What About The Bones?

[Guest Crowlogic]

An awful lot. Human bones are found all the time without any kind of marker or indication that the bones are there. Every time you dig in the ground there is the potential for finding them. The bones of Kennewick Man are 9000 years old, and were found in the PNW of all places, buried in that acidic soil and washed out by the Columbia River.

 

Since Bigfoot is supposed to also exist outside of the 'acidic soil of the PNW', and all over the US, we should also find their bones in regular dry soils. We're constantly digging up the soil, finding bones dating back to the dinosaurs on a regular basis. Why no Bigfoot bones?

No bigfoot to leave bones.

[1980squatch]

BigTree, fascinating research thanks much for sharing.  The pessimist in me however doubts that this can get us any further than casts and trackways, since those are also a "marks made in substrate" sort of evidence.  Do you have plans to address that issue, or have any thoughts about the differences/similarities of your research to that evidence?

[BigTreeWalker]

Our research will address both Taphonomy (the death of an organism) and Neoichnology (tracks and other evidence left by an organism). Your right though we may not be able to get any further than where we are. The hope is that by review it would create a question that requires an answer.

[SWWASAS]

Have to disagree with Roguefooter and in advertently support Crowlogics argument but the truth must be told.  Kennewick is well East of the Cascades in the arid part of the state and the soil there instead of being acid tends to be alkaline.      It takes dense forest to produce acid soils.   Alkaline soils, as long as they are not strongly alkaline, tend to preserve remains.   As for BF bones,   I have always maintained that the giants dug up back East that made the newspapers before being sent off to the Smithsonian in the late 1800s are likely the missing bigfoot bones.     8 feet tall, double rows of teeth, are mentioned in at least a couple of newspaper reports at the time in different locations.     Queries about those bones today with the freedom of information act get a response that they cannot be found.  But the newpaper accounts at the time tell of Smithsonian people being involved in excavating, boxing, and shipping them to the Smithsonian. 

[Cisco]

BTW, Thanks for sharing your research, as well as your insight. I have a little experience with examining bones for signs of predation. Specifically with mountain lion and coyote predation in South Texas. However, I never bothered to consider the way bones were piled or spread out.

 

I have some questions that I've been thinking about and would appreciate your point of view.

 

I've come across stacks of bones before and in particular, I'm thinking of a stack of turkey bones I came across when turkey hunting, in 1992, near an area about 80 miles SE of San Antonio. The bones were stacked and almost devoid of meat. The rib cage was split and the ribs themselves were individually split, from each other, in opposing directions and I could see where something had stripped the meat off the bones, with its teeth, as I could see the striations. The other major bones had been cleaned in a similar fashion and then piled up. The feathers had been plucked and pulled off in an area that was about 30 feet in diameter. The last interesting thing of note was the bones were stacked next a fallen mesquite tree, with an arch, that was a perfect place to sit.

 

Questions: Aside from elk/ deer, have you come across other bone piles from birds or smaller mammals? Would the type of bone allow for varying results in tooth markings?

 

What about the skulls? Have you found them cracked open or always intact?

 

Thanks

[roguefooter]

Have to disagree with Roguefooter and in advertently support Crowlogics argument but the truth must be told.  Kennewick is well East of the Cascades in the arid part of the state and the soil there instead of being acid tends to be alkaline.      It takes dense forest to produce acid soils.   Alkaline soils, as long as they are not strongly alkaline, tend to preserve remains.   As for BF bones,   I have always maintained that the giants dug up back East that made the newspapers before being sent off to the Smithsonian in the late 1800s are likely the missing bigfoot bones.     8 feet tall, double rows of teeth, are mentioned in at least a couple of newspaper reports at the time in different locations.     Queries about those bones today with the freedom of information act get a response that they cannot be found.  But the newpaper accounts at the time tell of Smithsonian people being involved in excavating, boxing, and shipping them to the Smithsonian. 

 

Acidic soil doesn't explain the bones left in the rest of the US and Canada. If we are to believe that these sightings are real then the bones should be all over the continent. 

 

The 'Smithsonian conspiracy' is a convenient excuse to explain it away, but that was long before we had the excavation equipment we have now. Think of how much excavation has happened since then and how many more bones should have been found. Remember also that Bigfoots are supposed to be still be thriving since the Smithsonian days, and still leaving dead bodies and bones all across the country- which would mean a continuous supply of fresh specimens.

 

^^This^^ is why I think people came up with the 'alternate dimension' and paranormal garbage. To explain away the logically unexplainable.

