What About The Bones?

[BigTreeWalker]

I would like very much to find some track evidence near a bone pile. There may have been one track right next to the 3rd one but it was old, a couple months at least and inconclusive. The trackway we did find was a ways from the 2nd site and was much newer than the site.

None of the sites were especially isolated. Kind of off the beaten path for humans but not really hidden. Anything at these sites would have heard a human approaching and been able to vacate the area without being seen. The 1st and 3rd sites were located near the kill sites. We couldn't locate the exact kill site for the second one. The problem is, if over a month elapses about the only thing left is hair, sometimes it's hard to locate.

[Guest]

By the time you've have rain hair usually just confirms site rather than helps you spot it, because it's well down in the grass on top of soil, so you don't see it unless you're on top of it.

[17x7]

Next question:  1.  Assuming that something stopped and ate the flesh from between some dis-articulated rib bones. and 2. That 'something' missed and bit the bone on some occasions leaving tooth marks:  Is there a difference in 'hardness' between fresh, raw, rib bone and a cooked or 'dried' bone?

Also, were the other bones from the carcass checked for tooth marks?  If the ribs were eaten in such a fashion, it would make sense that other bones (shoulder blades, pelvis, and vertebrae) would be eaten/cleaned in like manner.

 

Can you tell I just spent time at a BBQ where we roasted a whole pig and saw where the meat stuck to the bones?

 

17x7

Edited May 25, 2015 by 17x7

[BigTreeWalker]

Next question: 1. Assuming that something stopped and ate the flesh from between some dis-articulated rib bones. and 2. That 'something' missed and bit the bone on some occasions leaving tooth marks: Is there a difference in 'hardness' between fresh, raw, rib bone and a cooked or 'dried' bone?

Also, were the other bones from the carcass checked for tooth marks? If the ribs were eaten in such a fashion, it would make sense that other bones (shoulder blades, pelvis, and vertebrae) would be eaten/cleaned in like manner.

Can you tell I just spent time at a BBQ where we roasted a whole pig and saw where the meat stuck to the bones?

17x7

Sounds like a good BBQ!

No heat had been applied to any of the bones. What are you suggesting disarticulated the bones in the first place? Humans? They don't disarticulate themselves until months later through natural decay. If you are thinking human cooked, this is at least the second time this question has been asked. Who would carry the leftovers from their BBQ a 1/4 mile or more into the woods just to discard of the bones? On the other hand I know of nothing that would carry >all< the discarded BBQ bones into the woods to clean them off. Whole elk, whole multiple deer.

The larger muscle masses come off the larger bones a lot easier than the flesh off the ribs. Larger bones aren't going to lend themselves to tooth impressions as would a rib. Unless those larger bones are being broken with carnasials (molars), which there was no evidence of. All the bones with noticeable impressions in the field were collected!

I would assume cooked bone is harder than fresh, but that is not a part of this research. Also, the hide and the hair were in two of the bone pile locations.

From now on this line of reasoning has been asked and answered!

Edited May 25, 2015 by BigTreeWalker

[17x7]

Sounds like a good BBQ!

No heat had been applied to any of the bones. What are you suggesting disarticulated the bones in the first place? Humans? They don't disarticulate themselves until months later through natural decay. If you are thinking human cooked, this is at least the second time this question has been asked. Who would carry the leftovers from their BBQ a 1/4 mile or more into the woods just to discard of the bones? On the other hand I know of nothing that would carry >all< the discarded BBQ bones into the woods to clean them off. Whole elk, whole multiple deer.

The larger muscle masses come off the larger bones a lot easier than the flesh off the ribs. Larger bones aren't going to lend themselves to tooth impressions as would a rib. Unless those larger bones are being broken with carnasials (molars), which there was no evidence of. All the bones with noticeable impressions in the field were collected!

I would assume cooked bone is harder than fresh, but that is not a part of this research. Also, the hide and the hair were in two of the bone pile locations.

