Leaderboard

One cannot discount the possible roles psychotropics may have played in the cognitive and social development of BF. Virtually every culture mankind has come up with has integrated these substances to one degree or another.

I have no issue with that, I'd agree ... deer sheds are pretty common. That misses part of the point I tried to make. How many bigfoots should we assume are in Oregon just for the purposes of doing faux-math? Maybe 200? If they live 40 years on average, how many die each year? 5? Oregon has just passed 4 million people. How many dead bodies are found, outside of populated areas, other than during a formal search for the body so that someone just randomly finds someone not known to be missing? A dozen? Two dozen? See the proportions / scaling issue relative to assumption someone should just stumble over one? Think about burial situations. To be buried there has to be someone to do the burying. If they do bury at all, it implies some sort of social structure. In that sort of setting, it's less likely the very young or very old would be out alone. Those are the most likely to die. Those who did venture out alone would be the most healthy, most fit, least likely to die other than by accident. Even without burial, the numbers available to find are very low, and with burial, it drops to near nothing in a hurry, only accidental death of the most fit, most capable. A place risky for a bigfoot for accidental death might be pretty risky for us, too, reducing the number of people who might go there to find a body. (Agree? Disagree?) In other words, without burial, the number of bigfoots to find dead is low. If they do bury their dead, that number drops to .. 1 a year n my whole state maybe? And probably in a place nobody would be to look? This doesn't take weird "logic", it doesn't take "woo", it just takes understanding the numbers involved, the behaviors of people, then clearly thinking through the problem without preconceived ideas interfering. MIB

Well, chuckle it up. And congratulations - out of hundreds of deer - you occasionally find some antlers - that's quite an accomplishment. Find a good number of deer skeletons? After all, they're out there too. You find the antlers in the really thick stuff - like do you have to crawl around and break brush to penetrate the really thick brush to find these antlers? Find them in mountain crags and steep slopes? Most of them above 6,000 feet? Climb lots of 30-degree plus slopes to find them? Ever find any near water? You do know that over thousands of years, there's probably a few humans who've died in the very same area you find your antlers. Killed or dropped dead. Just how many human skeletons/skulls you find? Ever look at how many humans disappear in the wild - when hundreds and hundreds of searchers look for days and weeks, and never find anything? Are those the kinds of contortions you're referring to? No amazing contortions are required to realize the odds of finding a skeleton or body in the wild are very, very small. I hear that some folks postulate that critters have very small populations per hundred thousand acres. A whole lot less than bears, mountain lions, or wolverines as you mention. Think the numbers alone may contribute to the scarcity of remains? See - you got to do a bit of thinking. So we have a small population - relatively speaking - but you're forgetting one little thing. These are very elusive critters - and they don't walk the game trails so much - as they may parallel them to strike from ambush when hunting. They hold to the more difficult terrain. So while a coyote or bear, or deer may wander many terrains, they're not intelligent enough to realize they may be tracked or that humans even at distance, are quite a threat - although they do well enough avoiding humans. Terrain. Those animals that hold to difficult terrain - uncommonly visited by humans - would logically be more difficult to find remains of. Throw in the very good possibility that they live in family groups or clans - and that the multiples of reports of them carrying off their dead - and now you have an additional problem finding remains. And no, I don't expect anything of you. It's no skin off my nose what you believe. There are three legions of dead Romans somewhere in the Teutoberg forest - and while on occasion they'll find a coin, spear head, or other metallic artifact - they don't find the skeletons. Near Arbela, tens of thousands of Persians died at the hand of Alexander's Macedonians, and to this day, they're not absolutely certain in this flat land where the battle actually took place. By your logic, we should have thousands of remains so very easy to just go pick up and find. The real world doesn't work that way - contrary to your preference.

Inc1 - There is not "a" burial ground just as there is not "a" bigfoot. Whether or not there are truly burial grounds, I don't know. What I'd say is the evidence at the moment suggests burial is the most likely situation. Does not make it true. If we had **proof** of burial grounds, we'd have proof of bigfoot, right? So the idea of burial is merely the best fit for the data. That can change if there's more or a better fit theory comes along. I'd say no, human bodies are not discovered on a regular basis outside of populated areas if you leave out locating people known to be missing. Very few people in the outdoors, especially in remote areas, stumble over human bodies. With over 300,000,000 of us in the US and ... many fewer bigfoots ... finding bigfoot bodies scattered around doesn't seem too likely. I find .. maybe a dozen deer in a year. How may deer are there in my area compared to the number of bigfoots? I'm struggling for a way to say this without seeming sarcastic and pushing you into a corner. Uh ... I think your base assumptions about the outdoors are pretty far off track. MIB

Not sure how sarcastic Incorrigible intends to be, but humans and BF are about the only bipedal creatures in the woods equipped with arms and hands and that are capable of picking up and carrying off their adult dead for any reason. Could that explain why the BF heart attack sufferer is not found just laying around? Certainly explains why we do not find dead humans around much either even though hundreds of human hunters drop dead in the woods every year. We find them and carry them out. There have to be thousands of times more humans in the woods than BF and I have yet to find a dead human. Wolverines, mountain lions, ferrets and bears seem totally uninterested in moving their dead and without bipedal locomotion, arms and hands it would be difficult if they wanted to.

The Erickson Project was exposed when the photo of Matilda, that claimed to show a clear picture of bigfoot, was shown to be nothing more that a Chewbacca mask. Claims are that Erickson was duped by footers for some $600,000. I believe Moneymaker is on record as holding up Matilda as genuine and the picture that lead to his claims of bigfoot having a dog type nose. I believe that the project Bodhi referenced was the ill fated Falcon Project which was championed by Dr. Meldrum.