What About The Bones?

[JKH]

It's fairly common knowledge that they prey on deer, elk, and pretty much any other animals. Some say they even prey on canids. All evidence strongly suggests they're opportunistic omnivores, and very successful at that. As BTW says, speed and massive strength makes it easy for them, but freakish to humans.

 

I've recently found deer remains a couple times on a stretch of beach. Once the vertebra and rib bones were underwater. I thought that a little strange, but suppose the coyotes would chase them on the beach as well as anywhere else, or drag parts there to eat.

[SWWASAS]

Every deer or elk attack report I have read indicates the BF catch the animal from behind,  break one or both back legs to immobilize the animal, then go forward and break its neck.      Another report was a herd of wild hogs had been immobilized by broken hind legs then just left for the BF to return to haul them off one at a time.     Pig roast party?     An elk attack video would sure get the attention of science.      Man in a costume could not chase down an elk, break a hind leg, then break the neck.  I think the pure violence of it would be compelling.    Speaking of that,  BTW is there any evidence of broken hind legs in any of the bone stack findings? 

Edited February 15, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[FarArcher]

The one I am thinking of, could have just come down on the neck of a deer or similar species, and broken it with his fist or forearm.  Follow up by twisting a leg, and it's going nowhere.

 

I don't see them trying to strangle a deer or elk, as those things still have hoofs and at times, tines that could possibly injure.

 

Strike from ambush, pound them on the neck, stun or kill them that way, and twist a leg for insurance.

[BigTreeWalker]

By stunning them with a blow to their head to immobilize an animal. Then it could be killed in any number of ways. A broken back would also do the trick. Just thinking out loud here but I think the legs of a live elk would be something to stay away from. There were no broken leg bones, only dismembered. In the case of these kills, the deer were does and the elk were cows. All females, so no antlers to contend with.

According to NA legends they can suffocate by bear hugs and ( from researcher report ) by pressing down with their hand on the chest of a sleeping or mesmerized person.

Unlikely to be a big game hunter if 8 million years of hominid evolutionary archaeology and behavior of apes and chimps is any guide.

The only hominid that hunts big game. is us, and that arose very recently with the advent of projectile and spear technology.

Hominids are primarily scavengers in relation to large animals, and scavenge the kills of others. (cleverer, as well).

Cryptic, our early ancestors were called "hunter"/gatherers for a reason. Lots of speculation on how they originally went about it. But eventually weapons were used. Spears and clubs make very effective weapons. So no, it is not a recent development. Edited February 15, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[Gotta Know]

The only hominid that hunts big game. is us....

Absolute statements like this always strike me as odd when dealing with the unknown. Saying it's so does not make it so.

[Guest WesT]

As pointed out, I would think they'd stay away from sharp hooves whenever possible, for obvious reasons.

 

The second ambush site I documented used a cinder block to break the leg. When a cinder block isn't around, maybe they dig a hole on the other side of a log so when the prey get spooked and jump over the log they break their own leg. I also theorize they will use a Y shaped tree branch to pin the prey's head to the ground.  Once the head is pinned, just step on it.

 

I doubt they would use much energy chasing them down as some would think. The clues are all there when you find an ambush site, it's just a matter of recognizing them and putting the pieces of the puzzle together. There is something out there that is quite astute at manipulating the environment to accommodate a need.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

By stunning them with a blow to their head to immobilize an animal. Then it could be killed in any number of ways. A broken back would also do the trick. Just thinking out loud here but I think the legs of a live elk would be something to stay away from. There were no broken leg bones, only dismembered. In the case of these kills, the deer were does and the elk were cows. All females, so no antlers to contend with.

 

According to NA legends they can suffocate by bear hugs and ( from researcher report ) by pressing down with their hand on the chest of a sleeping or mesmerized person.

Unlikely to be a big game hunter if 8 million years of hominid evolutionary archaeology and behavior of apes and chimps is any guide.

The only hominid that hunts big game. is us, and that arose very recently with the advent of projectile and spear technology.

Hominids are primarily scavengers in relation to large animals, and scavenge the kills of others. (cleverer, as well).

Cryptic, our early ancestors were called "hunter"/gatherers for a reason. Lots of speculation on how they originally went about it. But eventually weapons were used. Spears and clubs make very effective weapons. So no, it is not a recent development.

 

Our earliest ancestors at a theoretical Bigfoot divergence were scavengers and gatherers.

Hunting is very recent in the overall evolution of modern man and would have had nothing to do with Bigfoot like creatures.

They probably diverged millions of years ago.

And they were not hunters.

If your theories involve a recent divergence between Bigfoot and Humans then Bigfoot would have language and tool use.

That is because we developed hunting technologies because of language and tool use.

That is why monkey, apes, hominids, etc did not hunt large game.

I would recommend Ancestors, In Search of Human Origins by the guy who discovered Lucy to get some perspective.

[Bigtex]

Found this poor fellow the other day, but couldn't really tell what killed him.......he did get eaten pretty quick though. One thing did seem a bit odd though.......most of his skin was laying nearby, and looked like it was ripped off in one piece. There are some other bones in the pictures, and those are from a previous kill, along with over 100 kills dating from recently, like this one, to many years old. I refer to this area as The Kill Zone. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by Bigtex

[JKH]

Cool, Tex. In my post above, I mentioned some deer parts we found recently. One was just bones underwater, but the others were a large piece of hide and separately, a shank with hoof attached. Mystery parts...but now I'll be looking out for more.

 

Oh yeah, and they DO have tool use. Think that old thread needs to be revived.

[BigTreeWalker]

Cryptic, as far as bigfoot goes the point of divergence is unknown. We don't know enough to even make educated guess as to what branch of the tree they come from. If by recent you mean tens of thousands of years. Okay. I'm not going there because we just don't know. As far as predation, our evidence and others says otherwise.

Thanks for the photos Bigtex. Could I ask a favor. The next time your in the area could you take some closeups of the ribs. Any visible impressions will show up there. I have seen those types of kills by both coyotes or big cats. So only with more evidence could a determination be made. Thanks again.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Cryptic, as far as bigfoot goes the point of divergence is unknown. We don't know enough to even make educated guess as to what branch of the tree they come from. If by recent you mean tens of thousands of years. Okay. I'm not going there because we just don't know. As far as predation, our evidence and others says otherwise.

Thanks for the photos Bigtex. Could I ask a favor. The next time your in the area could you take some closeups of the ribs. Any visible impressions will show up there. I have seen those types of kills by both coyotes or big cats. So only with more evidence could a determination be made. Thanks again.

 

Cryptic, as far as bigfoot goes the point of divergence is unknown. We don't know enough to even make educated guess as to what branch of the tree they come from. If by recent you mean tens of thousands of years. Okay. I'm not going there because we just don't know. As far as predation, our evidence and others says otherwise.

Thanks for the photos Bigtex. Could I ask a favor. The next time your in the area could you take some closeups of the ribs. Any visible impressions will show up there. I have seen those types of kills by both coyotes or big cats. So only with more evidence could a determination be made. Thanks again.

You could also say that we don't know anything as there is no evidence.

However, we do know that we have a film of Patty.

We know we have Austalopithicenes.

We know that Patty looks like what an Austalopithicene would look like right down to the sagittal crest, nutcracker head, massive jaws, flat face, brow ridge, and many other high degrees of similarity including large trapezius muscles (big shoulders-no neck) long arms, ape like hands and feet. 

The divergence would be about 4 or so million years back.

Or you can re-invent the wheel and say there is a species that no example has ever been found in the fossil record and we have no idea how it evolved but is highly similar to great apes and chimps and even much more to humans but did not evolve in parallel to us and we have no fossil, body, or any shred of evidence for.

The only thing that logical science minded people are really looking for would be (besides a BF body) are fossils from Africa, perhaps from high altitude caves from rain-forest about 6-1 million years ago that show a foot structure with a mid tarsal break.

Just as cool would be to find a fossil track way that showed in line walking.

I'm guessing that Australopithecus had a split and one branch adapted to upland forests at the same time that we were evolving on the plains. Perhaps it did not leave many fossils for the same reason that Bigfoot don't leave many fossils or remains currently: Upland forests are too acid to preserve bones.

(or that it is all a figment of the imagination and hoaxers)

Edited February 18, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

None of which has anything to do with determining what chewed on the bones. Some extant primates and a lot of antecedents have human-like incisors. Most are or were omnivores with predatory tendencies. Non were known giants except Gigantopithicus which supposedly was a vegetarian. So guess away.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Bigfoot don't chew bones, is my guess.

[BigTreeWalker]

I present legitimate scientific research here and you present guesses. But that seems to be the nature of bigfoot science so guess away. Maybe someday you will guess right. Then you can say I told you so.

[norseman]

Bigfoot don't chew bones, is my guess.

My Dad did.....T bones were his favorite. 5 minutes to eat the meat and another half an hour of gnawing and cracking on it.