What About The Bones?

[roguefooter]

^They spend enough time to spur tens of thousands of sightings.

 

I know that people like to push them as far from our reach as possible by putting them in areas 'where no man goes', but the sightings say otherwise.

 

Can they not die in these 'sighting' areas? Have they just been astronomically lucky to never have had a single Bigfoot die within human range?

 

Don't get me wrong now- I'm all for their existence, but these are the logical roadblocks that keep me from believing.

[BigTreeWalker]

Your link pretty much proves my first point that the construction sites are in or near urban areas. They aren't out in remote areas digging around.

Didn't say conspiracy or cover up. All I said was how many bones are not reported or are missed? But it really doesn't matter because we're still digging in areas where human bones are going to be the most likely find.

I did mention previously that if something drastic were to happen to them in these areas you mentioned, they would be the most likely places to look. However, if they are injured and are still mobile they probably wouldn't remain in these areas, a bear or cougar wouldn't.

As to your last statement; how do you know nothing has ever been found, or found and not reported, or found and misidentified? I'm afraid the Internet won't help us here. How many bigfoot bones might be in a grave labeled 'John Doe'?

All the logging roads being pushed in is a great place to look. Someone driving a D9 Cat isn't going to see everything they push out of the soil. Walk the logging roads and watch the edges, there may be something there in a hundred miles of logging road.

You mentioned 150 years ago. Back then something like this would have been an item of interest in a local newspaper. Which would be another good place to look for this kind of information, if you have the time. Seems like I remember a story about Wildmen in the Oregonian about 90 years ago and people are still arguing about that.

[Guest]

^They spend enough time to spur tens of thousands of sightings.

 

I know that people like to push them as far from our reach as possible by putting them in areas 'where no man goes', but the sightings say otherwise.

 

Can they not die in these 'sighting' areas? Have they just been astronomically lucky to never have had a single Bigfoot die within human range?

 

Don't get me wrong now- I'm all for their existence, but these are the logical roadblocks that keep me from believing.

 

There are tens of thousands of sightings of bigfoot looking in people's back yards and campsites? I was not aware of that. Do you think individual bigfoot who are sighted doing such things actually spend most of their time doing such things and in such places or do you think those individuals would be spending the vast majority of their time elsewhere? Somewhere a bit more off the beaten track. I would guess the latter.

Personally I would suggest the best likelihood for finding bones would be in the places they spend most of their time. I doubt any bigfoot spends most of it's life cycle crossing a road or watching campers.

[Guest]

http://www.mountaingorillas.info/about-gorillas/scientific-facts.html

Mountain gorillas are descendants of ancestral monkeys and apes found in Africa and Arabia during the start of the Oligocene epoch (34-24 million years ago). The fossil record provides evidence of the hominoid primates (apes) found in east Africa about 18–22 million years ago. The fossil record of the area where mountain gorillas live is particularly poor and so its evolutionary history is not clear. It was about 9 million years ago that the group of primates that were to evolve into gorillas split from their common ancestor with humans and chimps; this is when the genus Gorilla emerged. It is not certain what this early relative of the gorilla was, but it is traced back to the early ape Proconsul Africanus.

 

Yes, the best fossil record for large apes, hominoids and hominids we have are the ones that got out of the woods. The ones that stayed in the woods, we know very little about. 

 

It's also a very ignorant assumption to think that in prehistoric times that North America was much forested, up until and shortly after the last Ice Age, it had large areas of grassland and savannah. There was a lot of forest up the western seaboard up into Alaska, but much of what existed then is now underwater. Eastern forest is relatively recent, at least where we see it now, there was a lot on the Eastern continental shelf also. 

 

 

That was to explain how a fisherman ended up with a mastodon skull in his dredge net. It's also where BF fossils most likely are. 

 

Mastodons were forest dwelling, and we have far less fossils of them than it's plains dwelling cousin the mammoth. Most commonly only the largest bones and teeth of those are found.... and by large, we're talking double to quadruple the size of even "very husky" BFs.

 

There should also be some up in Alaska under the Bering straits and into eastern Sibera/Asia, but again a lot underwater on the shelfs of those areas, drowned by melting ice.

 

Anyway, insisting there should be fossils, where nobody would actually logically expect to find them, i.e. under 15,000 year young forests in former savannah, under what was ice sheet, maybe you're expecting them in the Dakota badlands??? I really don't know what goes on in an ill informed skeptics head in that regard, but insisting that BF fossils should be in those places if they exist is special pleading.... maybe that should be "special" pleading. 

