hiflier Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Hello All, I remember a couple of years ago I had a thread that was a discussion on whether or not the reported shape of a Sasquatch's nose was somehow significant. I was curious if it was gender biased or species biased, or creatures of a certain color matched to a nose shape. In a way it was kind of humorous because I thought that females would have the daintier noses and the males would have the reported large flat noses. It turned out the opposite seemed to be the case LOL Handsome females and ...uh....pretty males? Think "Patty" here as an illustration. One thing I did see in a database of descriptions was that when there was a group reported that different nose shapes were not reported within a group. It led me to think that the different nose shapes didn't intermingle. I probably need more information to say more but the initial impression was that Sasquatch with different noses didn't mix. But they must if the females and males are different right? So more needs to be done there somehow. This thread is for looking at face shapes for the same reason: gender, species, or color bias. I think there's more information on faces than noses so this may have a chance at a better way to see such divisions if any. So, to you knowers out there, and those working with databases, and those knowledgeable of reports, is there anything that categorizes a face shape to a creature type? Or gender? Or hair color? Or even something age related or a certain specific region? This would be a good thread to log in some information to see if any possible correlations come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Interesting thoughts. I'm going to follow this to see what comes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Hello Hx22826, Me too. I recall some one mentioning facial descriptions in the Siege at Honobia but need to look at it again. I know John Green's database has delineated the shapes of faces into different categories such as Human-like, Ape-like etc. but I need to review some of that data as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) To stay on topic - There are galleries of witness drawings that can be referenced for different face sketches. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30107-bigfootsasquatch-sketches Also - I just found an apparent older thread on nose shapes (Maybe the one referenced by the OP and one that I have not read yet - I have no idea what had been discussed there) http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/43614-what-about-sasquatch-nose-shape/ I can recall a stink about noses (pun intended) where it was reported that Sasquatch noses are known to be Black. (I have an idea who made that assertion but don't want to say without finding a link or other supporting evidence) I think the black nose belief was because somebody had seen Matilda before it became widely known to be a Wookie Mask. While I can't say for sure what a real nose should look like, I will assume it doesn't have to be dismissed just because it doesn't quite match this one. Edited August 28, 2015 by Redbone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Hello Redbone, Yes, thanks, that was my nose thread. The sketch link is cool also. There was also someone who did sketches of faces seen by witnesses somewhere. Maybe Sybilla Irwin? Hope I spelled the name right. And I've seen a lot of sketches from the guy that has the field notes website or something to that effect. I guess what I'm looking for is anything that relates a face style or shape with some other reported Sasquatch identifying characteristic like Ape-like face with females, or Human-like face with black hair or males. It would seem that an Apr-like face would have a large flat nose (again, see "Patty") and a Human-like face maybe more of a small nose but the more I look into it I don't think it's all that cut and dried, It's why I've invited knowers, database folks, and anyone else who has seen a face to see if there's a gender bias with faces or some other......something. Thanks for your links and input. OK found some of the links I was talking about. Sybilla Irwin does the witness sketches along with others: http://www.sybillairwin.com/witness-sketches.html And Scott Carpenter has the Bigfoot Field Journal website which has a lot of faces drawn with black noses: http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/ Edited August 28, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I believe it was Matt Moneymaker that said Bigfoots have black noses. He said it on first season of Finding Bigfoot, I think it was. He was somehow associated with the Matilda thing so that's probably where it came from- the Chewbacca footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Hello roguefooter, I'd never really heard about the black nose thing until now. I saw where the Bigfoot Field Journal had a couple of drawings that showed black noses but most didn't. Haven't watched TV for 4 years now so have missed the Finding Bigfoot seasons other than what I've seen posted here. As far as the knowers go back when I started the "nose" thread I had inquired more about whether or not any noticed a nose shape but need to reread the thread to refresh me on the responses. Today I'll go through and see if a certain face shape goes with a certain nose shape, rune down any hair color connections or gender. Not every report has those kinds of details which is something I kind of already know. I think there's just too many gaps in the data to come with anything definitive. And blobsquatches are....well.....you know I know there are members here that have seen things so maybe some additional information could be forthcoming. Looking at "Patty again I find it hard to really categorize the face. Human-like? Ape-like? If I was to have to make the call I'd have to go with Human-like