Comments on: John Green on Bigfoot Breasts

By: coelacanth1938

coelacanth1938 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:21:29 +0000

I have a really dumb idea that might not be dumb at all.
Have some plastic surgeons view the Patterson film and then ask them if those breasts are “natural”.

By: Ulysses

Ulysses — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:01:36 +0000

Sorry , one LAST thing: Comapre the Venus of Willandorf to modern era woman such as Gianna Michaels, Sarah Jay or Genevieve Jolie and see how much we have really changed!

By: Ulysses

Ulysses — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:34:59 +0000

Sorry , i missed out on the statues pictured above. The middle being the Venus of Willenmdorf carved around 22,000 years ago in Austria. It was the true measure of a womans fecundity , that is , the sexiness and appeal at the time. She looks like Patty indeed and delicious nonetheless .

By: Ulysses

Ulysses — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:27:08 +0000

There are so many great things of interest in this article.

First off, Loren did indeed cover the subject of breasts as he stated in Bigfoot: The True Story off Apes in America (a must read for any fan of Bigfoot and Cryptozoology and a wonderfully written fact-filled and, at times, humorous book). These sightings are are indeed significant, and bring the question to mind as to why a hoaxer would even try to add breasts to a “Bigfoot” sighting or photo. Loren even covered the subject of BIgfoot being gay in the chapter mentioned, “Sex and the Single Sasquatch,” as for the effiminent road sign. Taking nothing from the legendary John Green but this book is definitive for so much lore and legend on BF.

Last, as with most animals they would be scared of fire which leads one to believe the stories with BF and fire seems to harken back to a antideluvian age when lighting first set a tree on fire and the first man became fascinated and at once began the keeper of the flame. No offense to Prometheus.

By: coelacanth1938

coelacanth1938 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:07:38 +0000

Speaking as a professional massage therapist who had worked in Las Vegas, the unofficial boobie capital of the world, large breasts would be a literal pain for a female Bigfoot. I've seen the Patterson film and I can only conclude that if this film is not a fake, the female Bigfoot probably had some serious life quality issues.

By: zytebac

zytebac — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:35:12 +0000

John Greene’s database should be hailed by the bigfoot community as not only an invaluable tool, but as an insight into how the evolving science of cryptozoology had first gained its momentum into mainstream science. Kudos, John.

As far as breasts, it is my understanding of the research I have done, that mature female bigfoots are the least likely of candidates to be witnessed. This is due to several factors.

One-Mature females are usually accompanied by a single, mature, and protective male. If you run into a group, the male will be the one to make its presence known.

Two-Most sightings of bigfoots are not accidental, unless it is from a car. If one is seen, it is probably a curious juvenile, male, or a female without noticeable breasts.

Three-Mature females, with young, cannot risk being seen by humans, and will therefore do whatever they can to stay hidden.

The only drawback to my thinking is of is the Patterson footage. A definite, fully mature female.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:53:30 +0000

Just to get this off my chest—

That “Bigfoot Crossing” sign looks unintentionally funny. Looks like Ole Hairy is skipping along the mountain trail looking at flowers.

That said—

Could it be Breasts are not seen because Females are more reclusive than males??? Anything’s possible…

It also could be that Males have “coverings” on their genitalia which render their privates semi-invisible.
Again, who knows??? Great post, though.