Let's Do Some Math...

[BC witness]

Interesting point, roguefooter. As you're blading the grade for a logging road, you notice some large bones in the berm you've just cut; since they are larger than a human's would be, do you even bother to take a look, or simply dismiss them as moose, elk, cow, bear, or any other large forest dweller? I think the average operator, not having any interest in BF, would probably keep on going without a second thought. You, being interested in this subject, might take the time to investigate, but I feel you'd be the exception, not the rule.

 

The only burial stories related to BF that I've read have mentioned them making pits in talus slopes by removing stones and boulders, then piling them back over the body. That's not usually where a logging road would be made, as undercutting the loose rock slope would make for a very unsafe roadway.

[roguefooter]

^Well remember that every body comes with a skull, and I don't think anybody would just cover that up.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

(I think my post came across a bit snide, so I'll apologize in advance).

 

Thoughts?

Here's mine:  your post didn't come across as anything but spot on.

 

As usual, the 'skeptics' (not!) are True Believing that Something Must Have Happened By Now, when copious reports from hunters give - and could not be more clear - copious reasons why it hasn't.

 

If you just insist on True Believing that those explanations aren't adequate...well, that is what True Belief is like.  Denial, too.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Why don't you address the particular issues in this thread instead of regurgitating your one size fits all post that you refuse to back up?

[BobbyO]

^Well remember that every body comes with a skull, and I don't think anybody would just cover that up.

Do they ?

All of the time ?

I don't think so.

[Guest DWA]

Not even close; not even near; and to presume that anyone finding a skull would just run in and blatt it to the world, well, humans don't work that way.

 

Not everyone volunteers for the circus.  Fewer still would volunteer for this one.

[dmaker]

Why don't you address the particular issues in this thread instead of regurgitating your one size fits all post that you refuse to back up?

If it's not mentioned by Meldrum or Bindernagel specifically, not likely to be seen here by DWA.

[Incorrigible1]

At some point our illustrious poster that simply posts the same thing in every thread should simply type "ditto" to save himself much finger-sweat.

[dmaker]

Not even close; not even near; and to presume that anyone finding a skull would just run in and blatt it to the world, well, humans don't work that way.

 

Not everyone volunteers for the circus.  Fewer still would volunteer for this one.

Not sure about that one. I know archaeologists have very strict rules and protocols about what to do when human remains are discovered. I would even guess that ignoring human remains might even be a crime in certain areas. Even if it is not a crime, I think there is a certain moral imperative to report here. Imagine if it was some poor soul whose family needed closure; or perhaps a critical clue in an important criminal case.   I don't think, at all, that this is something that people would just shrug and move on. Especially since the implication that you are making is that they do not want to bring attention to the skull in case it's a bigfoot skull? Or why would they ignore it, exactly, in your opinion? 

 

 

"Alas, poor Squatchy, I knew him well."

 

 

 

sorry, couldn't resist  

Edited April 9, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest]

If we do want to hunt/kill BF, I think it is obvious not many humans alive today have the skill set to give them anything like a probability of succeeding, and the numbers of those actually in the field trying to do it, are vanishingly small at this stage. (Not meant as a sleight at all to those who are going to school on those skills and trying to increase the number of  boots on the ground). I would not be telling you anything surprising if I pointed out that bear don't enjoy the same advantages. So, the probabilities of a man with a gun coming within shooting range of a BF are predicted to be overwhelmingly in the category of chance encounter. Reading through the sighting reports for those reported by armed witnesses you'll find more than a couple. I only know of one who confessed to actually squeezing off a round and missing, and he thought it was a bear he was shooting at.  I can think of at least a half-dozen modern reports that document a purported kill, but the body was abandoned out of fear and uncertainty as to what the shooter shot, or was gone when he returned to check for the body.  One at least documents a purported wounding, and the presence of blood. There are no doubt several other such reports, and you can hypothesize all you want about the truth of those, but that is not a large number, even if you assume all are truthfuld. No doubt some of them are fabrications.  The reports where a man with a gun faces a BF and no shots are fired? We have quite a few of those too. Those fall into a number of categories:

 

1. It looked too human  for the person to be sure enough to fire.

2. They had no reason to justify killing something they weren't hunting, and in "cold blood."

3. The size of it made the person  fearful that if he shot at it, and missed, he would be in big trouble.

4. The size of it made the person fearful that if he did shoot at it AND actually hit it, he was undergunned and would only wound it, and would be in even    bigger trouble.

