What About The Bones?

[WSA]

 

That answers that: Troll.

My lawd man. Get you a life. This is getting sad.

I've seen the work you do with your hands. As a fellow craftsman I'd just caution you about too much time spent at the bench. Go out and take some air once in a while. You are coming across as nothing but a crank.

You're here as much as I am so how about that get a life thing?

 

The diff? You are a one-note song. Only Neil can get away with bending a single note for 4 bars at a time.  Lay out a wee bit, huh?

[BigTreeWalker]

As I mentioned in the field thread, we did find one elk kill near Bumping Lake. It was about 100 yards from a large marsh where the vegetation was thicker. But it was also on the edge of a large forested area that had been burned over probably 30 years ago. It was a nice area. You could see dispersed campsites here and there and the visibility in the forest in this area was good because of no underbrush. There was a two track road through the forest near the kill site. But up the hill slightly. The bones showed natural decay processes in that the ribs were all in place with the vertebrae. The kill probably happened last fall just before snowfall. Not much scattering was apparent. Evidence of cougar feeding and rodent gnawing were both present on the bones. In fact the rodent gnawing is very good comparative evidence that this is not what we have seen previously.

What killed the elk isn't known. The skull was missing and all the leg bones. There were no lower legs or hooves present and no pelvis. Which is usually evidence of a hunter kill, their being sawed off or boned out. The bones were within 10' of what was left of the gut pile. As I said it was fairly accessible to a road up the hill, which a hunter would probably have used to remove the whole elk instead of removing just the quarters. Anyway even when that is done the pelvis is usually left. So to me it begs more questions than I can answer as to what happened to the back half of the elk and the front quarters. Seeing as how the rest of what was left showed a typical cougar kill. No bear or wolf feeding evidence whatsoever. The only other explanation I can come up with is a poacher trying to take the choicest parts as quickly as possible.

[hiflier]

Some folks are good at finding this stuff. Thanks BTW, I could be in the woods all week and never find these kinds of things. I guess I won't be the one to find that all elusive brass ring.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Did you see this?

[BigTreeWalker]

Probably since it was posted over a year ago. They do bring up some good points which I totally agree with. Bigfoot are omnivores so hunting is probably more a matter of opportunity. The elk and deer kills east of Mt St Helens appeared to be actual bigfoot kills. However, in the area where we are working now it appears that cougars are the primary predators and the ones that appear to have been fed on by bigfoot (4 out of 22) were just a matter of opportunity.

Something they didn't mention in the video is that during certain times of the year it makes more sense for them to eat meat, late winter and early spring, than at other times of the year when vegetation is growing and abundant. We see the same behavior in bears. Which, as I have mentioned before, is a very good indicator species.

[Guest WesT]

Chimps will seek out fresh meat during times of drought or little rain also, and they hunt as a group.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Chimps will seek out fresh meat during times of drought or little rain also, and they hunt as a group.

But they do not rely on a meat diet, and hunt smaller animals, not big game such as antelope, zebra, etc.

So it is a small item of the diet.

80 % more likely to eat a cricket, a grass nut, a fruiting body.

0 % large game as with all other known hominids (except man, who has spear and arrow and bullet and knife technology and 300 % more brain capacity).

 

This is where you would logically extrapolate behavior.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

I've presented evidence that they do eat meat. Other reports also state this. You seem to have a problem with it. I have no idea what percentage of their diet is meat. I've also said they, as early humans were, are probably opportunistic. I have to ask what you would consider big game to them? Deer certainly wouldn't be. As usual their brain size is merely a guess. If we are extrapolating from some other hominid, which one do we use? And I've seen all the discussions about their lineage. But you know what, it might be fun to discuss but no one really knows.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Maybe someone knows but isn't telling?

 

As far as your evidence I appreciate your  and getting out and doing something useful with scientific spirit of enquiry as it's  rare for this subject.

 

However in my opinion you go too far when you state evidence. 

 

An unproven animal with an unproven association.

 

There are other explanations possible unless you have video evidence of a large primate depositing the bones or something equally unequivocal.

 

You need to prove the association with a link, you can't be sure of the dentition of a Bigfoot as it is an unknown unknown.

 

We could get into the problem of why a non predator would risk injury by attacking a full size elk.

 

You can speculate on how the kill may occur.

 

I'm more for scavenging which has a great history with hominids going back millions of years.

 

So I find the evidence interesting but inconclusive, which is logically sound.

 

I find the idea of big game predation logically unacceptable but I don't have the time or interest to write pages as to why since the reasons abound in good anthropology books and other scientific books covering similar subjects.

 

My intent is not to write a dissertation but a brief essay covering a few logical objections as it reflects my interest level.

 

Don't feel you need to respond but I will enjoy reading further developments of your research as they become available.

 

Who knows, you may even be onto something.

 

No reason for me to have a closed mind.

 

But I think I will wait before I commit to the logic and await the further developments over time.

 

Good luck at any rate.

[BigTreeWalker]

Thanks Cryptic, I do my part of the research by making comparisons. I've learned enough over the last couple years that I can get a reasonable idea of which larger predator/scavengers fed on an animal. As far as dentition goes, the only thing that compares to a very reasonable extent with what we have found is hominid dentition. Yes for all of those that have a problem with the idea, comparisons can be made. One of our main references does just that with archeological sites. They also use ungulate ribs in their determination.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544031200427X

In my original analysis I arrived at unknown predator. Here on the Bigfoot Forums I share what is the best fit. I guess I could say it was giant wild humans if that is more palatable to some. But why? When there is already large amounts of evidence pointing to bigfoot. Why make up something else just because the answer may be unacceptable to some. We look at it this way... It's a backdoor way to get mainstream science interested in the subject. Until that body comes in we will continue to work on it.

Something else I have been considering. I will make this offer. If anyone is interested and going to be in the Kelso, WA area, drop me a PM. I can share some of our findings and the work I've been doing. Maybe if time allows go up to one of the kill sites.