21 degrees between Bigfoot and you

That makes some sense and when looking at gorilla and orangutans, some seem to have hairyer breasts than others. It's certainly possible that a mutation for hairy breasts could become prevalent - assuming it's either advantageous or doesn't pose a disadvantage.

What I find somewhat troubling about Patty is the lack if variation in fur density. The muscle definition looks good, but I would expect to see thinning in certain areas (mostly large muscle groups that produce a lot if heat, or regions where there is a lot of locomotion).

I'm basing that on what you find amongst great apes, but it's by no means universal amongst primates or mammals as a whole.

What I find Interesting is that 2 people that were supposedly involved in the possible hoax of this costume can not even get straight what kinda of costume was being used.
The supposed creator said it was a 1 Piece costume you stepped into. That in order to make the Shoulders bigger to add football shoulder pads.
The person wearing it goes on to say it was a 2 piece outfit, doesn't describe the use of shoulder pads.
Then of course they must have modified it all before he got to wear it.
SO even in the "hoaxers" the is no factual story to be backed up.

CMcMillan wrote:

Well here is your science of HOW and why a human female could have a Hairy Chest

When a woman grows hair in locations that don't usually bear hair in women, it's called "hirsutism." The hair typically crops up in areas where men tend to have hair — in the mustache or beard region, on the chest, or on the lower abdomen.

this could be due to a hormone problem. Too many of the male hormones (androgens, including testosterone) or extra-sensitivity to the presence of male hormones can cause hirsutism. Testosterone, in particular, is responsible for stimulating the hair follicle to grow hair that is darkly pigmented.

Some conditions that may cause this kind of hair growth include:
•polycystic ovarian syndrome (causing increased androgen production)
•Cushing's syndrome (a disorder of the adrenal glands that produce androgens)
•tumors of the ovaries or adrenal glands (causing increased androgen production)
•anorexia nervosa
•underactive thyroid gland (hypothyroidism)

http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Hirsutism_increased_hair_growth_in_women_a658.html?utm_source=steadyhealth&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=relDiRelArticles

it could be hpertrichosis too........ however, what are the odds that in a population as small as Bigfoot that not only did some of them develop one of these maladies, but it happened to be filmed by a known con artist AND have a condition that looks just lik a previous depiction he did.

It's pretty incredible to think all of these variables ocurred.

You do also know that we as woman have the gene in us that is recessive so we do not get Hairy chests normally.
So it COULD be possible that Bigfoot females this gene is NOT recessive.

I am trying to educate you that It IS possible since we don't know anything about this creature that even in humans we woman have the ability to grow hair on our chests so dismissing the hairy breasts as one reason to dismiss is not a good reason to dismiss the film.

The con-artist angle because even the people who came out and said it was a Hoax are just as con-artistry as you claim Patterson is. Since the people who came out and said it was a hoax can't even get their story straight. If it was a Hoax they would have had the same story but they didn't. They couldn't even tell the same story about the "monkey suit"

I wonder if it could be a rare disease that show traits of werewolf syndrome and gigantism that is passed through genes.

CMcMillan wrote:You do also know that we as woman have the gene in us that is recessive so we do not get Hairy chests normally.
So it COULD be possible that Bigfoot females this gene is NOT recessive.

I am trying to educate you that It IS possible since we don't know anything about this creature that even in humans we woman have the ability to grow hair on our chests so dismissing the hairy breasts as one reason to dismiss is not a good reason to dismiss the film.

The con-artist angle because even the people who came out and said it was a Hoax are just as con-artistry as you claim Patterson is. Since the people who came out and said it was a hoax can't even get their story straight. If it was a Hoax they would have had the same story but they didn't. They couldn't even tell the same story about the "monkey suit"

It isn't a claim as you say, it's the truth. even the higher ups on the supportive side of the PGF admit as much.

and as far as "educating" me on the "possibilities" you have don nothing of the sort. I'm familiar with all of the things you have presented as possible excuses for the hairy boobs , and I find them all "possible" but very unlikely as your argument lies on a combination of variables that has a very low probability of occurring at the same time.

To expand, are you claiming that Patty happened to be suffering from some disorder? Or are you saying that she was the norm for females of her species?

Here's the reason I'm being a ballbuster about this. Everytime we skeptics point out something that doesn't seem to jive with any known animal we are met with "well maybe this one DOES have that trait..." it gets a little silly after awhile because, if Bigfoot had all of these traits making it different than humans or other known ape species, it wouldn't even be a human or great ape species anymore. (mid tarasl break on a biped, glowing eyes, hairy boobs, 8 foot tall and 800 pounds, talks like a samurai, can turn invisible, shapeshifts...etc) ALL of the previous traits have been listed as real by various BF bleevers at some point or another. Which one's are true?


Wouldn't it be more probable for Bigfoot to just be a big hairy member of the Great Ape family (be it more apelike or more humanlike) that lives in the forest in sparse numbers in relative obscurity, is elusive knows it' surroundings well and has a similar anatomy to other great apes (except for sharing bepedalism with humans)? So the females may have hair that comes from the sides and top that obscure parts of the chest, but don't grow 6 inch thick boob hair?

See you keep it to things like the above with a higher level of probability and you sound like a reasonable person who suspects such a critter might exist. I may not agree (until i see some real verifiable evidence) but I could see the possibility of your creature existing much more than one that seems to break all these normal rules of evolutionary development.

I will agree with the skeptism of things we have so many conflicting stories and yet we have many that are the same.
I have no problem with your skeptism but at times you like to rule out things just because of the past. When you know its obvious that science and nature has differences.
I am not sure what the Norm is for the Creature...could the norm be hairy breasts for the females "Sure" it could be. We just don't know. Heck I think the norm of the northern Sasquatch is different from the southern and different from the Yeti or a tropical one.
I am not going to write off that just because other primates do not have as much hair on their chests rules out the possibility that big foot could.
Red Eyes I asked this question already its seems it could be related to Tapetum lucidum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum
As for size and weight I know if I saw a Bigfoot i wouldn't be able to tell you if it was 6 foot tall or 8 foot tall. I am a short 5'3" so everyone is tall compared to me.
I would just be saying it was TALL and big and maybe look around and see where the head peaked on a land marker like a tree.

The Patterson film I don't completely rule out, but I don't defend it like others. Its possible it was Hoaxed by just doesn't feel right for me with the time period the suit was created in with what Hollywood was making at that time. Just my opinion.

CMcMillan wrote:Red Eyes I asked this question already its seems it could be related to Tapetum lucidum

The only problem is that none of the great apes have this eye function.

This means that Bigfoot would have to come from a lineage that predates the point where we split off from the ancestor for gorillas or chimps and belong to an unknown branch going back millions of years without there being any paleontological evidence of their evolution.

An alternative woud be that Bigfoot evolved from one of the other primate groups - again without any evidence of their lineage.

A final option would be that the Bigfoot ancestral line regained this eye function at some point.

All of these options are possible, but not very likely.