 

I think this just about covers the idea that a hunter with a gun, either shooting a BF on purpose, or by accident, is anything but a slight probability. If somebody were able to confidently tell me it never has actually happened, I would not be surprised, nor would it diminish in my mind the compelling nature of the balance of the other evidence. Like anything though, the more that are trying to do it, the more the probability goes up of it happening and being sufficiently documented.

Chance encounters occur everyday with most forms of wildlife, including encounters had by hunters. Bigfoot exempted?

Let me ask: Do you propose we "believe" Bigfoot exists on the basis of the purported evidence as it is now constituted, and without a body?

[roguefooter]

Do they ?

All of the time ?

I don't think so.

 

Not even close; not even near; and to presume that anyone finding a skull would just run in and blatt it to the world, well, humans don't work that way.

 

Not everyone volunteers for the circus.  Fewer still would volunteer for this one.

 

The bodies all start with a skull and that skull doesn't just disappear. You trying to tell me that 10's of thousands of years of buried Sasquatch bodies don't have heads to be found? While millions of acres of land all over the country are being cleared by ordinary people? Or that not even a single one of those people would decide to report or display one if found?

 

Suddenly the thread becomes "Let's NOT do some math".. I guess it's only good when supporting a sacred belief system.

 

We have thousands of reports of excited people over the years blatting to the world that they really saw a real live Bigfoot, but yet somehow not a single person would be interested in reporting finding a large Bigfoot skull or bones. "Humans don't work that way", do they?

 

Maybe Bigfoot teleports the bodies through inter-dimensional portals to the Bigfoot planet? Yeah that's a good way out.

Edited April 9, 2014 by roguefooter

[Guest SDBigfooter]

Excellent post by the OP.  I had to come in give credit where it is much deserved.  For me, that comes across as a very creative thought process which seems so simple in hindsight.

 

I am sorry that a few are quick to call it useless and a failure, but I disagree.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion so their is nothing wrong with that criticism.

 

At the least, I think it is a very nice perspective.

[roguefooter]

^I think you're failing to see that the OP's math and concluded sparsity also supports the other side of the equation, as sad as that would be.

 

Combined with the fact that not a single skull or bone has ever been unearthed and reported while the country was being developed (and still is). Is that something you would factor into the equation?

 

Or the idea that they are so incredibly sparse across the landscape, yet everybody seems to be seeing juveniles left and right.

 

If there is roughly one Sasquatch for every 365 square miles, then how many bodies and skulls in the ground (per 365 square miles) would that make over say 10,000 years?

Edited April 9, 2014 by roguefooter

[MIB]

Even if there is only 1 per 365 square miles (sorry, missed the box car that estimate came off of), not every 365 square miles has one.   Density varies with availability of resources.   That's how it works with populations of living things.

 

I suspect there are a lot more of them out there than some people are willing to accept but fewer than other people assume.  If you happen to live in one of the more densely populated places AND have interaction, I think you would assume many more other people are having the same experience.   On the other hand, if you live in a place there are none, you might reasonably think other places are like where you're at.   Lot of people live in places there seem to be plenty of them but are just oblivious.  

 

Something I've noticed ... as time passes, I seem to be picking up on their presence in places I had not noticed it before.  Not always, but off and on, so I don't think it is just "bigfootitis".   Also, when they do show up in those places, it seems to be more quickly after my arrival if it happens at all.   So ... what's up with that?   Have I finally polished my awareness enough to notice what has been in front of me all along or have I become tolerated by them over time?   

 

I don't know.  Figuring it out gives me something to focus on while I'm out there.

 

MIB

[BobbyO]

The bodies all start with a skull and that skull doesn't just disappear. You trying to tell me that 10's of thousands of years of buried Sasquatch bodies don't have heads to be found? While millions of acres of land all over the country are being cleared by ordinary people? Or that not even a single one of those people would decide to report or display one if found?

 

Suddenly the thread becomes "Let's NOT do some math".. I guess it's only good when supporting a sacred belief system.

 

We have thousands of reports of excited people over the years blatting to the world that they really saw a real live Bigfoot, but yet somehow not a single person would be interested in reporting finding a large Bigfoot skull or bones. "Humans don't work that way", do they?

 

Maybe Bigfoot teleports the bodies through inter-dimensional portals to the Bigfoot planet? Yeah that's a good way out.

Of course they have skulls to be found, all of them.

But that has nothing to do with what you said. And the context of what we are talking about, finding bones.

You said that every body comes with a skull which of course it does in the literal sense and always when the animal is alive.

But when it's dead as we are talking about, there is absolutely no way that every body comes with a skull, for a number of different reasons

If you tried to stop being sarcastic for a moment, you'd acknowledge I'm sure that bones and bodies are not always found to be completely intact all of the time.