From now on this line of reasoning has been asked and answered!

I'm sorry. I was not clear.  I was not trying to say that the ribs were cooked, or that the bites were made by humans.  I was at a BBQ (and it was delicious, BTW) and observed people eating ribs exactly as whatever left those bite marks.  They pulled the ribs apart and chewed the meat off between them.  They then did the same with the shoulder blades and the pelvis.  That made me think of this post.  I understand that large, round bones wouldn't show indents like the ribs, but the other ones I mentioned might.  If people are looking for bite marks in found bones, they should make sure and check them also.

 

I was also reading where some here were saying that it was impossible for those indents to be made by biting because the bone is too hard.  I would think fresh bone would be softer than dried (or cooked, which is what we think of when we think rib bones because humans always cook them), but what I think isn't proof for scientific papers, so I was wondering if there were facts to back up the supposition that fresh bones were softer?  Have you tried to check and see what bite force would be needed to make such marks in fresh rib bone?  I just thought it might further your research.

 

17x7

[BigTreeWalker]

Thanks for the explanation 17x7. It does sound like a good BBQ!

Sorry if I came across a little harsh. What you mentioned would be good for further study. I did mention previously that we do intend to do further research on the bones.

You also asked about the other bones. There was possible evidence of gnawing on the vertebrae as there was on the ventral ends of the ribbones, but no distinct impressions. This could be because of how the flesh is attached to various bones. It tends to peel away from some bones easier than others.

What people need to realize is that animals are able to make impressions in bones. Forensically it is how it is determined what animal preyed on another or even a human. These studies will be referenced in our paper. That's why this type of evidence is so important.

Thanks again for the clarification.

[Guest]

I would assume that two large predators fighting over kill would manage to disarticulate some bones, Wolf kills would probably end up pretty scattered this way.

[BigTreeWalker]

That's a good assumption about bones getting knocked off. We saw that in our control specimen from being drug around. I will assume that you read this thread from the beginning? If not, please do. The evidence for that is not there for our research specimens.

[jayjeti]

One article about Mitchell Townsend's find made this statement:

 

"This is where Townsend gets controversial. He says the dental evidence and bone stacking suggests the creature is part human and plans to prove it is a hominin species that evolved from the the breeding of Native Americans and a giant ape.  'My theory is it’s not an ape, it’s a hybrid that has been interbreeding with Native Americans for the last 80,000 years. That’s why it is so smart and it has human teeth.' "

 

http://mysteriousuni...oof-of-bigfoot/

 

 

First off, Native Americans have not been on this continent anywhere near 80,000 years.  Secondly, it likely has human teeth because it is a relict hominid, a species of man, not because apes interbred with humans giving it humanlike teeth.  He's an unpaid continuing education instructor at a college.  Perhaps he can allude more to his background, but it appears he has no real credentials or expertise in this field like a Dr. Meldrum or Bindernagle.  If he writes a paper with screwed facts about Native American heritage and ape/human interbreeding any scientist who would comment on his work will laugh it to scorn. 

 

He may however have some descent info on stacked bones, which animals would not do, and also on the types of teeth marks he believes he sees.  But there is no smoking gun in any of this that is going to make the scientific community take notice and declare sasquatch as the likely cause. 

 

I would like to see photos of all these stacks of bones and teeth marks explaining the findings?   I suppose that will be in his paper.  His research may add some important facets to sasquatch study, but it might also include some nonsense if he doesn't do a better job of researching this subject.

Edited May 27, 2015 by jayjeti

[Guest DWA]

Townsend is indeed getting controversial; and that may lead to issues with scientists accepting and dealing with this evidence, of which one would think Townsend would be aware.

 

When one is coming from outside accepted canon, one has to softpedal the news.  Evidence for an undocumented primate is copious and consistent, that for Native Americans breeding with some hybrid something or other...er, not so much.

[BigTreeWalker]

Jayjeti,

I will address the last portion of your post as I have already addressed the first part previously. For one thing it is not just his research, it is ours, mine, my sons and Mr Townsend's together. We will be presenting our evidence, which by the way is presented at the beginning of this thread for the first few pages.

The quotes or misqoutes above are his opinion. Just as I have an opinion as to the importance of this research and what it represents. However, the paper's conclusions will be based on the presented evidence and comparisons we have found in our research. As you succinctly put there is no smoking gun for sasquatch. As I also said previously our conclusions lead to unknown, uncategorized! Which needs further research.

If an animal exists in the ecosystem it will leave evidence of its passing through! This is hard evidence of specific feeding behavior. This is repeatable, findable evidence. Start looking, some more can be found.

Edited May 27, 2015 by BigTreeWalker

[BigTreeWalker]

Jayjeti,

Welcome to the Internet folks. That link is a commentary on an interview. No doubt with some of the authors own input to boot. I do know the pictures in that commentary were added by the author and none of ours.

This is the original article. Not much better but still the original.

http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/state_news/proof-of-bigfoot-is-in-the-bones-winlock-man-says/article_03b195ef-a782-58e9-823a-9f1a97bf6b5b.html

[jayjeti]

Thanks BigTreeWalker, I will start looking for bone stacks.  I just returned from the field last week where I do research in SW Oregon, and if I ever find such a stack of bones I will take notice thanks to your team bringing attention to this.  I'm pleased to read that the opinions ascribed to Mr. Townsend that I linked to, or in the article you provided which I've also read, may not be part of the paper.

 

There is some evidence of limited tool use, of sasquatches using stone hand axes to split open bones in order to reach the marrow.  This might just be a regional adaptation, but it's something to be conscious of while examining the bones.  Here is a book review I posted at my blog about such tool use.  Is there any evidence of such bone splitting on any of your finds?

 

http://sasquatchresearchers.org/blogs/bigfootjunction/2015/02/11/book-review-of-sasquatch-tool-use/

Edited May 27, 2015 by jayjeti

[BigTreeWalker]

Thanks for the link Jayjeti. Sounds like some interesting observations. We have seen no evidence of tool use in what we have found. Although we will be making comparisons to early neanderthal bone evidence which resembles what we have found without the tool use.

One problem I can see in saying sasquatch is making and using stone tools is that modern man still does this. I have watched people do it and have even tried my hand at it. Now if, along with teeth impressions in bone and tool marks, then we are onto something. Tools and tool marks would be secondary evidence. But, if we can connect it to primary evidence, teeth impressions, then we are getting somewhere.

In one of the threads recently someone posted that we may have hurt sasquatch populations around the turn of the 20th century. That they may have lost some of the knowledge and skills they had previously. I think that is a reasonable observation. I apologize for not remembering who that was.

I may have to purchase that ebook for the insights and knowledge. It is always worth it to learn what we can.

[SWWASAS]

I have been sitting on the sidelines watching this thread with because I know BigTreeWalker and his son and have done field work with them.     Their names will be tied with the paper eventually but I have a confidentiality agreement with them concerning that and some other things of mutual interest.     I am not directly part of the project but have agreed to contribute should I find anything of interest to them.      I have not met Mr Townsend but from what I do know, they are very different.       Father and son are very knowledgeable and excellent trackers.   They are a bigger part of the project than you would gather from reading the press releases.     I might add that anyone who does field work and wants to contribute to their project should know that while they would like to personally document any chewed on bone stacks,  if that is not possible because of distance and schedules,   the stack itself needs to be carefully documented and photographed before anything is moved.    The order of stacking, the surrounding area,  as well as the bones themselves with the bite marks could all be important.    I am sure that BigTreeWalker would like to hear about any finds so contact him directly here with PM to determine what needs to be done.    Even after the paper is published the project will continue to gather data.