What About The Bones?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

We should analyse his teeth marks and compare them against the examples mentioned.

Then take some carcasses that were gnawed by bears, wolves, big cats, and see which pattern is matched.

If this was science instead of Bigfoot I would be surprised someone had not already done this.

Not saying your dad is Bigfoot, but as a hominid perhaps he can stand stand in to representative for the BF.

 

He cooked and used steak knives, which plays back to my other point of not being a carnivore, predator, killer by evolution but by technology. Meat still reeks havoc on the human metabolism that as a survivor of  heart attack you may appreciate.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[norseman]

My Dad died of a heart attack in 95, so he wont be able to be a stand in for an experiment.

But many many animals crack bone to get to marrow. And also eat the bone.

Just read that whitetail deer were filmed eating baby chicks for minerals.

[Guest WesT]

Oh yeah, and they DO have tool use.

To my total surprise. Talk about being blindsided...

[BigTreeWalker]

Then take some carcasses that were gnawed by bears, wolves, big cats, and see which pattern is matched.

If this was science instead of Bigfoot I would be surprised someone had not already done this.

The science has been done before it was brought here and becoming bigfoot as you say. It was brought here for the express purpose of asking for help in the field. The comparisons you speak of have been and are still being done. (Except Norseman's father's teeth. No disrespect intended Norse.)

I have received help here as I had hoped and really appreciate it. The more information the better. But it goes to the nature of finding any bones in the field, and then determining what you've found. That's why I asked for closeups of Bigtex' photos. I have gotten information from others not on these forums that other bones have been found with similar impressions. It's just that no one has bothered to do any research on them other than looking at the evidence. Regardless of your above statements Cryptic, comparisons to wolf, bear and big cat kills and feeding behavior have been made. Cryptic, there has to be a beginning for any type of research. I have found that we are on the ground floor here and more needs to be done. As I've said before, should I ignore it or continue with it? I think I will continue.

A little bit of biology here. The elk found were females in their prime. The deaths occurred in mid spring, so not winter kill or human killed from hunting. Poaching not likely because access to this area during this time of the year is nonexistent. The gates are locked miles away from there. An adult male cougar would be the most likely predator to do this. But it isn't cougar feeding behavior. It doesn't matter whether a cougar killed these elk, or whatever finally fed on it took it away from the cougar. Or the subject actually made the kill itself. To be honest, it would be easier to tackle an elk than take a kill from a large cougar.

Edited February 18, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

Then take some carcasses that were gnawed by bears, wolves, big cats, and see which pattern is matched.

If this was science instead of Bigfoot I would be surprised someone had not already done this.

The science has been done before it was brought here and becoming bigfoot as you say. It was brought here for the express purpose of asking for help in the field. The comparisons you speak of have been and are still being done. (Except Norseman's father's teeth. No disrespect intended Norse.)

I have received help here as I had hoped and really appreciate it. The more information the better. But it goes to the nature of finding any bones in the field, and then determining what you've found. That's why I asked for closeups of Bigtex' photos. I have gotten information from others not on these forums that other bones have been found with similar impressions. It's just that no one has bothered to do any research on them other than looking at the evidence. Regardless of your above statements Cryptic, comparisons to wolf, bear and big cat kills and feeding behavior have been made. Cryptic, there has to be a beginning for any type of research. I have found that we are on the ground floor here and more needs to be done. As I've said before, should I ignore it or continue with it? I think I will continue.

A little bit of biology here. The elk found were females in their prime. The deaths occurred in mid spring, so not winter kill or human killed from hunting. Poaching not likely because access to this area during this time of the year is nonexistent. The gates are locked miles away from there. An adult male cougar would be the most likely predator to do this. But it isn't cougar feeding behavior. It doesn't matter whether a cougar killed these elk, or whatever finally fed on it took it away from the cougar. Or the subject actually made the kill itself. To be honest, it would be easier to tackle an elk than take a kill from a large cougar.

 

I appreciate your approach if it is what you are pursuing. I think you will need a microscope analysis.

Hominid scavengers would wait till the predator left the kill before sneaking off with marrow bones or carcass parts.

Mostly cause it's easier both to not kill an elk or take a kill from a cougar. Those hominids are sneaky, that may be why the have bigger brains. Work smart, not hard.

[Bigtex]

Hey BTW......just read your request, which parts would you like the closeups of? 

 

Also, after I took those pics, I put a HD Bushnell Game-Cam nearby, and was gonna go by this weekend to retrieve. I am always interested to see all of the potential nibblers that come by, and will post some of those. 

[BigTreeWalker]

Hey BTW......just read your request, which parts would you like the closeups of? 

 

Also, after I took those pics, I put a HD Bushnell Game-Cam nearby, and was gonna go by this weekend to retrieve. I am always interested to see all of the potential nibblers that come by, and will post some of those.

A closeup of the ribs, thanks. A game cam is a great idea to see the nibblers.

[BigTreeWalker]

Went out with another researcher today that works with audio. He's had a lot of activity in this area. Knocks, moans, whistles, some very interesting things to listen to. This area is second growth douglas fir and alders interspersed with marshes. West of Mt St Helens. Elk seem to love the area. There was fresh sign everywhere. It must be where they go to die too. Found a lot of bones. Most looked like they had been fed on by cougars or small scavengers. There was little to no bone breakage on any of them. We did find one remains that looked to have been there about a year. The ribs were all together in one spot. One had some minor impressions similar to our research specimens. We did find a leg bone, smaller than the femur Norseman had sent me. The end was broken off and the marrow had been scooped out about 10" into the bone, much like the femur had been. We did collect that bone and the one rib. The interesting thing about this location was that a track had been found about 30 yards from there last year. I placed my Plotwatcher in the audio activity area. We'll see if anything comes of that. At least I should get some pictures of elk.

[BigTreeWalker]

We have found three more sites out of about eight discovered, which show the feeding behavior we are looking for. Here's a link to a paper that shows specifically what we are looking for and finding at times. This behavior has been around over 1 million years and can still be observed today amongst both primitive people and chimpanzees. The only difference being the size of impressions found and no visible tool marks. One thing they mention I find very interesting is that some of these feeding characteristics are the result of being able to use hands.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.olduvaiproject.org/wp-content/uploads/taphonomy-of-ungulate-ribs-and-the-consumption-of-meat-and-bone.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiQreWJ7pnLAhVCy2MKHY-dB5IQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHx0uCSAzb9jA_d483xCqb7O6eE4w&sig2=inqnZ5ZYx6F_ZtljoZbUIw

[dlaw]

BTW,

Interesting work you are doing.  I don't suppose there are any giant chimpanzees in your study area, are they?

[SWWASAS]

Lack of tool marks is interesting.   One would think with my experience of rock placement  seeming to be a BF behavior, that rock use would have a more significant part in their daily use.      These rock shards associated with the glyph constructed for me, would seem to be useful as scrapers to scrape meat off of bones.  The edges were quite sharp.    But they were unused as far as I could determine.   I cannot believe that rocks would be useful to them as art or a gift and not have any other more utilitarian use.

 

 

 

  They seem to have some funny protocols with regard to food.    Rarely taking all of something gifted.   Perhaps a used scraper would be considered unclean or an insult or not as valuable as a unused one?   Or an alternative explanation would be that they have observed NA using rock tools,   scrapers etc,   know that we use them and consider them of value, but they cannot figure out how to use them?    Does the same part of our brain that makes us human and different from BF and able to create tools, allow us to envision tool use?  

 

 

  Certainly your finding of marrow removal does show some tool use so I would think they would utilize other tools for food processing.   Of course BF could be an entirely opportunistic user of tools.    Since they do not wear clothing,  or carry things around in packs or bags as have archeo humans for many 100s of thousands of years.     Tool use might be only in cases where they happen to kill a deer or elk, and there are some good scraper rock shards nearby.   A hunter gatherer is not going to leave a kill, and go looking for a rock shard to scrape meat off some ribs.   When they get back it might not be there.     Certainly if they do have semi-permanent camps,   tools might be present there.     This bone research, since it is associated with feeding behavior, could well open up all kinds of avenues of research associated with that.     Certainly evidence of primitive tool use like rock scrapers would be earthshaking. 

Edited February 28, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[BigTreeWalker]

BTW,

Interesting work you are doing.  I don't suppose there are any giant chimpanzees in your study area, are they?

Thanks dlaw. Lol, sometimes the alternatives are harder to swallow than the possibility of bigfoot.

SWWSP, some interesting thoughts there. I agree this should open up many avenues of research. It definitely creates more questions.

Just thinking here as are you. Maybe the absence of noticeable tool use goes to the fact of physical strength; we don't have it, they do. I might be able to dismember a rabbit or grouse. Maybe even a deer, if I worked at it, but that would be pushing it. Just as they have full body hair but we need clothes. Tool use with respect to BF has been brought to my attention before. I believe it was from Texas. But if I remember right some stone tools were found as well as possible bigfoot feeding sites. But until those tools can be shown to fit cuts in the bone, that's just speculation. Because teeth also leave scores and gouges in bone.

