I Know I'm Beating A Dead Horse But Bigfoot Deserves Better

[norseman]

12 minutes ago, socialBigfoot said:

I wrote a post about the 'bones' argument a couple months ago on substack. There's a field of study called 'comparative thanatology' that has some application here -- its the study of how different species deal with the death of members of their group, flock, pod, herd, colony, etc. You can find it here if interested: https://thesocialbigfoot.substack.com/p/where-are-all-the-bones    

And there is also the topography of the area. Very few fossils of the Chimpanzee.

 

 

[guyzonthropus]

There wasn't geographic isolation from chimps when humans diverted? I would think speciation would have occurred between forest dwellers and those on the periphery of the plains/savannah, though I suppose there could still be contact between the two groups. Perhaps we were shunned by the chimps once we started our transition to bipedalism "oh they think they're just so upright and tall and always going on about their precision grip! Big deal!"

[norseman]

5 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

There wasn't geographic isolation from chimps when humans diverted? I would think speciation would have occurred between forest dwellers and those on the periphery of the plains/savannah, though I suppose there could still be contact between the two groups. Perhaps we were shunned by the chimps once we started our transition to bipedalism "oh they think they're just so upright and tall and always going on about their precision grip! Big deal!"

I was addressing why we may not find Bigfoot bones. I have only found one bear skeleton in my life. 
 

Chimp fossils are also not prevalent because of moist jungle conditions. Which would also apply to early hominid fossils, until they got to arid areas, like the rift valley.

[Backdoc]

^^^

 

On a Discovery Channel type show Jeff Meldrum made this point, and the "Skeptic" Eric Began (?) concurred it was a reasonable position.     He seemed to do it reluctantly, but he did at least agree.   

 

 

 

 

 

[Catmandoo]

Good points Norseman. Preservation of bones is not easy. We have high latitude permafrost
preservation of fauna bone collections of Glacial Lake Outburst Floods in Alaska, high latitude,
high altitude mummy finds in the Andes, and intermediate the high latitudes we have peat bogs,
tar pits, arid climates ( rift valley Africa ) and arid areas of Australia in the way of finding Mungo
Man and Mungo Woman.
Scavengers eat and scatter the kills of other predators. The African Savanna has been in front of
cameras for a long time. Predators rarely get to eat their kills. Scavengers swarm and take over
the carrion and scatter it. The African Leopards / Black Panthers are an exception to the
'smorgasbord' ground level frenzy. They drag various sized prey up into trees for undisturbed
days of meals.
My point is, out in the open, bones are widely scattered and animals that need bone marrow and
calcium will eat the bones but leave the teeth*. Simple, basic separation, excluding soil acidity
leaves us with 'open ground' and caves. Scavengers drag carrion parts into caves attempting to
have a secluded area for meals. An interesting fact about Gigantopithecus blacki is that the only
known mandibles and teeth are 'cave finds'. It is believed that porcupines ate the bones for the
calcium and not the teeth. I would guess that the old world porcupines in that area had wicked
quills. I am not of the belief that Giganto traveled out of Asia.
Wiley Online Library has a free article on Giganto. It is a good read.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23150
Keep in mind that when you are on Safari in Africa and a skeleton falls out of a tree, jump back
into the Land Rover and punch it.
For the rest of us, never go into caves (bats, bat guano).
* footnote. I believe that Alligator snapping turtles eat everything including teeth. An area lacking predators of any size will have weathered  skeletons that have been picked clean by birds and microbes. I have only seen one example in the way of a dog skeleton.

[Backdoc]

 

 

I think if Bigfoot exists it will be hard to find bones as much as it is hard to find the bones of all kind of animals known to man.

 

Couldn’t we just put it in perspective by choosing any rare known animal thought to still be more common than Bigfoot?

 

I doubt there are many bones found of wolverines, certainly not many condor bones out there.   Passenger pigeons filled the sky.  Now they are extinct.  Where are the passengers pigeons bones?

 

If Bigfoot is out there it’s near extinct.   If it dies -as all things do - I don’t think we have to believe they bury their dead.   In no time, that body would be gone.  Normal nature already tells us why you won’t find a Bigfoot body in the woods unless you shoot one.     

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

On 5/2/2025 at 10:07 PM, Backdoc said:

 

 

I think if Bigfoot exists it will be hard to find bones as much as it is hard to find the bones of all kind of animals known to man.

 

Couldn’t we just put it in perspective by choosing any rare known animal thought to still be more common than Bigfoot?

 

I doubt there are many bones found of wolverines, certainly not many condor bones out there.   Passenger pigeons filled the sky.  Now they are extinct.  Where are the passengers pigeons bones?

 

If Bigfoot is out there it’s near extinct.   If it dies -as all things do - I don’t think we have to believe they bury their dead.   In no time, that body would be gone.  Normal nature already tells us why you won’t find a Bigfoot body in the woods unless you shoot one.     

 

 

 

 

Which is why the argument that they are too rare or threatened to be harvested in the name of science is null and void.

 

If a population cannot suffer the loss of one or two individuals? It’s on its way out anyway, so why would science not want to document it? 
 

And it would appear that genetic labs are bringing back a whole host of extinct animals. So why not preserve the genetic legacy in the hopes that in the future it can be reintroduced?

[Backdoc]

19 hours ago, norseman said:

 

 

If a population cannot suffer the loss of one or two individuals? It’s on its way out anyway, so why would science not want to document it? 

 

 

 

 

It's taken heroic means to save the Condor.  It remains to be seen if we can save it long term or increase the population in future decades.   It's a lot easier to trap or grab those last few condors in the wild and try to get them help they needed when they were almost extinct.   This has helped.  

 

 

Moving on to Bigfoot:   If Bigfoot exists, we have two types of pathways to try to save Bigfoot.  1) Save it because we would try to save any animal, snake, bunny rabbit or whatever.   2) Save it because it is some human like ape of a higher order so it's less moral to kill it or allow it to be killed off.

 

Under either circumstance, I am of the opinion of Grover Kranz where he basically said science will only accept a body.  If it is the last one,  it was the last one anyway.     

 

 

I can see a scenario where someone shoots Bigfoot. After the news hype calms there is quick movement to save Bigfoot from killing as an assumed endangered species.    In this way the death of one Bigfoot (Body on a slab) results in efforts to help the population and understanding long term.  

 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Backdoc

[norseman]

44 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

 

 

It's taken heroic means to save the Condor.  It remains to be seen if we can save it long term or increase the population in future decades.   It's a lot easier to trap or grab those last few condors in the wild and try to get them help they needed when they were almost extinct.   This has helped.  

 

 

Moving on to Bigfoot:   If Bigfoot exists, we have two types of pathways to try to save Bigfoot.  1) Save it because we would try to save any animal, snake, bunny rabbit or whatever.   2) Save it because it is some human like ape of a higher order so it's less moral to kill it or allow it to be killed off.

 

Under either circumstance, I am of the opinion of Grover Kranz where he basically said science will only accept a body.  If it is the last one,  it was the last one anyway.     

 

 

I can see a scenario where someone shoots Bigfoot. After the news hype calms there is quick movement to save Bigfoot from killing as an assumed endangered species.    In this way the death of one Bigfoot (Body on a slab) results in efforts to help the population and understanding long term.  

 

 

 

Fully agree.