[Guest DWA]

^They spend enough time to spur tens of thousands of sightings.  

 

Well, and not to quibble over that number, but the number of sightings - over, say, 200 years - is nowhere near enough to extrapolate to "we'd have to find bones."  Count on it:  statistically speaking *none* of those animals died within two miles of a human habitation.  What about deer?  We should expect them piled up in our backyards, by the exact same thinking.  (Right, statistically we'd have to have a few dozen in the front yard; six or seven in the driveway...)

 

I know that people like to push them as far from our reach as possible by putting them in areas 'where no man goes', but the sightings say otherwise.

 

But the sightings don't say where wild animals die; and that is almost never where any person would be expected to either see it or even walk past the spot.

 

Can they not die in these 'sighting' areas? Have they just been astronomically lucky to never have had a single Bigfoot die within human range?

 

No luck required; numbers say it wouldn't happen.

 

Don't get me wrong now- I'm all for their existence, but these are the logical roadblocks that keep me from believing.

 

Obstacle removed.  You're welcome.

[Guest]

  What about deer?  We should expect them piled up in our backyards, by the exact same thinking.  (Right, statistically we'd have to have a few dozen in the front yard; six or seven in the driveway...)

 

 

Tru' dat, you'd be thigh deep in deer bones in your yard, not to mention tens of bears, handful of cougar etc, so not only is the presumption fallacious, but even if it were true it would create another "needle in a haystack" scenario that would also not make eliciting BF evidence from background noise very easy.

[Guest DWA]

Really, so much militates hard against bone evidence of sasquatch being found - and recognized - before a concerted scientific effort is made to look for it that the argument that we should have it is absurd.  The history of anomalous bone finds only hammers this home.

[Guest DWA]

^^^I probably should have noted, this thread being about what it is about and yes I read it all, that the "and recognized" means that what we have going on right here is against the odds.  Not impossible.

 

Now if people with the proper chops sit down and listen long enough to know what's up, and actually apply themselves to what they are being handed, we might start getting somewhere.  'Cause here is an example of science happening, and anybody tossing this will make it very obvious whether any got done on their part.

This has always bothered me. Deer and elk bones lay around for years in the Gifford Pinchot forest. The theory that bigfoot bones instantly disappear does not make sense. However, I have never seen cougar, coyote or bear bones, so where are they?

Shouldn't bother you.  First, bigfoot bones don't "instantly" disappear.  They (and most animals', including the vast majority of deer and elk) will, however, be gone well before anyone would expect any member of our species to happen across them.

 

Then there's the matter of population.  Deer and elk bones found represent a tiny fragment of the total animals out there...and there are a whole lot fewer sasquatch, as would be obvious to a wildlife biologist.  That's the way food webs work.

Edited May 19, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

My interpretation of Museum curators who respond to requests for bones with, "We can't locate them" is: "Pay us to look and we might."

[Guest DWA]

Sure.  Money opens doors (although the Proverbial Twenty might not get this done).

 

I would definitely be willing to set a chunk of change on hairy hominoid remains being in one, and likely more than one, NA museum collection, in a box or a drawer that as of this post no one has any specific intent ever to open.  I'd also be willing to bet on a number of S, S and SU events involving resource extractors, ranchers, farmers, etc., not willing to lose their cash cows.  I'm willing to bet that numerous Government employees know by dint of their official responsibilities.  Etc.

 

See, all the things that skeptics would think would have to have happened?  They have.

 

Why anyone would presume that the public should know this is what I can't figure out.

Edited May 19, 2015 by DWA

[BigTreeWalker]

I go to sleep for a while and look at all the unsolicited support. Thanks by the way. I agree with each one of those reasons why we don't find the bones or in the case of museums why we don't know if we have!

I'm going to meet with Mr Townsend today to wrap up the final particulars of the research paper. Which is slated to be finished mid June.

[Airdale]

WRT to museums, I can tell you from personal experience that things go missing. I volunteer as photo/media archivist and graphics specialist at the Montana Military Museum at Fort William Henry Harrison a couple of miles west of Helena. We are a very small institution with a paid director and all else done by volunteers, most of us Vietnam veterans or spouses/relatives of veterans. I began my tenure there in mid 2011, and in early 2012 our long time curator passed away taking with him mountains of institutional knowledge.

