What About The Bones?

[SWWASAS]

I reported myself as being led off topic too defending BigTreeWalker. Their purpose seems to be engage the author, pull things off topic, get others engaged, then destroy a productive thread arguing something else. We see it over and over again with the same people. I am tired of that and as members of the forum we should not allow that to happen.

Edited May 20, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[BigTreeWalker]

Thank you. I am guilty as well for allowing myself to be pulled into that never ending argument.

[Rockape]

I ask that everyone reading this thread note the topic, with is animal bones that BigtreeWalker found with tooth marks, then read the forum rules about highjacking, the find the posts from Crowlogic and Roguefooter who came in with their tired old arguments about BF bones that have nothing to do with the thread topic and let your conscious guide you about hitting the report button if you so choose.

 

I looked back several pages and didn't see it. Just because they are not in agreement doesn't mean they are off-topic. They have every right to question evidence presented or theories presented.

[SWWASAS]

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?

 

 

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.

What does this have to do with tooth marks on animal bones? I have asked that my response to this be removed since my response was off topic too. So I received a official warning. Yet what I reported as off topic is still posted. Does that strike anyone else as strange?

Edited May 20, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[BigTreeWalker]

As the OP I will say it has nothing at all to do with it. The subject of sasquatch bones themselves came up as a question on how to ID them. Which I answered for those that have possibly found them or are interested in looking. I do hope that someday they will come to light WHEREVER they may reside.

There's probably a thread here somewhere that is specific to sasquatch bones. I respectfully ask that it be taken there for discussion or start one if need be. Who knows I may even chime in again.

Edited May 20, 2015 by BigTreeWalker

[Rockape]

I see. The problem is the thread title, it implies this thread is about bigfoot bones so the subject of bigfoot bones will probably keep being introduced here.

[BigTreeWalker]

I purposely worded it What about the Bones, (bigfoot is not present in the title by the way), because specifically all the YouTube videos where you see people walking around kicking deer bones or whatever and saying something like, look at all the bones or I wonder what happened here, or whatever. They might pick up a skull or kick a few bones around or wonder about a break. But, I haven't seen one yet where they actually LOOK at the bones. John Mionczynski, is one of the few that actually looks at the bones of prey species. That is what this thread is about. Which by the way is mentioned in the original post.

[chelefoot]

I can fix that if that's the problem.

 

Moderator Statement:

Please stay on topic. This is not the same old "Where's the Bones" debate. If you want to continue the "Where's the bones" debate please dig up a thread or start a new one.

Edited May 20, 2015 by chelefoot
To clarify

[Celtic Raider]

Very interesting topic BigTreeWalker!

 

I'm just wondering if the bite marks could possibly be caused by something other than biting, bones being chipped as the animal fights for it's life against a predator or damaged as it falls on a rock for example?

 

As odd as this sounds, I'm thinking of when I eat ribs or chicken on the bone and you don't usually bite into the bone as the texture is so different to the meat that you don't bite 'through'. An animal with no hands like a bear or mountain lion has to grab hold maybe with canine teeth or use claws to rip which may cause damage to the bones but it seems we're postulating here an animal with a similar dentistry to our own which probably is not evolved to bite into bone or crush bone?

[Rockape]

I can fix that if that's the problem.

Please stay on topic. This is not the same old "Where's the Bones" debate. If you want to continue the "Where's the bones" debate please dig up a thread or start a new one.

I see what you did there.

 Which by the way is mentioned in the original post.

But when you get several pages in many will not read the op. Do as you wish but I bet this isn't the last time this happens.

[BigTreeWalker]

You are correct about our teeth and the ability to make impressions like that. My teeth would break if I tried that. Neanderthal had a tooth structure that would have enabled it to make these impressions. But, the impressions are too large for a neanderthal to have made. We do discuss this in our research.

Of course, along with the impressions, is the disarticulation and stacking behavior not seen with any other known predators. We also have three separate kill sites exhibiting the same impressions and behavior separated by miles. Also, the damage could not have happened due to falling against some object. This is forest habitat with no rock nearby.

When I mention neanderthal it is only because of similarities in possible tooth structure. Regardless of what the newspaper article said about hybrids, for those that read it. According to Mr Townsend it was a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of our research. I mentioned before, my research partner is a little too exuberant at times. As he said to me when confronted with some of his statements... "I like to stir the pot". But he is not me and I don't see the necessity in it to have a good discussion.

One other point. Our control specimen was apparently cleaned up by a cougar. There were no unusual impressions, in fact none at all, on the bones when finished. And disarticulation did not occur until natural decomposition about 6 months later.

But when you get several pages in many will not read the op. Do as you wish but I bet this isn't the last time this happens.

I really can't blame anyone but myself. I fell into that trap and got off topic myself.

[gigantor]

I read somewhere a while ago that certain animals go for the bone marrow... or try to anyway. It was years ago in a nature documentary.

 

although I think it was rodents it talked about, there is this from wikipedia...  interesting.

 

Many cultures have used bone marrow as food throughout history. Some anthropologists believe that early humans were scavengers rather than hunters in some regions of the world. Marrow would have been a useful food source (largely due to its fat content) for tool-using hominids, who were able to crack open the bones of carcasses left by apex predators such as lions.^[1]

European diners in the 18th century often used a marrow scoop (or marrow spoon), often of silver and with a long, thin bowl, as a table implement for removing marrow from a bone. Bone marrow was also used in various preparations, such as pemmican. Bone marrow's popularity as a food is now relatively limited in the western world, but it remains in use in some gourmet restaurants, and is popular among food enthusiasts.^[2]

Edited May 21, 2015 by gigantor

[Guest]

Regardless of what the newspaper article said about hybrids, for those that read it. According to Mr Townsend it was a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of our research. I mentioned before, my research partner is a little too exuberant at times. As he said to me when confronted with some of his statements... "I like to stir the pot". But he is not me and I don't see the necessity in it to have a good discussion.

 

 

Yeah, the last thing you want is be lumped in with Melba Ketchum.  Especially when people are on the lookout for reasons to dismiss research.

[Airdale]

Very interesting topic BigTreeWalker!

 

I'm just wondering if the bite marks could possibly be caused by something other than biting, bones being chipped as the animal fights for it's life against a predator or damaged as it falls on a rock for example?

 

As odd as this sounds, I'm thinking of when I eat ribs or chicken on the bone and you don't usually bite into the bone as the texture is so different to the meat that you don't bite 'through'. An animal with no hands like a bear or mountain lion has to grab hold maybe with canine teeth or use claws to rip which may cause damage to the bones but it seems we're postulating here an animal with a similar dentistry to our own which probably is not evolved to bite into bone or crush bone?

 

The sagittal crest that leads to the oft reported "cone shaped" head is the bony attachment point for massive jaw muscles easily capable of biting into bone. I suspect Sasquatch are much less picky regarding the texture of their meals than we are. 

[Guest]

^Very astute point.