But, from what we have seen, this would not preclude the use of primitive tools. Such as a rock to break a bone or a stick to dig out the marrow. Chris Spencer, who I have been working with, has found rocks near trees and damage to the bark in areas of consistent knocking activity. We probably wouldn't recognize a rock used to subdue an animal or a branch used as a club.

[SWWASAS]

Can you tell the difference between rock tool marks and teeth marks?    I suppose that sort of depends on an individual BF's method of eating.     I know if I watch humans eating ribs probably every human has their own technique to do that.   My cooked ribs pretty much fall off the bone but raw rib meat is pretty well attached to some sort of membrane that covers the rib.     We have to assume that BF range in intelligence just as humans do.   That might have some influence on their feeding methods or even use of tools itself.    Certainly now that you have turned the forum on to looking for bone evidence at feeding sites, we should also be looking for signs of tool use at kill and eating sites.    I would say a large branch or rock, with blood and fur stuck to it at a recent kill site may full well point directly to use of clubs or rocks as weapons.    And sharp edge rocks might have been used as scrapers especially for rib meat.    If they use any of that,   it should be lying around near the kill or feeding location.    Use of a club or rock to kill and a nice bone stack can hardly be pinned on a cougar.   And we have to face it that most of researchers out there, probably are not even thinking of tool use when they examine a kill sight.   Until BTW and his research, many had nothing to differentiate a BF kill from something else. 

 

If you think about it,  little BF does leaves behind any evidence.     Footprints now and then but this feeding behavior and bone stacking thing probably leaves more they have been present than anything.    Hopefully they will not get clued in and change that behavior like they seem to do to avoid leaving footprints.     I hope that others in other parts of the country know about your work and come forward with their findings to contribute to the body of evidence.     

Edited February 28, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[BigTreeWalker]

SWWSP,

I do look around for possible weapons. I don't think any of the elk were moved far from the original kill sites. But in the case of these most recent finds, they are all about a year old. So any of that kind of evidence you mentioned, is gone. If we continue in this area maybe we will find some fresher kills. If you read the above paper, tool marks are not needed to identify hominoid type feeding behavior. It's the bone peeling and tooth impressions that also aid identification. Chimpanzee feeding behavior is also similar and identifiable. If BF is just using a sharp rock, without microscopy it may be hard to differentiate a rock score from a tooth score. A Clovis type cutting tool though would create a V shaped impression as opposed to a cresent shaped impression of a tooth score mark. Tool use would be an offshoot of this study, but that is not our main focus here. The bones collected are and will be available for further study. They aren't going away. It is hard evidence and it is becoming repeatable.

If they can infer what we are doing with the bones my hat is definitely off to them. Because there are people that can't make that connection.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

SWWSP,

I do look around for possible weapons. I don't think any of the elk were moved far from the original kill sites. But in the case of these most recent finds, they are all about a year old. So any of that kind of evidence you mentioned, is gone. If we continue in this area maybe we will find some fresher kills. If you read the above paper, tool marks are not needed to identify hominoid type feeding behavior. It's the bone peeling and tooth impressions that also aid identification. Chimpanzee feeding behavior is also similar and identifiable. If BF is just using a sharp rock, without microscopy it may be hard to differentiate a rock score from a tooth score. A Clovis type cutting tool though would create a V shaped impression as opposed to a cresent shaped impression of a tooth score mark. Tool use would be an offshoot of this study, but that is not our main focus here. The bones collected are and will be available for further study. They aren't going away. It is hard evidence and it is becoming repeatable.

If they can infer what we are doing with the bones my hat is definitely off to them. Because there are people that can't make that connection.

If Clovis then fully modern human, before fully modern no hunting of large animals, which does not eliminate scavenging.

 

You can scavenge with tools such as blade flakes, percussion chipped stones, hand axes. 

Very primitive to the point of Ape or Australopithecus would be unmodified stone.

 

My guess, because of the thumb issue, you shouldn't be finding much tool use, if any.

Also the skull shape on Patty also indicates this species (whatever it might be named, if found)

would be unlikely to be using stones for hunting.

 

The primary reason our skull is not being a nutcracker or pinhead type (disproportionately small and robust head in relation to body, no neck) is that food processing and scavenging of meat led us down the path of less jaw muscle and so we could evolve a larger cranium for our bigger brain.

 

Million of years down that path we started making points for arrows and spears, as recent as 40,000 before present out to possible, though unlikely 200,000 before present (no evidence.)

 

It is thought that projectile blade flaking and language (also 40,000 years ago) go hand in hand. All fully modern.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna