The Bones Debate

[Guest]

Okay all, this was a topic that I was very involved in on the preceding closed forums,and I remember what a great debate it was as we put forth theories about why do we not have acknowledged nor recognized BF bones.

My theory is that we do have BF bones, they have just not been recognized for what they are.

As a young woman I toured the basement of the London Museum of Natural History and The Smithsonian.

Thanks to family connections, and in part, the fact that my sister and I were included because of my dad's friends, we saw stuff not on display. There are way more levels to both museums than anyone could ever suspect.

I was not searching for BF bones when I was there, but as I look back and remember the thousands of unidentified bones, absolutely multiple levels of bones stored away in both museums, some placed in large open trays from floor to almost ceiling height, I cannot help but think that BF is in storage, and due to the "junk science" opinion scientists have towards all things Bigfoot,Those bones will continue to be stored until a body is found, or DNA proves the reality of a new species.

Scientists need proof, bones do not a BF make without a recognized BF body to send the scientists to start doing research on what they already have.

The DNA samples may actually open some scientists eyes, and bring about further disclosure.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Bigfoot doesn't have bones. They are all cartilage and goo.

[Guest Sallaranda]

Most of the bones you would have seen have been looked over by professionals and disregarded as unimportant or invaluable. If a Sasquatch bone were to get donated to a museum, chances are somebody would stop and notice.

I think the reason we haven't found Sasquatch bones is because we haven't looked for them. How many times have forests in Western North America been excavated for fossils? Furthermore, if Sasquatches were to live in caves, then their bones would likely be found in caves. Maybe it's just a matter of finding and investigating these caves, instead of disregarding them as bear dens all the time.

[Guest ajciani]

First, I'm sure everything in the museum underwent a preliminary inspection before being put into a box. Certainly anyone with a reasonable knowledge about human anatomy would have hit on the feet, hands or skull as being unusual. Now, this doesn't mean that they fully investigated the skeleton or noted it down as anything particularly special. Depending on when it was first collected, they may have just noted down, "giant Indian with negroid skull," or something like that. Although I still think something unusual would have been recognized and handled specially.

I think the real issue is that bigfoots may not leave much behind in the way of bones. There are reports of them living in caves, but most of the known caves were discovered before anthropology really got a good foundation, and so many of the bone finds may well be reburied or sitting in unobtrusive boxes. Even if they lived in caves, they probably didn't go all that deep inside, so their bodies and bones would have been little better off than left out in the woods. Also, paleolithic bones would be buried under the dirt of the cave floors, or encrusted in limestone. Many reports indicate that bigfoots live in the forests, and may use outcroppings and overhangs for shelter.

Dying in the forest is a pretty good way to never leave bones. Scavengers would crunch up bones, and what was not consumed by animals, would be consumed by soil bacteria and acids leached from fallen leaves. If an animal died in a location where it might create a fossil, then its bones are exactly where fossils need to be; in the ground and out of sight.

It has been suggested that bigfoots bury their dead, which might help in finding bones, if not for the obvious problem; they are buried. I myself have come upon a suspicious mound, I have read a BFRO report about somebody encountering a bigfoot near a suspicious mound, and a contact has told me about some suspicious mounds in an area with a lot of activity. I never got a good opportunity to dig up the mound I found. These things are not just sitting out beside trails waiting to be found either, so finding them involves a little lucky, if you even recognize it as a potential grave. Someday, someone will take a shovel to one and find bones.

On the other side, there are the Minaret Skull and the Rugg Tooth. The "skull" was actually a skull fragment, which was examined and found to be hominoid, and very interesting, but it has been lost. The Rugg Tooth was found near Santa Cruz, and appeared to be a gigantic human molar showing substantial wear. It is being genetically tested by Melba Ketchum. It was already examined independently by six dentists, who all concluded, "human, but gigantic."

I also hesitate to include this, but the Searching for Bigfoot people claim to have a giant hominoid fingernail that was found in a possible bedding site. I have no idea how authentic their claim is, or if they tested it.

[Guest Sallaranda]

That was an interesting read, aj. Good post!

I haven't heard about the mounds before, but it's certainly an interesting theory! The only animal to my knowledge that buries their dead is a human! Whether this is instinctively an evolutionary trait or just the product of society may be put to the test here. If we do it and Bigfoot does it, does that prove some sort of close relationship? Maybe we can stop talking about feet and start talking about behavioral evolution.

[wolftrax]

I think bones mistaken to be elk are actually sasquatch...

[Guest ThePattyArcade]

I think Sasquatch may bury their dead. It's a theory that's open to a lot of criticism, but I can't think of any other explanation. The ones that don't get buried probably quickly decompose in the forest environment

[southernyahoo]

I wasn't aware of the tooth AJ, thats cool. I think the majority of bigfoot bones are under ground, either placed there by them or us. Maybe a few in some box in an anthropologists lab or museum.

[Guest LAL]

I think Sasquatch may bury their dead. It's a theory that's open to a lot of criticism, but I can't think of any other explanation. The ones that don't get buried probably quickly decompose in the forest environment

Sick and dying animals tend to conceal themselves anyway. Who's going to find them?

The scavenger system is very efficient. Mice eat bones for calcium. In the PNW club moss quickly covers everything where it can grow. Bone, stone or mushroom under that lump in the moss? Who checks?

[Guest fenris]

Okay all, this was a topic that I was very involved in on the preceding closed forums,and I remember what a great debate it was as we put forth theories about why do we not have acknowledged nor recognized BF bones.

