Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

How often are bear bones found?


Sakari

Recommended Posts

Cute little bear in the video. However, it's very different from the Bigfoot pictures and videos. Bigfoot's arms and legs are long... the arms hang down around the knees. The legs bend at the knees. The arms swing like a human's. Bigfoot's gait is entirely different from the cute little bipedal bear video. Bigfoot's torso is shorter like a human torso.

Where is there a bigfoot video that describes what you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the lack of bones being found does not disprove the existence of Bigfoot.

While technically true, the lack of bones both recent and in any fossil record certainly puts a damper on the theory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is there a bigfoot video that describes what you say?

I like this one best. It from 1967. You can see her muscles ripple as she walks. It's not a suit. Her breasts sway when she walks like breasts do. I personally think this is real. A lot of people have tried to debunk it. I don't think anyone has succeeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this one best. It from 1967. You can see her muscles ripple as she walks. It's not a suit. Her breasts sway when she walks like breasts do. I personally think this is real. A lot of people have tried to debunk it. I don't think anyone has succeeded.

Probably 100 topics of Bigfoot, and they all go to that video. It has been debunked. ( in about 70% of Bigfoot threads, because they all go to that as the answer. ) And I suggest the threads on that video to beat that dead horse other than here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this one best. It from 1967. You can see her muscles ripple as she walks. It's not a suit. Her breasts sway when she walks like breasts do.

Pattybreasts.gif

A close-up reveals little to no swinging motion or bounce of the breasts as Patty walks. Primate breasts are also not hair covered like that. Roger Patterson did a fine job on this suit but he did make some anatomical errors...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pattybreasts.gif

A close-up reveals little to no swinging motion or bounce of the breasts as Patty walks. Primate breasts are also not hair covered like that. Roger Patterson did a fine job on this suit but he did make some anatomical errors...

This is where we differ lol. I see movement in these breasts. They seem firm, like she's lactating her child as its been suggested. But they do move. And once again, how is Sasquatch or Patty for that matter a primate? I guess you're saying she's an unknown great ape, but nothing about her is ape-like. She seems to be, as most Bigfoot reports show just a very large primitive human with greater proportions of the extremities than your average modern human.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where we differ lol. I see movement in these breasts. They seem firm, like she's lactating her child as its been suggested. But they do move. And once again, how is Sasquatch or Patty for that matter a primate? I guess you're saying she's an unknown great ape, but nothing about her is ape-like. She seems to be, as most Bigfoot reports show just a very large primitive human with greater proportions of the extremities than your average modern human.

You just answered your own question with; She seems to be, as most Bigfoot reports show just a very large primitive human with greater proportions of the extremities than your average modern human.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where we differ lol. I see movement in these breasts. They seem firm, like she's lactating her child as its been suggested. But they do move. And once again, how is Sasquatch or Patty for that matter a primate? I guess you're saying she's an unknown great ape, but nothing about her is ape-like. She seems to be, as most Bigfoot reports show just a very large primitive human with greater proportions of the extremities than your average modern human.

You just answered your own question with; She seems to be, as most Bigfoot reports show just a very large primitive human with greater proportions of the extremities than your average modern human.

Yes, Atuke, I'd like more information on your personal definitions of the terms you use: Ape/primate/primitive human/human/not ape-like? Can you explain how you define each in general as well as in reference to Bigfoot?

Is your theory complete enough to tell us now? Sorry if I have missed it somewhere on here.

Also, it is impossible to tell if she is lactating by her breasts in the film, especially if she is human!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this one best. It from 1967. You can see her muscles ripple as she walks. It's not a suit. Her breasts sway when she walks like breasts do. I personally think this is real. A lot of people have tried to debunk it. I don't think anyone has succeeded.

Actually it has been debunked quite well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where we differ lol. I see movement in these breasts. They seem firm, like she's lactating her child as its been suggested. But they do move. And once again, how is Sasquatch or Patty for that matter a primate? I guess you're saying she's an unknown great ape, but nothing about her is ape-like. She seems to be, as most Bigfoot reports show just a very large primitive human with greater proportions of the extremities than your average modern human.

Hair on breasts of a " human "....I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually some hair on human women's nipples (areola specifically) is not uncommon at all and end up getting plucked so men may not realize it.

But my issue is Patty's are wall-to-wall carpeted and could lead to hairballs for her poor biglet if she ever had one and make no sense.

So are those breasts there to cover up something about the suit? I seem to recall that being claimed/speculated? Or was the addition of hair on her breasts added to cover up something about their appearance? I don't remember exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where we differ lol. I see movement in these breasts. They seem firm, like she's lactating her child as its been suggested. But they do move. And once again, how is Sasquatch or Patty for that matter a primate? I guess you're saying she's an unknown great ape, but nothing about her is ape-like. She seems to be, as most Bigfoot reports show just a very large primitive human with greater proportions of the extremities than your average modern human.

I think "little to no swinging motion or bounce of the breasts as Patty walks" is a more accurate description. In comparison to the motion of human breasts (lactating or not) the motion of Patty's breasts is rigid, unnatural, artificial.

I'm also saying that I am a primate, you're a primate, and everyone else in the world is one too. If you are planning on presenting your grand unifying theory on Bigfoot then I hope you plan on checking such things as this...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PG film has been well and truly debunked. Though not to believers. Even if Gimlin explained the hoax, many of them would still find reasons to continue believing.