 

Most of our collection not on display is housed in two small buildings and some Connex storage units. We regularly find things we had no clue were there and sometimes cannot find things we know are there somewhere. We are slowly digitizing our records but it is a slow process and at 64, I’m the youngest person on board and I have chronic health challenges, our eldest docent is a WWII veteran who just passed 93. The museum has been in existence roughly 25 years. We likely have a higher percentage of our collection on display than most museums as our display area is larger than our collections department. Most museums are like ice bergs with the display items the part above water. With most if not all major U.S. museums having been in existence since the 19^th century it is not difficult to believe that things slip through the cracks with no conspiracy required. Money wouldn’t make things happen faster unless warm bodies accompanied it, we’re a pretty dedicated bunch but can only do so much.

 

WRT to the Glacial Lake Missoula Floods and with no disrespect to SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT as they are a special interest of mine, they were more recent than, but every bit as devastating, as he relates. At its maximum, the lake backed up by a glacier blocking the Clark Fork River in present day northern Idaho contained some 500 cubic MILES of water. When the water level approached the top of the glacier dam, estimated at 2000 feet high, pressure forced water into cracks in the ice according to the latest research. The ice dam failed catastrophically and that huge amount of water emptied across Idaho and eastern Washington and down into northwest Oregon over a period of 2 to 3 days. The flow was greater than that of all the current rivers in the world combined. Some of those stones in the Willamette Valley originated in the Canadian Shield, were carried to Montana in glaciers which calved into Lake Missoula, thence carried by the floods to their final resting spots.

 

Current estimates are that this process repeated at least 36 times during the last ice age, with the latter releases diminished as the glaciers shrank. The time period was likely from about 12k to 9k years BP, and they may have repeated as often as every 30 or 40 years. Anyone who has driven through eastern Washington has seen the evidence of this deluge in the plains and promontories of lava stripped bare of soil. Anyone interested in learning more about this subject would enjoy “Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humongous Floods†by Geologist David Alt, available here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_26?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=glacial+lake+missoula+and+its+humongous+floods&sprefix=glacial+lake+missoula+and+its+humongous+floods%2Cdigital-text%2C215

[BigTreeWalker]

Thank you Airedale. I have always been fascinated by the Lake Missoula floods. If anyone gets the chance I would definitely recommend seeing Dry Falls, just south of Grand Coulee Dam. Very impressive. Way bigger than Niagara Falls when the Missoula floods were occurring.

[roguefooter]

Your link pretty much proves my first point that the construction sites are in or near urban areas. They aren't out in remote areas digging around.

 

 

That wasn't my point. My point was that bones are reported when found in construction sites.

 

You asked this, remember?

 

"Can you honestly say that every time a bone is uncovered all construction stops?"

 

The link shows that yes, construction has stopped many many times. Maybe not every single time, but many times it has.

 

Didn't say conspiracy or cover up. All I said was how many bones are not reported or are missed? But it really doesn't matter because we're still digging in areas where human bones are going to be the most likely find.

 

 

We also dig in remote forests. I gave examples of that- logging and access roads, mining, etc. Even those times no Bigfoot bones have ever been reported to have been found.

 

Remember that this is a young country and was only sparsely populated by humans not very long ago, especially the PNW. We had to clear out large sections of uninhabited forests to build towns and cities. Those areas had the same potential for Bigfoot bones as any other area of land. No Bigfoot bones found.

 

As to your last statement; how do you know nothing has ever been found, or found and not reported, or found and misidentified? I'm afraid the Internet won't help us here. How many bigfoot bones might be in a grave labeled 'John Doe'?

 

 

Well, because we're talking about Bigfoot bones actually being found. There is nothing actual about speculating an unfounded scenario.

 

I mean by that logic we could speculate that there are Giant Clowns buried and never reported.

 

 

There are tens of thousands of sightings of bigfoot looking in people's back yards and campsites? I was not aware of that. Do you think individual bigfoot who are sighted doing such things actually spend most of their time doing such things and in such places or do you think those individuals would be spending the vast majority of their time elsewhere? Somewhere a bit more off the beaten track. I would guess the latter.

Personally I would suggest the best likelihood for finding bones would be in the places they spend most of their time. I doubt any bigfoot spends most of it's life cycle crossing a road or watching campers.

