Guest Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Maybe bigfoot is not unlike a cat when it's close to death? Goes and finds somewhere safe and familiar to rest/try heal and then kicks the bucket? Uh... yep. Cats all over the woods around here. Found everything else... but I've never found a cat skull. And I'm in the woods every day. Just saying.
Guest Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Same here. I've hunted hundreds of times in Colorado, North Carolina, & Texas. I've come across one or two dog, deer, cat, opossum, coyote, squirrel, bird, and of course cattle carcasses. But these are very common. I've never come across a carcass of the more elusive & careful species... bear, fox, bobcat, cougar, turkey... or Bigfoot.
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 I can't remember the documentary I saw, but it followed an old silverback gorilla. He left the group and went to a bush covered hillside overlooking a valley and just sat down, he stayed in place for over a day (might have been a couple of days), just looking out over the valley and sometimes sleeping, then he just died in that sitting position in the middle of the bushes. It was very peaceful. On another thread it was mentioned that people that are lost and know they are about to die also seem to have an instinct to find a protected place to die.
Guest Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Great story. However, in regards to explaining the thin odds of coming across the carcass of BF, this wouldn't account for a sudden, accidental death away from it's group (ie. falling off a cliff).
Guest Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 I'd say small population and the potential for burial as some say, if thats true that would really cut down on potential bones. Best bet would be finding a young male without a group? But even then, you need a young fit male to die somewhere easy enough for a person to find and we don't know if young males are even outcast or just beaten into place by the alpha. I'm suscribing to the theory a few have been found and ignored by folks who think BF is made up.
Guest Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Same here. Hell, come to think of it, I've got a large chunk of hide & fur I bought off an old man many years ago who claimed it was a Bigfoot that his granddad shot. He was hard up for money and was selling it. It was more of a personal joke because I really assumed it was a bear at first glance. I'm a Bigfoot enthusiast with a large piece of unverified hide who hasn't even been properly tested the piece of carcass in his hands! Come to think of it, perhaps I should get it tested... at least post some pics/color reference of it, right? Edited June 2, 2012 by Sommersby
Guest jimmy simpson Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 We can't have it both ways. If BF exists, remains must be found or it isn't there. The lack of remains is a huge problem for this field. That's why I advocate killing one, but only one, if possible. agreed
Guest thermalman Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) I can't remember the documentary I saw, but it followed an old silverback gorilla. He left the group and went to a bush covered hillside overlooking a valley and just sat down, he stayed in place for over a day (might have been a couple of days), just looking out over the valley and sometimes sleeping, then he just died in that sitting position in the middle of the bushes. It was very peaceful. On another thread it was mentioned that people that are lost and know they are about to die also seem to have an instinct to find a protected place to die. Or, they die trying to survive. As was the case of the man who froze to death trying to search for help in Oregon two years ago. His wife and young kids stayed behind in the vehicle, that was stuck in the snow. The errant GPS reading took them down an unplowed mountain road. Edited June 5, 2012 by thermalman
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 Is it just me or are we becoming spatially stupid with reliance on GPS? A good map, a compass, fixing location with terrain... all those things we learned back when I was young all seem to be untaught today. Thanks for starting that separate thread with your hide Sommersby!
Guest Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) The literature is filled with references to possible dead or remnant parts of bigfoot. * Raincoast Sasquatch for example gives three good evaluations of what was found, when and by who. And why the material was not collected. Similar situation in Apes Among Us by John Green. Also describes an impact hit of a Sasquatch by a trucker with a semi truck. Most people ... in the dark.. after seeing something that they believed was a fairy tale.. are not especially interested to hang around and see if its dead yet.... but now it might be different with the masses who have been exposed to the idea.. still waiting though and that doesnt make sense. J Bindernagel saw few or no bear carcasses in his work as a Canadian biologist. Most bear biologists do not see them. If they are more than 100x more common than bigfoot, even 200x more common, then it begins to make a little more sense. The earlier times, pre internet, were much more difficult communication and believeability wise than present. I see we still have a few things to hash out here regarding believeability.. lol So you can imagine why so many were hesitant to share any information with anyone else.... * Although.. there are a lot of questions regarding the accuracy of many statements which.. often are not backed up, unable to offer significant documentation on the questions surrounding ea claimed incident. Edited June 18, 2012 by treeknocker
Terry Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Also, NONE of those species has anything like a primates intelligence. If this is a primate, and moreso, if it is a hominid, then burying their dead, or at least carrying them to a specific location is a very distinct possibility. That's assuming a bf that dies has other bf around to bury him/her. If a so called bf were alone when it died, the remains would be there for the world to see until it disappeared by natural means. A case in point, a good friend of mine is a logger. He was operating a skidder and noticed in the landing, someone had placed a skull on one of the log piles. He asked about it and one of the cutters said he'd found the "bear's" skull and some bones in the bush and thought it was kinda neat. Frank looked closer and it was a human skull. They called the cops and it turned out to be an old guy who'd been lost and never found a couple of years previous. We bury our dead but there was no one around to bury him so there he lay for a couple of years until he was found! t. TreeKnocker said: J Bindernagel saw few or no bear carcasses in his work as a Canadian biologist. Most bear biologists do not see them. A biologist isn't a good example to use. They don't spend enough time in the wilderness. They are mostly desk bound no matter what you think and they will usually be the first to tell you that. At least the ones that I worked with would. You have to use loggers, timber cruisers, forest technicians, etc. as your example. We had a number of bear skulls in my office that field staff had found. t.
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 That's interesting that someone would mistake a human skull for a bear skull. Human perception tends to be shaped by what we expect to see in context. If you see a skull in the woods I can see how you might expect that it is an animal skull rather than a human skull. With this example I wonder how many people may have stumbled across bones of a BF but simply had no idea what they were and thought they were some sort of known animal, like a bear?
Recommended Posts