on the Compellingness Meter.

[clubbedfoot]

 

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?

 

 he certainly didn't fashion the facial profile view from the book.... let alone the body musculature or lack of.......

 

In profile,  Patty's nose and face is almost completely obscured by prominent cheekbones....totally unlike the illustration....

Edited June 4, 2013 by clubbedfoot

[Guest]

In the John Green database, (n = 4068), 1054 cases report a sighting of Bigfoot.

Of those, only 40 are reported as having breasts.  For what it's worth...

 

RH

[WRabbit]

I assume most sightings don't include sexual identification.  How many of the 1054 were identified as having male genitalia?  

[Guest]

DWA, the bfro report with the ten foot scale series is extemely interesting to me. And, in picture five of that series the recreation with the gentleman with the scale taken with the cell phone illustrates the difficultly of getting a clear picture of anything without good equipment, good lighting and just plain good luck. I came to that same conclusion taking pictures of things i didnt control like pets and people lol. even with a decent camera Mr. average non photograper enthusiast guy is lucky to get a good picture of anything that isnt still and posing for him I have discovered. Or perhaps I am just really bad with cameras. But the man is a blob man, I had to look twice to find him in that photo. The subject of the picture is a huge thing. I suppose you could make a huge prop and pose it in those different scenes but in those pictures I dont think that is  the case. In hoaxes either the recorder of the event is the hoaxer and poses or creates the visuals or audio and then records it in whatever way. Or the creator of the hoax stages the visuals or broadcasts the audio by mouth audio recording or such and has the task of guiding the victim or people to be hoaxed to the scene, or setting up in a place highly likely to supply the needed audience in a timely manner. It is illogical to stage hoaxes in places remote or unfrequented and leave the desired sighting purely to chance. Too much work and effort with too small a chance for a payoff sighting and whatever jollies the hoaxer gets from his craft. Even creating footprints in remote areas is too chancy if the area is weatherly active. I divide supposed encounters into those two types. Not that it rules out hoaxes or has any bearing on what's real or not real, but it narrows one thing down. If the area is non conducive to a hoax, too remote for chance encounters by victims then I assume that the witness is either lying and created the hoax themselves, or they saw what they said they saw. Which is one less variable to worry about than if the witness was the victim. In which case he could be truthful and still wrong. So in this remote place the self hoax rule applies to me. And crediblity of the witness is the main factor. And if the witnesses are credible as I think,  I think they saw what they photographed. As to the PGF, I dont know enough of the filmers' history to comment on it. I always thought it looked pretty real. As to the topic of the thread, reading through the sightings on the various forum and societies, I see a good smattering of reports of obviously female subjects, three I remember of females feeding their young or the evidence thereof noted by the observer. I can find the links, but one was the semi driver who stopped while the parents got their mischievious youngster out of the road, one where a lady I think came upon a female trying to keep unnoticed while hiding in a tree by having her young baby eat instead of cry and a report from Florida of feeding behavior which I cant think of all the details. I'll try to find the links or report numbers. I dont think it would be unusual to see more creatures without breasts .  If the males are dominant and territorial they would probably be more disposed to move around and show themselves than supposedly less dominant females, or the teenagers or non mature individuals of both sexes who would probably frolic or play and snoop around like curious youngsters would not have developed mature characteristics as yet.

[Guest]

I assume most sightings don't include sexual identification.  How many of the 1054 were identified as having male genitalia?  

 

11 male

 

33 reported 'not visible' (means they at least checked)

 

 

RH

Edited June 4, 2013 by rhellis38

[Guest DWA]

PB, WSA thought that wandering and territoriality might make males more visible than females. There might be something to that.

And yeah, PB, for the reasons you state I find it highly unlikely that hoaxing was going on in either the BFRO or OK prairie reports. In both cases that is a massive and to all appearances animate object.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

I've had this thought for a while. Hunter/gatherers. The concept has been brought by anthropologists forever it seems when describing early Human societies. Why wouldn't that be the case here as well. I probabbly need to read the "Habituation" thread and I will when I have more time to digest whatever's there. But the divying up of duties within BF families or groups would seem to be based on the dominate party in the species hunting and the subordinate/caregiver doing the gathering. foragers with breasts in the record may hold a clue to this idea. Especially now that berry season is approaching.

In the Northeast the blackflies in June will drive Moose and Deer out of the woods(people too LOL!) and onto the roads and the number hit by vehicles rises. So in the spring why wouldn't Sasquatch have the same reaction to nature's tormentors? Is there a way to check a database and do a sort by months of the year to determine a high season for sightings in a chosen area? Sorry, rambling here but I've been mulling over this stuff for years wondering about habits and patterns. I'm sure I'm not the only one, eh?

[AaronD]

^^ Thanks for your inquiry, hiflier. My answer is going to be just my opinion, but I'd say there is too little known about sasquatches to really compare them to better known creatures such as deer and moose. We can speculate that there may be similar habits, given they are in the same environment and are presumably participating in the same ecosystem. BFRO's database would probably be the place to check sightings. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/default.asp  Hope this helps.