Edited May 19, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest Crowlogic]

Acidic soil doesn't explain the bones left in the rest of the US and Canada. If we are to believe that these sightings are real then the bones should be all over the continent. 

 

The 'Smithsonian conspiracy' is a convenient excuse to explain it away, but that was long before we had the excavation equipment we have now. Think of how much excavation has happened since then and how many more bones should have been found. Remember also that Bigfoots are supposed to be still be thriving since the Smithsonian days, and still leaving dead bodies and bones all across the country- which would mean a continuous supply of fresh specimens.

 

^^This^^ is why I think people came up with the 'alternate dimension' and paranormal garbage. To explain away the logically unexplainable.

People come up with all sorts of things to get around the fact that dead bigfoot bodies and bones never show up.  This is something I have termed special dispensation.  Special dispensation is all of the unique, unproven and hypothetical things believers dream up to explain the glaring absence of solid evidence and proof.  Finally it is far less cumbersome to toss all the special dispensation and finally see the matter for what it is, and what it isn't.

[beerhunter]

I dug up part of the yard at my first house and found a glass milk bottle from the1950's as well as a large bone that turn out to be from a large dog.  My neighbor told me was his dog from some 30 years prior when his parents owned the house. The bone was intact and a vet confirmed it was about the size of a German Shepherd. BF bones would be there in the ground if we were lucky enough to find the right spot.

[BigTreeWalker]

@ beerhunter. You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. The biggest problem is knowing where to look. If bigfoot is as reclusive as reported, that could be in some very hard to reach, out of the way places. I know from experience that most people don't stray very far off the beaten path. On top of that you have to be paying attention and know what your are looking for.

@ Crowlogic. No excuses, no special dispensation. I speak from over 40 years of outdoor experience. Other than ungulates (elk, deer, cows) and small game (grouse, rabbits), apex predator bones are very hard to come by. I came across a busted up coyote skull once. Also found a cougar someone had killed and placed on an old tire in a firepit, just plain weird. Some of the bones were so covered with moss and forest litter it was just a coincidence I kicked them out of the ground. I keep my eyes open and have made myself knowledgeable about bones. This is something that I hope everyone that is interested would do that spends time in the woods. Considering where most people go it's statistically more likely to find human bones. I know this possibility will deter some people but not everyone.

@roguefooter. As far as excavation sites go they are usually close to human habitations. Sure we are ever expanding outward, but the places where we are now are the places humans have lived for hundreds or even thousands of years. Places I might add where a sasquatch might visit, but not places they will be hanging around. Can you honestly say that every time a bone is uncovered all construction stops? How many times have they possibly been there and were missed? Archeologists dig in spots of known human habitations. This is not a likely place to look for the bones of a reclusive creature. A creature I might add that is doing the eating rather than being something on the menu.

[norseman]

http://www.mountaingorillas.info/about-gorillas/scientific-facts.html

Mountain gorillas are descendants of ancestral monkeys and apes found in Africa and Arabia during the start of the Oligocene epoch (34-24 million years ago). The fossil record provides evidence of the hominoid primates (apes) found in east Africa about 18–22 million years ago. The fossil record of the area where mountain gorillas live is particularly poor and so its evolutionary history is not clear. It was about 9 million years ago that the group of primates that were to evolve into gorillas split from their common ancestor with humans and chimps; this is when the genus Gorilla emerged. It is not certain what this early relative of the gorilla was, but it is traced back to the early ape Proconsul Africanus.

[BigTreeWalker]

BTW, Thanks for sharing your research, as well as your insight. I have a little experience with examining bones for signs of predation. Specifically with mountain lion and coyote predation in South Texas. However, I never bothered to consider the way bones were piled or spread out.

 

I have some questions that I've been thinking about and would appreciate your point of view.

 

I've come across stacks of bones before and in particular, I'm thinking of a stack of turkey bones I came across when turkey hunting, in 1992, near an area about 80 miles SE of San Antonio. The bones were stacked and almost devoid of meat. The rib cage was split and the ribs themselves were individually split, from each other, in opposing directions and I could see where something had stripped the meat off the bones, with its teeth, as I could see the striations. The other major bones had been cleaned in a similar fashion and then piled up. The feathers had been plucked and pulled off in an area that was about 30 feet in diameter. The last interesting thing of note was the bones were stacked next a fallen mesquite tree, with an arch, that was a perfect place to sit.

 

Questions: Aside from elk/ deer, have you come across other bone piles from birds or smaller mammals? Would the type of bone allow for varying results in tooth markings?

 

What about the skulls? Have you found them cracked open or always intact?

