What About The Bones?

[BigTreeWalker]

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.

Yes, canines especially. Wolves, coyotes, dogs, all crack bone for the marrow. Watch Bigtex's wolf, that is why she chews the bones. Because of this it is pretty easy to rule out these predators since the bones show no evidence of this type of breakage.

Because of the impressions we were able to rule out the usual apex predators. Without the impressions in the bones it would be hardest to rule out cougars because they don't break the bones for the marrow. They leave very little evidence on the bones. I'm not sure what bears do, whether they break the bones our not. But black bears are not your typical adult elk predator. They would be more likely to be a scavenger in this case.

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. 

As you can see from our research. The predator that did this has a very wide mouth. Since they bite bone, aside from massive teeth their jaws must be pretty strong to leave these impressions. Which fits with what you suggested.

[roguefooter]

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?

 

Well first off, the conversation had already turned by the time I joined in. So I gave my opinion about it (how evil of me, I know). Then if you read what you quoted you'll see I was replying to questions that were asked me. So... I responded.

 

I just find it odd that we can't seem to have a normal debate in an adult fashion on this forum without someone throwing some kind of tantrum or resorting to personal attacks.

Edited May 21, 2015 by roguefooter

[SWWASAS]

The problem with that ensuing debate about BF bones, and I allowed myself to be taken in, was that the debate was off topic. That topic has been discussed to the point of beating a dead horse on other threads.

Bigtreewalker, will your paper suggest that BF may be responsible, or simply say that there is some unknown large animal out there making the marks on bones? I am just curious how that aspect will be presented in the paper since it may directly impact how the paper is received in the scientific community.

[Guest DWA]

Actually, making the connection - as Meldrum does in his ichnotaxonomy paper - between the evidence found and the copious, consistent evidence that appears to be connected to an animal with similar characteristics is just the sort of connecting obvious dots with which we should charge scientists.  I would consider it inexcusable - the farthest thing from scientific - were such a connection not directly made.  It is a lot more rational and logical to say "all that evidence you are ignoring is now supplemented from a new angle that substantiates it and reinforces its quantity and consistency" than to hem and haw about "something unknown" when anyone in one's audience could, from reading the paper, guess which one it is.

 

Scientists not addressing sasquatch evidence are either ignorant - I mean that in a good way - or willfully...well...ignorant (that's not a good way).  If we can make the very obvious connection here, I'd consider quite deficient, on more than one count, any alleged 'scientist' who could not.

 

Science pronounces, when evidence is present to pronounce upon.  Whether people who call themselves "scientists" really are, or not, is determined, very readily, by their response to the evidence.

Edited May 21, 2015 by DWA

[BigTreeWalker]

SWWSP and DWA,

Both of the above questions and observations are important to our research.

You are kind of between a rock and a hard place with this kind of research. Both the bone impressions with associated feeding behavior and track evidence in the area are presented in our research. We can make the conclusion that it is an unknown, uncategorized animal in both cases. We also make the comparisons between neanderthal, primitive human, and primate behavior. Bigfoot will not be mentioned in the paper because we want to reach the wider audience. We want to stimulate further investigation and the term bigfoot has a huge stigma attached to it when it comes to science. However, as you can tell since I posted here, we feel if you connect the dots sasquatch will be the best fit. We want it to be looked at. We want it to stimulate interest and discussion in the scientific community. If people want to continue sticking their heads in the sand and continue to ignore all of the evidence presented, not just ours, that is their prerogative. My hope is also that by posting here more people would have the knowledge available to them to take a good hard look at bone evidence and not just guess as to what the culprit was. If more of this type of evidence is found and revealed it just strengthens and corroborates our conclusions.

Also, I would challenge those in the scientific community, if this stands up under scrutiny, it is unknown and categorised. It needs more scientific effort mobilized in an effort to bring it out of the unknown to the known.

[Guest DWA]

Understanding the status of the term "bigfoot," which has stimulated things like, say, woodape.org, I would still say that linkage to a large and consistent body of evidence is important, particularly when no scientist has even begun to make the case against that body of evidence pointing to just what the proponents think it does.

[BigTreeWalker]

DWA, it will be linked. We would have to see it creating this evidence to make the kind of statement you are suggesting. As I said anyone that reads the research will be able to connect the dots themselves. Of course as I have seen on this forum and others regardless of the most logical conclusions, we still end up with the illogical and fallacious because it is a very emotional issue to some people.

[Guest DWA]

One doesn't need to go so "far" as to say what applied science has already essentially proven.  But in my view, the refusal by people calling themselves scientists to apply themselves to a large and consistent body of evidence is, well, on them.

[BigTreeWalker]

If they read this research and still decide to ignore it, it will be on them. To me that is the willful ignorance you mentioned.

[Guest DWA]

Exactly.  All you can really do is all any other advocate has done:  challenge the scientist in people.

[BigTreeWalker]

Our intention is to do that ^^^. It is also our intention to challenge the SCIENTIST in the scientist!

[roguefooter]

Maybe you should cut a few cross sections of the bones to see if the marrow was cooked or heated at some point.

[BigTreeWalker]

Is that to determine if bigfoot uses fire or if it was the result of humans eating? Regardless the meat remaining on the bones was raw and the bones themselves show no signs of heat. Besides if you looked at the measurements and you're thinking human even though the impressions are human-like, whoever did it was a giant!

[roguefooter]

I was just referring to the first set you posted that were placed in a pile.

[BigTreeWalker]

What I said holds true for the bones found in all three sites. Stacking behavior was also seen in all three sites. Why do you feel the first site is different from the others? Just wondering.

Edited May 22, 2015 by BigTreeWalker