My theory is that we do have BF bones, they have just not been recognized for what they are.

As a young woman I toured the basement of the London Museum of Natural History and The Smithsonian.

Thanks to family connections, and in part, the fact that my sister and I were included because of my dad's friends, we saw stuff not on display. There are way more levels to both museums than anyone could ever suspect.

I was not searching for BF bones when I was there, but as I look back and remember the thousands of unidentified bones, absolutely multiple levels of bones stored away in both museums, some placed in large open trays from floor to almost ceiling height, I cannot help but think that BF is in storage, and due to the "junk science" opinion scientists have towards all things Bigfoot,Those bones will continue to be stored until a body is found, or DNA proves the reality of a new species.

Scientists need proof, bones do not a BF make without a recognized BF body to send the scientists to start doing research on what they already have.

The DNA samples may actually open some scientists eyes, and bring about further disclosure.

Two very simple potential explanations for the lack there of....

1) Ever seen a time lapse demontration of how long a deer carcass lasts on the forest floor? Not long, and unless you find squatchy right after he drops, you likley won't, scavengers combine with factors like leaf litter or snow in the winter where something might well be more likley to freeze or starve...

2) They're a form of prooto human something taht buries it's dead. I favor the likelihood of a proto hominid over Giganto simply because the giganto coming over the land bridge theory just falls flat on it's face so miserably.

[Guest fenris]

I think bones mistaken to be elk are actually sasquatch...

only the ass bone.

[Guest LAL]

2) They're a form of prooto human something taht buries it's dead. I favor the likelihood of a proto hominid over Giganto simply because the giganto coming over the land bridge theory just falls flat on it's face so miserably.

And why does it fall flat on its face?

[Guest]

Most of the bones you would have seen have been looked over by professionals and disregarded as unimportant or invaluable. If a Sasquatch bone were to get donated to a museum, chances are somebody would stop and notice.

I think the reason we haven't found Sasquatch bones is because we haven't looked for them. How many times have forests in Western North America been excavated for fossils? Furthermore, if Sasquatches were to live in caves, then their bones would likely be found in caves. Maybe it's just a matter of finding and investigating these caves, instead of disregarding them as bear dens all the time.

Sallaranda, I like your thought about the caves, also, scavengers would drag stuff hither and yon wherever a BF may die. Lots of animals do seek shelter when they realize they are dying. That's sad Dying and suffering alone.

[Guest]

Sick and dying animals tend to conceal themselves anyway. Who's going to find them?

The scavenger system is very efficient. Mice eat bones for calcium. In the PNW club moss quickly covers everything where it can grow. Bone, stone or mushroom under that lump in the moss? Who checks?

So that explains the chunks in my club moss soup.

[Guest]

First, I'm sure everything in the museum underwent a preliminary inspection before being put into a box. Certainly anyone with a reasonable knowledge about human anatomy would have hit on the feet, hands or skull as being unusual. Now, this doesn't mean that they fully investigated the skeleton or noted it down as anything particularly special. Depending on when it was first collected, they may have just noted down, "giant Indian with negroid skull," or something like that. Although I still think something unusual would have been recognized and handled specially.

I think the real issue is that bigfoots may not leave much behind in the way of bones. There are reports of them living in caves, but most of the known caves were discovered before anthropology really got a good foundation, and so many of the bone finds may well be reburied or sitting in unobtrusive boxes. Even if they lived in caves, they probably didn't go all that deep inside, so their bodies and bones would have been little better off than left out in the woods. Also, paleolithic bones would be buried under the dirt of the cave floors, or encrusted in limestone. Many reports indicate that bigfoots live in the forests, and may use outcroppings and overhangs for shelter.

Dying in the forest is a pretty good way to never leave bones. Scavengers would crunch up bones, and what was not consumed by animals, would be consumed by soil bacteria and acids leached from fallen leaves. If an animal died in a location where it might create a fossil, then its bones are exactly where fossils need to be; in the ground and out of sight.

It has been suggested that bigfoots bury their dead, which might help in finding bones, if not for the obvious problem; they are buried. I myself have come upon a suspicious mound, I have read a BFRO report about somebody encountering a bigfoot near a suspicious mound, and a contact has told me about some suspicious mounds in an area with a lot of activity. I never got a good opportunity to dig up the mound I found. These things are not just sitting out beside trails waiting to be found either, so finding them involves a little lucky, if you even recognize it as a potential grave. Someday, someone will take a shovel to one and find bones.

On the other side, there are the Minaret Skull and the Rugg Tooth. The "skull" was actually a skull fragment, which was examined and found to be hominoid, and very interesting, but it has been lost. The Rugg Tooth was found near Santa Cruz, and appeared to be a gigantic human molar showing substantial wear. It is being genetically tested by Melba Ketchum. It was already examined independently by six dentists, who all concluded, "human, but gigantic."

I also hesitate to include this, but the Searching for Bigfoot people claim to have a giant hominid fingernail that was found in a possible bedding site. I have no idea how authentic their claim is, or if they tested it.

'ajciani'said:

I also hesitate to include this, but the Searching for Bigfoot people claim to have a giant hominoid fingernail that was found in a possible bedding site. I have no idea how authentic their claim is, or if they tested it.

Susi thinks:

I'm not put off by those type of TV shows having something analyzed.

Destination Truth had possible blond Yettie hairs analyzed, and the result was unknown Humanoid species.

Dr. Ketchum(sp?) did the analysis from her genetic laboratory.

Hmm, Makes one think, doesn't it?