The Kill Club

[Explorer]

FarArcher,

 

Are you suggesting that folks will not succeed in trying to get a specimen?

 

Why is it that difficult to hunt another bone and meat animal? No matter how intelligent it is, shouldn't humans be able to outsmart it?

 

Do you have any theories on why game cameras don't capture them?

[FarArcher]

No, I'm not suggesting anything to anyone.

 

I'm just saying there's no upside for ME.  The next time I go out, it won't be to hunt them, as I know where a clan lives.  I'll be going out to bring one back, by negating a few of their advantages.  No guessing.  Nothing left to chance.

 

Why is it that difficult to hunt another meat and bone animal?  Because others tend to think they're hunting an animal.  They think we're smart and the animal is dumb.  Maybe in a library with rows of computers, or in a machine shop we'd be the smart ones and them the dumb ones - but in THEIR element - they're the smart ones, and we're the dumb ones. 

[SWWASAS]

Well said FarArcher.    I will bet that with most BF sightings the human never recognizes what he is looking at.      They go into stump mode or into a crouch when they are caught in the open and the human never recognizes what they are looking at but just moves on past.   BF are the masters of their element and most modern humans the outsiders.   

Edited September 24, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest]

 Patty in the PGF doesnt look like an apparition to me so my thoughts for Joe or native americans is that maybe somehow there are apparitions of squatches after they die.  There are numerous reportings of phantom animals so a phantom bigfoot is also possible? But the thousands of reports to be coming from apparitions just doesnt make much sense to me.  Especially since there are few if any reports mentioning squatches being ghostlike that l know of. I have only read a few hundred reports at most and so far I havent seen any. I did enjoy your post Joe and it was well written.

 

I like your confidence and posts on the matter FarArcher.  Very well said. The creatures you have seen. Do they look like Patty? or more human like?

 

That always confuses me when we see all the pics that look like Patty or a wookie and then I see reports of some looking more human like. 

 

Also how can a homo sapien be an avg of 7-9 ft tall and have no neck and be covered in hair with a domed head and have longer arms etc and still be considered a human or homo sapien?  I dont see the logic in that type of thinking.  Missing link maybe? But human/homo sapien?  That makes no sense. 

 

My biggest problem about existence is the fossil history. They should be in the rock record. Not sure what you are referring to Far Archer about the history can you explain what you meant?

 

Great thread guys keep it going!!!!

[SWWASAS]

Lack of fossil record is easily explained by the geology of the Pacific Northwest.     If one presumes that most BF who have ever lived have lived in the dense forests of the PNW,  then just that fact explains why there are no BF fossils found.     To create a fossil you have to rapidly cover a living or dead animal or decomposition and scavengers quick disperse and eat the remains.        That takes catastrophic events like flash floods,   landslides,  mass extinction event like what killed the dinosaurs,  or volcanic eruptions.     Floods like the Missoula floods may have trapped and buried BF but they would be under hundreds of feet of soil deposited by the many flood events.   Unlikely to be found because of the depth.  Flash floods are not frequent in the rain forests of the PNW because much of the land is covered with hard basalt and it pours rain all winter anyway.     Much of the PNW that is not mountainous is covered with Columbia River Basalts that were deposited over the period of 10 to 17 million years ago.   Anything buried under this is covered by 2000 to 5900 feet of hard basalt and will never be found.     Nearly every Western region known as BF habitat is volcanic.    While ash flows and pyroclastic flows can cover and would reserve BF, as volcanoes tend to do, they keep spitting out materials and cover the land around them getting taller and taller until they have an eruption that blows them and everything around them to pieces.     While there may be fossils under what surrounds the volcanoes in the ash portions,   they are likely continuously buried under deeper layers until a volcano blows.   If not protected by ash, lava flows will melt and cover much of the surface of the region.    Geologically speaking the PNW is the youngest land on the continent, the surface being constantly buried by volcanism.       The nearest locations where fossils of any kind are found are in Eastern Oregon and Washington, where deposits were laid down by inland seas and lakes.     Marine fossils are found in sandstone rocks near the coastal regions that were pushed up by the Pacific Subduction zone and formed into ancient mountains that have mostly eroded away.   Most of those being marine life.   But those ancient fossils predate any primates.     So other than pockets of inland seas in the intermountain regions,  most fossils in North America are East of the Rockies and were formed from the many inland seas that flooded the interior of the continent or from the mass extinction even 65 million years ago that killed all the dinosaurs and enabled mammals to begin to develop from small rodent like things to what we have now.     Throw in glaciation from the last ice age,  grinding away the regions around mountains,   the rising sea level since the last ice age,   and much of the geological history of the PNW is simply buried to deep under water or volcanic debris to find any fossils.      So the where are the fossil question is very much related to the geology of the region.              