with a large flat nose. And not a black nose either as far as I can tell. It makes me wonder about the ones in the Ouachitas as well as in is the trait a regional one. Of course this thread is based on the notion that the creatures are real otherwise why even bother. BTW Sybilla Irwin's sketches from witness' descriptions are amazing. There's a couple that definitely look strongly Ape-like. As far as the others......lots of large noses. Edited August 28, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 No artist ever did anything I saw justice, because frankly, just so much hair! All over the face, could not tell you any real details about a nose for instance: BRFO 38155 "The head was large, seemingly flat on top. I could not make out any ears. Eyes a simple black, no whites, and a lying flat nose without many discernible features – there was even some hair there in the middle of the face. The mouth was large with a bit more hair there, giving the appearance of a sort of mustache. It did not have much expression, pretty much straight lipped, it really seemed almost relaxed." Not humanlike, not apelike, looked a lot like a BF actually... Artists either pen humans, apes, or fictional monsters when doing BF art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Hello 1980squatch, Is it more then something that is more subjective in how a person describes the creature. Or maybe that an artist places suggestions in a witness' mind that clouds one's memory perhaps. There have been discussions on a Human's ability, or inability, to accurately recall details of an event. Maybe the initial shock of a sighting? Seems it would be a personal decision of whether or not to trust the data. Edited August 28, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Those sketches are great. I'm really hoping I can get into the woods and get some answers for myself. I guess I'll have to try and make note of the nose shape if I ever do see one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Hello Hx22826, Then good luck and be safe out there. And BTW, out there is a very cool place to be Still in all, if I saw one noticing a nose would be difficult as I would more than likely be in the process of fainting. And yeah, the sketches are really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Hello Hx22826, Me too. I recall some one mentioning facial descriptions in the Siege at Honobia but need to look at it again. I know John Green's database has delineated the shapes of faces into different categories such as Human-like, Ape-like etc. but I need to review some of that data as well. It would be interesting to know what Green (or the witnesses) thought defined a face as being Human-like or Ape-like. Gibbons, gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and bonobos all have differing facial features, so a defining description would be of great help I would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Hello Old Dog, It would be. In an interview, showing a witness a rendition of a Human face or a gorilla face as references might have been good or better than just getting a subjective point of view from memory. Sybilla's sketches have a couple of very distinct gorilla-types. Even then one doesn't know how accurate the depictions are as they may still be reliant on a Human's perception of the encounter. Seeing a big hairy thing might for most say gorilla so that may be a big influence in relaying details for a sketch. A more Human like face on such a creature may actually be part of the shock value as a gorilla or ape-like face seems to be something that would be more expected. I'd sure like to see if that dynamis played a part in the reaction of some of the knowers here. See a BF? Shock. See one with a gorilla face? Shock. See one with a Human face? Bigger shock? Edited August 28, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Hello Hx22826, Then good luck and be safe out there. And BTW, out there is a very cool place to be Still in all, if I saw one noticing a nose would be difficult as I would more than likely be in the process of fainting. And yeah, the sketches are really good. Yeah, hard to notice nose detail when ones bowels vacate unexpectedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) Hello Hx22826, Got that right LOL. Took some time to look through John Green's database and did not see anything that appeared to be indicative of a grouping of similar traits. Lots of gaps in the data which I've been aware of. Nose, Face, Teeth and Hair Color field variables showed a wide mix of characteristics. An Ape-like face was reported on creatures of many different colors as was Human-like faces. Even teeth or ones with canines didn't have any set hair color or face type and any of those variables could be seen in whatever arrangement with different nose shapes as well. In other words there was no discernible pattern of characteristics that I could see in that particular database that would aid in any kind of tracking of animals from one place to another. So as far as this thread is concerned, while perhaps an interesting idea, there appears to be nothing discernible in the way of a grouping of characteristics to identify individuals or relate any reported sightings to one another. Hair color, face shape, teeth, and nose seem to be random selections with no apparent pattern. More data sources either as databases or witnesses would be needed to be able to take this to a different level. Other than the previous attempt at relating nose shape to gender the gender criteria was something not factored in this time around. Any ideas or input from anyone on this would be welcome. All I can offer is that maybe characteristics in the past might have been more delineated but perhaps inter-breeding has genetically blended physical features into a broader gene pool. Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts