If Bigfoot Were Real.

[Guest DWA]

 

3 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Lack of remains lying around means interment to me.     Several primates including man,  do something with remains.   A creature that hides from man when it is alive and  is very careful about not leaving footprints,   is not going to let uncle Ugg die and just leave him laying there to be found, decay, and reveal the presence of the tribe to anyone passing by.   

 

To me it just means natural ecological processes.  Most wild animals don't get interred.

Edited July 26, 2016 by DWA

[Guest SquatchinNY]

I think the fact that needs to be acknowledged by both sides is that something, whether an unknown primatelike creature, mass socio-psycological phenomenon, organized hoaxing, or a combination of the above, is resulting in tens of thousands of documented and undocumented encounters per year with something. I believe strongly that is is the first option that results in a good number of these sightings. The eyewitness testimony of so many different people and cultures cannot merely be ignored.  

[MIB]

SWWASAS -

 

I compute that is the most probable explanation as well.   I'm still left with concerns about the comparatively low numbers of apparent grave sites relative to what we think the population must be given the number of reports.   Behind each answer lurks more questions.

 

MIB

[FarArcher]

2 hours ago, Lake County Bigfooot said:

The bones, well that is easy, because we know that that this type of forest will decay bones at a rapid rate and that the small animals not only eat the bone but scatter them as well. Try to find the remains of any elusive animal, such as a cougar which I would deem far more common, and you will be hard pressed to produce a skeleton. Or even a bear, which is indeed common. The fact is the acidic nature of such environments lends itself to a rapid decay of the skeletal remains. Now I diverge, couple this with the possibility that this creature is intelligent enough to bury their dead. If the creature understands that its existence is predicated on not being discovered, it very well could take measures to ensure it is not. This is not to great a leap for even an animal to develop such an instinct, as whatever niche an animal finds to survive will control the development of its instincts, and that might be exactly the case here.

 

 

As I recall, anthropologists were surprised to find that the Neanderthal buried their dead at least on one occasion, and with the remains were apparently included flowers.  Of course there are other Neanderthal skeletons with some cut marks suggesting cannabalism, but we just don't know.  As far as cannabalism, I recall the aircraft that crashed in the Andes, and survivors resorting to cannabalism.  Then we have Albert Packer, Albert Fish, Issei Sagawa, Andrei Chikatelo, Jeffrey Dahmer, the Maori people in New Zealand, and cannabalism was common in New Guinea.  Aberrations.  Human aberrations.

 

I differ from some here by saying that these Critters are not lone wanderers.  They live in family groups/clans, and they even hunt together. They live together, they hunt together, and I'd assume they care somewhat about each other.  That's not a stretch, as we see examples of this, even in the animal kingdom.

 

I differ from some here by saying that when you see one of these Critters, there will be one or more very nearby, you don't see.

 

So what's been reported?  I've read over a dozen reports of people seeing two, three or more burying another BF.  Sometimes digging a hole, sometimes covering the dead with rocks and boulders, but usually when a hole was dug, one commonality was they cover the grave with rocks - and spend some effort doing so.

 

Some have been observed burying a companion in a stream, and then covering with rocks - lots of rocks.  

 

I recall the killing of one at Honobia - others came and carried it off, and didn't waste a moment doing so.

 

So. Some can whine and moan over the lack of bones, but these same folks seem a bit uninformed about what others have seen, what seems to be the operative when it comes to the dead BF's, and I don't think they really have a full grasp of the immensity of the terrain these things live in.

 

Every year, millions of deer lose their antlers, and it's very rare that one comes across antlers.  I think those who must have a skeleton are either really ignorant on what goes on in a wilderness and how vast they can be, or they're trying to move the needle of proof beyond likelihood of attainment.

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by FarArcher

[SWWASAS]

My own experience with a suspected grave site was that it was only recognizable as such for less than a year.     The next year after the find I could not find it again.    This was in the rock lahar on the East flank of Mt St Helens.     Initially it was constructed of rocks placed in a rectangular formation about 12 feet long and 4 feet wide with a delicately balanced rock stack at one end.    It looked like a bird.      Without that rock stack, I would not have recognized it for anything but a natural formation other than the rectangular shape did not seem natural.        The winter snow load,   spring runoff, an unstable bank, and other natural factors apparently modified the original grave so I could not find it again the next year.     

