What About The Bones?

[SWWASAS]

Some years ago I messed up on casting a footprint because it looked more human shape (narrower that one would expect a BF to be) so I did not cast it even though I would have only had to walk a mile to get my casting materials. I measured it in the field and dummy me did not know that the last human to have a foot nearly that long died in 1947. The human was 17 inches and this footprint measured 17.4 inches. Alarm bells should have gone off and I should have dashed to my truck for the casting materials. Meldrum chastised me when I showed him the photo for not making a cast. As I recall his words were, "Do you realize females have narrower feet?" This was in fine lakeshore mud so might have had fine details casts often do not have. So I have spent some time studying human anatomy and norms so as to not make that mistake again. His advice is when in doubt cast it.

As has been mentioned, normally human remains have at least taters of clothing material so I would back out and call authorities in that case.

As the photos that BigtreeWalker shows, a 4 legged animal femur may be large, especially in diameter, but there is a bone spur sticking out of the bone opposite the ball end of the femur. If it is human or longer, and lacks that spur, you can be reasonably sure it is either a human or a biped of some sort. Meldrum says a femur and a skull are the two best bones to find and pack out. That assumes that BF femurs are similar to human only longer. Juveniles and females get you into overlapping norms and it might be difficult telling the difference with bones or footprints. Those are the ones you need to be careful with.

If you know the norms for humans, know what various animal bones look like, and to the best of your knowledge examine a bone array, and to the best of your knowledge can defend picking up a bone, I don't think you are in any more trouble with authorities than finding the bones in the first place. The reality of a human bone find is that you likely go to the top of the list of suspects.

Edited May 12, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[17x7]

BigTreeWalker-

You made a reference earlier in regard to an elk skull you found that indicated possible trauma to the nose/muzzle.  The obvious notion is that these areas are rather fragile and would be prone to damage from scavengers.  Another possible is one that I wondered about was suffocation as a means of death.  As my profile notes, I currently live in Uganda, East Africa (grew up in Oregon) so we have a different set of predators.  Lions are strong enough to just rip parts off their prey.  Cheetahs and Leopards, on the other hand, usually kill by biting the nose/muzzle of their prey and causing suffocation.  Just wondering if any of the local predators (black bear, cougar, or even coyote) kill like that.  It is my understanding that cougar usually attack by leaping from behind and usually attack the neck, but I'm no expert.  I also realize that an adult elk would be a large prize for a coyote, but I once watched as a pack of them ran an adult blacktail doe to complete exhaustion.  She was staggering in an attempt to even walk as she moved just out of sight with the coyotes following patiently just out of her reach.  I heard a commotion within seconds of loosing sight of them where I assume they killed her.  Such a tactic could work on an older elk, especially if a pack was involved.

 

Just an observation for your consideration.

17x7

[BigTreeWalker]

In our research we did look at the possible predators of elk in the PNW. Yes I have found deer killed by coyotes. The damage done by them is usually in hind leg and lower throat areas. Cougars are the most likely suspects of the known predators that do prey on elk. They usually attack the neck area. Be it at the back of the neck or the throat area. A bear may inflict this type of damage though black bears are more opportunistic and would go for the fawns and calves, plus that fits their foraging styles. These were mature cow elk in the two to five year old range. There are no confirmed wolf packs or grizzlies in this area. Though in our research we did not rule them out as possibilities.

This brings us back to the evidence presented in our research which we can't ignore, regardless of the method of killing the animals. That is the disarticulation while feeding, the tooth impressions in the bones, and the stacking behavior. One thing I see that people are not realizing here is that the type of predator that fed on a kill can be and has been researched and is currently being used to identify the predators responsible or the scavengers after the fact. Using this forensic research we found that we have something not previously identified going on here. It is the bones, and the story they tell that is important here. The method of killing is just speculation.

[Airdale]

Great work BigTreeWalker. Of everything I've observed in the three years or so since my interest in this subject was rekindled, your fascinating research strikes me as having the most potential to make inroads with the broader scientific community. 

[Guest Divergent1]

And it's this kind of research regarding what most wouldn't notice, that is evidence based, that will gradually bring the topic more serious consideration.

[SWWASAS]

It will be interesting when you publish your paper.   Hope it gets appropriate attention.  

[BigTreeWalker]

Thanks everyone. We are in the final stages and will be getting together next week to discuss the final arrangement of our research prior to submitting for publication.

[Sunflower]

^^^There are reports of lakeside finds that are described as fresh water mussel shells being fed on.  Footprints have been found in a few but the stacking of empty shells is very interesting to me.  Other stacking reports are of rocks, feathers, flowers, etc.   Could it be some form of communication to other hairy guys that this is a "good spot" for either food, water or shelter???

[BigTreeWalker]

The interesting thing is this stacking behavior while eating is not normal to humans when eating outdoors. We eat chicken, the bones usually get tossed. We eat an apple, the core gets tossed. Maybe not everyone, but that is the norm. When we eat indoors, we stack the bones, shells or whatever on the side of our plate.

Just thought this was an interesting observation.

[SWWASAS]

Well for a BF outdoors is his house. Perhaps BF wants order and hates the trash humans throw all over the place in the woods. So just as we do inside, with our food remnants, BF stacks bones in an orderly way.

[bipedalist]

http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/livenews/3168318-8/proof-of-bigfoot-is-in-the-bones-winlock

 

Mitchel Townsend, professor and a Centralia College research team in WA state has found startling evidence of Bigfoot stacked predated bones, preliminary evidence in multiple locations but centering in Mt. St. Helens area.  Several Lower Columbia College students assisted in finding similar finds to those in Lake Ryan, in Eastern Lewis County. 

 

Apparently a banned blogger has posted at his site about the find.

 

Very interesting, wonder what happened to the DNA sampling? 

Edited May 16, 2015 by bipedalist

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I found this quote very interesting

 

"A double arch structure also showed the teeth were closely related to the Neanderthals, and the molars left triangular impressions as opposed to circular impressions an ape or chimpanzee would leave, he said."

 

Just more evidence that we're dealing with something human.

 

The height estimate in the article is off though. Based on the height of the PGF subject, a 16 inch foot would mean the animal was closer to 7 feet.

[southernyahoo]

Interesting.......... .

 

In the comments, Haskell Hart asks what the stacked bones were from and what the creature ate. I'm betting it was a skeptic. 

[Guest Divergent1]

I'm betting it was Elk.

[Guest]

This was our own BigTreeWalker, yes?