 

Thanks

Thank you. The turkey bones are interesting. I found a dead turkey once but it was nothing like you describe. The bones were all busted up in the center of a pile of feathers. I assumed a coyote kill. What you describe sounds like whatever did it used a pair of hands to dismember and consume the bird. How would you pull the bones through your teeth to leave striations as you describe? I've seen canines stand on bones and strip off the meat, but that doesn't fit with the rest of your description. And they destroy bones. The stacking is also specific to what we have seen in our research. Mr Townsend and I have both dubbed them Bone Stackers.

When you asked me if I had seen sign of any small game that appeared to be handled like this it brought to mind a grouse I found while elk hunting last fall. I had sat down on a log to eat my lunch. I looked over the back side of the log and found a small pile of bones. I poked around through them and found a whole wishbone and realized it was a Ruffed Grouse. At the time I just assumed it died and fell off the log. Now that I think of it there were no feathers to be seen. The bones were all whole. It's possible but not likely that something wouldn't have found and eaten it if it just died of old age. So I suppose something decided that log was a good place to sit down and eat lunch just as I had. It was also within two miles of the third elk kill in our research.

You asked about the skulls. I have discussed them a couple times already. Other than the noses being broken apart on all but one of them, the rest of the skull was intact. None of the damage would have been lethal. We surmise that it was done to stun the animals, which were then killed by other undetermined methods.

As to tooth impressions, it would take a pretty good sized bone to hold these impressions. We did see some striations, like you mentioned, on these bones. As if the individual had placed the bone lengthwise into its mouth to strip the meat off.

Hope that answers some of your questions.

[Guest ksu4]

Just for discussion if we eliminate the shallow graves dug by killers and we didn't know to look under a headstone, in old city or village sites, how many human bones would we find?

My whole point was that it is not a valid comparison between human and Sasquatch (provided they exist). You admit as much in your response: very few reports exist of sas burial ceremonies, and the ones that are out there are very suspect IMO. My point being that we could and do find human bones regularly, for a variety of reasons and in a variety of settings.

[BigTreeWalker]

I can word this a different way. We find human bones because we look in places where they have existed for centuries. The bones we find outside of these areas are not the norm. At least a couple people would have us believe that they are found outside these areas all the time. You're also assuming that every bone found in these outlying areas is identified and collected, which I know is not the case. I was being sarcastic about their buriel ceremonies. The reason why you know where to find human bones is because you have knowledge about what humans do. If you had this same knowledge about bigfoot you could very well find some of their bones!

[roguefooter]

@roguefooter. As far as excavation sites go they are usually close to human habitations. Sure we are ever expanding outward, but the places where we are now are the places humans have lived for hundreds or even thousands of years. Places I might add where a sasquatch might visit, but not places they will be hanging around. Can you honestly say that every time a bone is uncovered all construction stops? How many times have they possibly been there and were missed? Archeologists dig in spots of known human habitations. This is not a likely place to look for the bones of a reclusive creature. A creature I might add that is doing the eating rather than being something on the menu.

 

Bones are found all the time during construction projects, and reported-

 

https://www.google.com/#q=bones+found+construction&start=10

 

Is Bigfoot the exception to the rule? Remember that the guys doing the actual construction work don't care about any secret cover ups or stalled projects. They're not under any kind of secrecy obligation. You can bet that if any one of them found giant human-like bones or a million dollar Bigfoot skull they wouldn't hesitate to cash in.

 

Also, there seems to be this idea that Bigfoot lives and dies only in some kind of reclusive wilderness where no man ever goes, yet is sighted around human habitation all the time. They're crossing urban and rural roads, hanging out in people's backyards, rivers, lakes, and streams where people recreate, camp grounds, etc. Yet these places are not where their corpses or bones are supposed to ever be found. Do they all travel back to Bigfoot City before dawn? This makes no sense.

 

Okay, so let's go to the reclusive wilderness. Hundreds of thousands of miles of logging and access roads have been dozed right through the most reclusive forests all over the continent, and are still being cut today. Miles and miles of remote wilderness were stripped and washed away by mining in the PNW over the past 150 years. Man made lakes were dug out. Thousands of mine shafts were dug into the mountains- but no Bigfoot bones ever found. Is there some central Bigfoot burial ground that just happened to dodge every single land project? This doesn't make much sense either.

[Guest]

I doubt bigfoot spend most of their time crossing roads or peeking into people's back yards or watching campers. And it would seem those that do such things are typically lone adults, possibly nomadic males. It is reasonable to assume that the majority of time for bigfoot family or groups would be spent in remote or dense forest, seldom if ever visited by humans. This, of course, is likely the places where their bones would be left.