[FarArcher]

I don't think most folks know what it takes to form a "fossil."  In the nineteenth century, there were millions of buffalo, most killed by buffalo hunters, many of whom only took the tongue - leaving the remainder untouched.

 

Millions. And not one ever did, or ever will become a fossil.  Not one.  They'll just deteriorate and powder - and in fact, most of them have disappeared already.

 

When they did up entire shoals of fish fossils, does anyone ever give thought to what had to happen for all those fish to become fossils?

 

There had to be a catastrophic event, sufficient to instantly bury these creatures underneath untold tons and tons of earth.  It has to be massive, and it has to be instantaneous.  Otherwise, the tissue and bones just disintegrate and leach out into the surrounding matrix.

 

When your pet goldfish dies, what's your first indicator?  That's right - it bloats and floats to the top to be organically broken down.  That goldfish will never become a fossil, regardless of what you have on the bottom of your tank.

 

This infatuation with fossils is a bit tedious and overestimated.  I can bury a $20 double eagle on my property, and I might even tell you just about where it is.  But if you miss it by three inches - you missed it.  Just because you can't find that double eagle doesn't mean it's not there.  Or worse, that it doesn't exist. 

 

Fossils are found largely by luck.  Extreme luck.  Even if you have a proven fossil field - the finds you may seek after may still elude you - simply because you missed it by a few inches.

 

I assure you, there are many more fossils, including creatures never before seen, in the fossil record - and they're discovered on a regular basis - more and more and more.

 

The fossils of hominids are kinda skinny as it is.  Then the scientific oriented gents with credentials falling out their fourth point of contact will conjure up untold characteristics with a few teeth, maybe a jawbone - and in the next county what may be a partial pelvic shard. 

 

We're supposed to believe their "scientifically-sanitized and approved" baloney - when in fact - every postulation they present in the history of man has been incorrect - and they must constantly move the goal posts.

 

Somebody gimme a break.

 

 

 

Size16 - I'm not sure what Patty looks like.  No detail.

 

Mine was ugly.  Real ugly.  Worse than my ex-son-in-law. 

 

Had a much larger head, much larger eyes - dark eyes - much higher up on the face, and right above the eyes, his forehead wasn't "flat" like ours, but sloped immediately back. 

 

I'd imagine that they have different looks, just like Eddie Murphy doesn't look much like Dolph Lundgren, who doesn't look much like Jackie Chan.  Somehow, there are those who think these things are cloned, and won't or can't allow for variations.

 

I have confidence because I know if I do certain things - they'll do certain things.  If I'm in one spot - they know I'm in that spot.  And they can apparently count - meaning - they apparently know when someone is missing.  And I have to account for that as well.

 

Not a problem.  I just have to make a few adjustments.  You get someone - even a human - accustomed to seeing one thing, and take advantage of it.

[norseman]

We find Bison bones in the badlands all the time. And thats not all, alot of dino fossils are found out here as well.

Everyone on the crew wants find this guy,

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndfossil/poster/PDF/Bison%20latifrons.pdf

Big money.

Edited September 25, 2015 by norseman

[FarArcher]

How 'bout those millions of buffalo?  Find a lot of those too?

 

One location can have a lot of a particular fossils - I know some shale fields where shoals and shoals are full of fish fossils, complete with skin outlines - just perfect.

 

How many of these bison skulls you found - if they're plentiful, and in this one area?

[norseman]

https://theamethystdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/pile-of-buffalo-bones-jpg.jpg

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/year-old-bison-bone-site-mired-in-controversy/article_012f58bb-ae14-5dbd-ac4c-f57b6d4aa474.html

Found two skulls and assorted bones while rebuilding a oil field pad for a single well probably a area 300'x300'

Edited September 25, 2015 by norseman

[FarArcher]

Those skull and buffalo bones left on the surface will never become fossils.  Period.  Many piles of bones were accumulated where the tribes had a spot, they'd stamped them, running them over a cliff - and many bone piles still exist in these locations. 

 

Those bones will continue to deteriorate, erode, and fall apart.  In time, they won't be anything but dust.  I have found Indian fire pits with tons of oyster shells, bones, and pottery shards from about 200 years ago.  Of course the pottery shards and oyster shells are much more complete than the bones and bone fragments.

 

You made my point.  You found those bones while digging.  By accident.  Not by going out and picking them up, or excavating for the purpose of digging up these species.  And the masses of these things were documented to be in the millions and millions.

 

Bigfoot?  Not so much.

[MagniAesir]

The problem with this whole you won't find a fossil in the PNW argument is that

there are no fossils anywhere in the world that match sasquatch

Even if you believe that G.Blacki is sasquatch or it's ancestor, you still don't find it's fossils outside of China or south east Asia

And we know that Siberia has produced some wonderful fossils and bones from the mega fauna era, when sasquatch would have presumably migrated here

And forgetting fossils for the moment, we have discovered the bones of humans and animals all over North America including the PNW that are thousands of years old

So far

No bodies

No bones

No fossils

And yet there are numerous people all over North America that claim habitations, multiple sightings and knowledge of these creatures

If the majority of these people are truthful, how can we not have this physical evidence?

I will keep hunting them, however I know what value I put on free advice

[FarArcher]

I would suggest that in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, there were many skeletons and skulls found, many sent to the Smithsonian, and subsequently destroyed, hidden, or tossed away to prevent any change in the narrative that anthropologists had already set in stone.

 

Some of these were simply giants.  Scores were found by the Smithsonian itself while excavating mounds through a significant excavation grant, and those were concealed from the record and from their narrative - problem is - they were reported and commented on by many who were there when the excavations took place.  Some bones, and especially skulls found mining or excavating, were much different than simple giant humans, with sloping foreheads, and were described as much more primitive in appearance.

 

I disagree that no fossils have been found.

 

There is and was a battle between theological indicators and science which had to eliminate at all costs - those indicators accepted by theological texts - as they were an affront to Darwinism.  It wasn't me - it was others.  Anthropologists are notorious for not letting the facts speak for themselves.  Even today, they want to hold to long-held erroneous fabrications which science projects as the truth, in spite of recent findings that prove their story is wrong, their timeline is wrong, and their location/population spread is wrong.

 

They get physical evidence, toss it, and then say there's no physical evidence. 

 

That's not the way it works.

[norseman]

Those skull and buffalo bones left on the surface will never become fossils.  Period.  Many piles of bones were accumulated where the tribes had a spot, they'd stamped them, running them over a cliff - and many bone piles still exist in these locations. 

 

Those bones will continue to deteriorate, erode, and fall apart.  In time, they won't be anything but dust.  I have found Indian fire pits with tons of oyster shells, bones, and pottery shards from about 200 years ago.  Of course the pottery shards and oyster shells are much more complete than the bones and bone fragments.

 

You made my point.  You found those bones while digging.  By accident.  Not by going out and picking them up, or excavating for the purpose of digging up these species.  And the masses of these things were documented to be in the millions and millions.

 

Bigfoot?  Not so much.

Im simply stating that we have found bones and the second article found a giant pile of bones 20,000 years old. We have NO shortage of Bison bones. We have thousands of specimens for millions of living animals.

But if Squatch is a low density population of forest dwelling creatures? I can understand why we dont have a fossil yet.

[FarArcher]

Same as I said, the buffalo nor bison bones will never become fossils.  Unless Yellowstone pops off in the next little bit.

[norseman]

No, the 20,000 year old excavation near Hardin would be considered fossils.

So would be our skulls that we dug out of the badlands.

Do not know why eastern MT and ND seem to be such a hotspot.