The people who do understand functional morphology (scientists) were not very impressed with it from the first viewing (as shown by the lack of scientists rushing to Bluff Ck.) and nothing has changed since. The lack of bigfoot expeditions or of Patterson ever returning to find this bigfoot, makes it look obvious that few really believe a bigfoot is actually there anyway. It's fun to pretend though.

In reality, it has never needed debunking. What it has always needed is something to support it as being other than a fake. There has never been anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps. There is a myth among some proponents that the breasts were only noticed in recent times after enhancing the film. This isn't so. Patterson went to some lengths to point the breasts out to the claimed "scientists" who first viewed it and mentions that it had breasts in his earliest interviews. Almost like a "selling point". Fake as a $3 bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cash0105.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually some hair on human women's nipples (areola specifically) is not uncommon at all and end up getting plucked so men may not realize it.

abe-simpson-gif.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is what Bigfootery is, the PGF is securely and legitimately a part of that and supported no differently than the rest of the stuff we are told about this creature.

Edited by QuiteContrary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "little to no swinging motion or bounce of the breasts as Patty walks" is a more accurate description. In comparison to the motion of human breasts (lactating or not) the motion of Patty's breasts is rigid, unnatural, artificial.

I'm also saying that I am a primate, you're a primate, and everyone else in the world is one too. If you are planning on presenting your grand unifying theory on Bigfoot then I hope you plan on checking such things as this...

Yes sir I know we are all primates, including Patty :)

...I just assumed you were saying she/they were an unknown species of North American Ape or such. And yes I'm working on my 'Grand Unified Theory'. You will be one of the first to read I hope. I've been working on it, and plan to finish it after my journey the the Klemath River Basin...and Bluff Creek of course :)

Until then, let's keep debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes sir I know we are all primates, including Patty :)

...I just assumed you were saying she/they were an unknown species of North American Ape or such. And yes I'm working on my 'Grand Unified Theory'. You will be one of the first to read I hope. I've been working on it, and plan to finish it after my journey the the Klemath River Basin...and Bluff Creek of course :)

Until then, let's keep debating.

I did read about your upcoming vacation. Not sure why the Klamath basin though. ( I lived in Oregon )

Yes, I am a " non believer ", but I assure you, there are more " promising " places to go, if you believe the sightings. And, more beautiful.

And I mean the PNW....Trust me on this one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response. I'm actually looking for something in particular, and it's in the Bluff Creek area. Anywho, I grew up with Bigfoot on the brain, so the whole Northern California thing has been calling me since the 1970's.

I trust what you say, and I plan on checking out Oregon as well. Hopefully my funds allow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes sir I know we are all primates, including Patty :)

...I just assumed you were saying she/they were an unknown species of North American Ape or such. And yes I'm working on my 'Grand Unified Theory'. You will be one of the first to read I hope. I've been working on it, and plan to finish it after my journey the the Klemath River Basin...and Bluff Creek of course :)

Until then, let's keep debating.

Yes, Patty is a primate:

thum_82644935db696440a.jpg

14ujfo3.gif

Bob H should get his DNA tested - it would be delightfully ironic if it turned out that he had anomalous Bigfoot/relict hominid genetic markers...

I look forward to reading your hypothesis, Atuke. I'll be particularly interested in how you borrow material from the Bigfoot academics like Krantz, Meldrum, and Bindernagel (who all are of the opinion that BF is an unknown species of North American ape) to support your cause. You will essentially be arguing that these academics don't know what they are talking about when it comes to Bigfoot which is also what many of us non-believers think...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't found many here in England!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As previously mentioned, to have an understanding how rare finding any bones of a particular species in comparison to another, you do need some measurement of time.

Sure, there may be images of bear bones, but were they found over 1 year or 5 years? How often are deer bones found in the same area over the same time?

Ideally we'd have such data, and in relation to the estimated population in the given area, but I doubt it exists as the recording of discovered bones is not on everyone's list of things to do.

If not a measurement of time, a ratio of individual species to all found bones would be useful.

While bear bones are found, I don't think that is ever really contested as how often they are found is, which I don't think an accurate answer exists unless the discovery of every set of bones has been recorded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As previously mentioned, to have an understanding how rare finding any bones of a particular species in comparison to another, you do need some measurement of time.

Sure, there may be images of bear bones, but were they found over 1 year or 5 years? How often are deer bones found in the same area over the same time?

Ideally we'd have such data, and in relation to the estimated population in the given area, but I doubt it exists as the recording of discovered bones is not on everyone's list of things to do.

If not a measurement of time, a ratio of individual species to all found bones would be useful.

While bear bones are found, I don't think that is ever really contested as how often they are found is, which I don't think an accurate answer exists unless the discovery of every set of bones has been recorded.

Even with said information about bear bones, it really doesn't help the "bigfoot is real" cause. Not enough information on what the bigfoot population would be. I've read estimate from 100,000 to the last one died after the Patty hoax.

sightings in almost every state and every country on the planet. Add to that the amount of rare extinct animal bones that are found every year. From 10,000 year old whooly rhino remains to 100 million year old Nodasaurus bones, bones have been found and identified of most animals, especially those currently still living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.