What About The Bones?

[bipedalist]

Elk are all over the base and zone of MSH.   Seen many myself from a distance. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

This was our own BigTreeWalker, yes?

 

I think so. It sounds like it's him.

Edited May 16, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[BigTreeWalker]

Busted!

My stance is a little different from Mr Townsend's. However, we both agree on the importance of the evidence.

I did comment on the DNA testing in the What about the Bones thread. I do have hair samples pulled off the bones also. Right now we felt the most compelling evidence was the bones themselves.

As Mr Townsend stated in the interview, the bones are available for further in depth study. However, they will remain in our custody.

[Guest]

Congrats, BigTreeWalker.  This is very exciting research and I'm glad to see it get some attention from the press.

 

When you say your stance is a little different, are you referring to the idea that BF are hybrids?

[gigantor]

Sweeet!  can't wait for an independent examination of the evidence.

 

In the mean time, big kudos for making such a great discovery, hope it holds up under scrutiny!  you may have something here.

Edited May 16, 2015 by gigantor

[MagniAesir]

Inter-breeding with native Americans for 80,000 years

Yeah right

[BigTreeWalker]

Congrats, BigTreeWalker. This is very exciting research and I'm glad to see it get some attention from the press.

When you say your stance is a little different, are you referring to the idea that BF are hybrids?

Thanks everyone!

I just feel there are some conclusions we cannot be absolute about until more of this type of evidence comes to light. There is something we both agree on, once this evidence is presented, then if more is found, the stronger our conclusions can be.

Gigantor, close expert scrutiny is what is hoped for.

Inter-breeding with native Americans for 80,000 years

Yeah right

MagniAesir, there has been some reining in during the course of this research and I suspect that will be the case here. 'nuff said.

Edited May 16, 2015 by BigTreeWalker

[WSA]

While I admire the originality of the science here, extrapolating the origins of the gnawer might be just a wee bit of overreach. I might not have been able to resist that urge either...

[norseman]

Are we positive that the teeth marks are not the result of a Porcupine?

[Guest lightheart]

Big Tree Walker

Is this your research being highlighted on Bigfoot Evidence? I applaud what you are doing. Looks like you are definitely onto something here.

[bipedalist]

Wicked little chompers there

[Guest Divergent1]

Are we positive that the teeth marks are not the result of a Porcupine?

If you read the details about the bite measurements and look at the links for typical shapes of skulls for predators there is no way to mistake the bite marks for porcupines or anything else. Of course you can't say what it is, but this is hard evidence that you need to inspire someone to actually pay attention to people who claim to have seen a sasquatch.

[bipedalist]

Obviously porcupine have rodent like incisors, those marks  seemed to have been missing if you read the article.   No evidence the bones had been scattered as porcupine do too.  In fact there was mention that after some time other animals seemed to stay away from the bone piles as I read it. 

 

Wholesale consumption of bone was not evident only stripping and chipping as I read the article.  

Edited May 16, 2015 by bipedalist

[VAfooter]

MOD NOTE: merged the "Stacked Bones: Human-Like Teeth Centralia College Finds" thread with this one.

[bipedalist]

Even though this one is "In the field" section (which is appropriate) and not in General Discussion I appreciate linking it back to the original pictures and research notes.

 

If we don't get enough hits with it as ITF maybe it could move back to General Discussion.  Just a thought.