 

Tens of thousands of reports around human habitation- backyards and campsites were only examples. These reports are all over the country in just about every state. We're not just talking the dense wilderness of the PNW, but also states with sparse woods and miles of developed farmland. If the Bigfoots live in those states then where would they be buried? Woods get cleared, miles and miles of farmland gets ripped up, shouldn't there have been Bigfoot bones found at some point?

 

Oklahoma for example- the eastern half of the state has large cities that were carved out of the woods. Cities like OKC and Tulsa used to be woodlands. If the Bigfoots in that state live in the woods, shouldn't there have been Bigfoot bones found when they cleared the woods to build those cities? How about all the other cities in that part of the country that were built by clearing large sections of woodland?

 

Well, and not to quibble over that number, but the number of sightings - over, say, 200 years - is nowhere near enough to extrapolate to "we'd have to find bones."  Count on it:  statistically speaking *none* of those animals died within two miles of a human habitation.  What about deer?  We should expect them piled up in our backyards, by the exact same thinking.  (Right, statistically we'd have to have a few dozen in the front yard; six or seven in the driveway...)

 

 

Except that dead deer actually are found an awful lot- on roadways, the local woods, etc. You don't have to travel to some deep wilderness to find their bones. Deer are seen all the time around human habitation, and their corpses are also found around human habitation. Bigfoot is seen around human habitation a lot too, but has somehow managed to keep from dying around human habitation by not even a single instance?

 

The Smithsonian conspiracy is always dismissed by the skeptics as fable.

 

 

Think about this- that was 100 years ago and the majority of excavation in this country has happened since that time. They supposedly found lots of Bigfoot bones during that period through minimal excavation, yet the past 100 years of major land clearing has found nothing. Does that make sense?

 

I don't think it's a fable. I find it very unlikely that what they found were Bigfoot bones since nothing of that sort has been found since. My guess is that they were Native bones since we are still finding those today. Native American bones and artifacts were worth a lot of money back then and museums worldwide were willing to pay big bucks for them. So items disappearing from a backroom or in mail transit wouldn't have been unusual.

Edited May 20, 2015 by roguefooter

[norseman]

That wasn't my point. My point was that bones are reported when found in construction sites.

You asked this, remember?

"Can you honestly say that every time a bone is uncovered all construction stops?"

The link shows that yes, construction has stopped many many times. Maybe not every single time, but many times it has.

We also dig in remote forests. I gave examples of that- logging and access roads, mining, etc. Even those times no Bigfoot bones have ever been reported to have been found.

Remember that this is a young country and was only sparsely populated by humans not very long ago, especially the PNW. We had to clear out large sections of uninhabited forests to build towns and cities. Those areas had the same potential for Bigfoot bones as any other area of land. No Bigfoot bones found.

Well, because we're talking about Bigfoot bones actually being found. There is nothing actual about speculating an unfounded scenario.

I mean by that logic we could speculate that there are Giant Clowns buried and never reported.

Tens of thousands of reports around human habitation- backyards and campsites were only examples. These reports are all over the country in just about every state. We're not just talking the dense wilderness of the PNW, but also states with sparse woods and miles of developed farmland. If the Bigfoots live in those states then where would they be buried? Woods get cleared, miles and miles of farmland gets ripped up, shouldn't there have been Bigfoot bones found at some point?

Oklahoma for example- the eastern half of the state has large cities that were carved out of the woods. Cities like OKC and Tulsa used to be woodlands. If the Bigfoots in that state live in the woods, shouldn't there have been Bigfoot bones found when they cleared the woods to build those cities? How about all the other cities in that part of the country that were built by clearing large sections of woodland?

Except that dead deer actually are found an awful lot- on roadways, the local woods, etc. You don't have to travel to some deep wilderness to find their bones. Deer are seen all the time around human habitation, and their corpses are also found around human habitation. Bigfoot is seen around human habitation a lot too, but has somehow managed to keep from dying around human habitation by not even a single instance?

I'm not dismissing it as a fable. What I'm saying is that was 100 years ago, and the majority of excavation in this country has happened since that time. They supposedly found lots of Bigfoot bones during that period through minimal excavation, yet the past 100 years of major land clearing has found nothing.

The fact remains that in forested areas fossils are rarely produced, we know this because we have an incomplete evolutionary picture of extant apes. If something is out there? It's not too suprising we have not detected it in the fossil record first.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

dry falls washington

Edited May 20, 2015 by norseman