 

Respective to MIBs concerns about relative numbers of graves, could it be that BF makes use of natural features as much as possible so that the graves pretty much blend into the environment?.      Since they do not have shovels,  and forest soils are full of rocks and roots, I would suspect that rock internment would be the method of choice.     Cliff faces with talus slopes,  lava tubes,  caves,  or rocky crags surrounded by loose rocks,   would be ideal internment places with lots of rock materials handy to cover the body.     Then there is the very frequent sighting reports of BF being observed in abandoned rock quarries.     What are they hanging around a rock quarry for?    I have wondered if they are using the abandoned quarries as burial sites.      Humans recognize the quarries as artificial, or not natural, so would probably not notice that piles of rocks have been moved around to cover up a BF.    I take particular interest in those old quarries when in the field.   In one quarry I found a large mound of red rock that seemed to be the only red rock anywhere in the quarry.      It was mounded just like the suspected grave in the lahar.   The source seemed to be a talus field of red rock on the cliff above the quarry.     It had been moved down and formed into the mound.    Natural rock fall would not have formed a mound but would have created a fan shaped formation.       

Edited July 26, 2016 by SWWASAS

[MIB]

FarArcher -

 

I'm inclined to agree with you regarding them not being lone wanderers, at least most of the time.   The first one I saw was probably alone since its mode of travel did not really allow for others to be present unseen.   I'd say well over half the time, when there are indications of one, there are indications of several.   For instance, calls and response, not just calls.   Things happening on two different vectors away from me at the same time.   Etc.  

 

SWWASAS -

 

Your experience with the suspected grave site is interesting and sheds light on serious possibilities.   The area where I have the most activity is in a wilderness area with a lot of granite, newer volcanic rock, and glacial activity.  Today that leaves crumbing rock cliffs ... plenty of opportunity to bury a body under rock and, being wilderness, nobody is going to be mining or excavating to inadvertently dig them back up and discover them.   Had not considered that angle.   Ok, I'll throw up another one ... maybe related maybe not ... think about how many of Paulides missing 411 reports involve boulder fields.   Dunno, just hit me.   Maybe we're disturbing / defacing grave sites?   Out there but not impossible.

 

You've given me some ideas to check into in my search area.   Hmmm.  

 

MIB

[BigTreeWalker]

I was in an area this spring that is known for bigfoot sightings. Something else I noticed while there is miles of talus slopes coming from the ridges above. So not only possible food sources of small rodents, but possible burial sites as well? Whose to say. Not much chance of disturbance considering the whole area is surrounded by designated wilderness. 

[SWWASAS]

I do not know what the BF prime directive is, but it has to be something like "Avoid humans and avoid leaving any evidence of your presence to humans"       The reasons for that can only be conjecture but if such a directive exists,   the ramifications have to trickle down to getting rid of the bodies of their own kind just to avoid them being found.    Human internment varies based on religious practices and the geography.     Burial is relatively recent in human history.    Use of rock cairns,  caverns,   caves,  all have been used in the distant past before the invention of shovels.   Even if BF did not think of it themselves,  monkey see monkey do,  could explain why they treat their dead in certain ways because they likely saw humans using practices that worked for the geology of the region before the invention of digging tools.  

 

If you have a natural crag of sufficient size at the base of a cliff to hold the body,   it would be a simple process to just cover the body with sufficient talus to prevent scavengers from getting to it.     Human observers would not likely notice anything nor would they likely have any reason to disturb the site.   It would look totally natural.    The closer to or above the winter snow line would further retard degradation because of the temperatures at high altitudes,  and could even result in mummification in some circumstances during the dry season.   BF has had millennia to figure all of this stuff out.     

 

As far as messing with a BF grave,  when I was examining the suspected one in the lahar,    I had the feeling I was being watched, and that little voice in my head that keeps me out of trouble was screaming that I was in danger being just being there.    As far as the missing 411,  there have to be many things respective to BF that can put a human in danger.     Getting too close to a juvenile would be #1 on my guess list.      The Oregon coast is having lots of problems with people messing with seal pups.      Mother seals leave the pups on shore while they go out and feed.    Stupid but well meaning humans think the pups are in trouble and in some cases actually pick up the pups or get too close and prevent the mother from reuniting with the pup.  Just this year they have had to euthanize several pups to prevent them from starving to death.        Can you imagine what would happen if a human found a cute little juvenile BF hiding in a tree?   Believe me they are cute.     Since BF are not known to exist, the human would probably think it is just a pet ape that escaped, and try to help it.    That human might be in big trouble.    

Edited July 26, 2016 by SWWASAS

[Incorrigible1]

Physical remains should not be expected, because, they're bigfoot, natch. And it's ignorant to expect a creature of several hundred pounds to leave physical remains. 

 

Man, I learn something new every day.

[Guest DWA]

^^^All addressed, over and over again.

 

But thanks for reminding us.

[salubrious]

1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Physical remains should not be expected, because, they're bigfoot, natch. And it's ignorant to expect a creature of several hundred pounds to leave physical remains. 

 

Man, I learn something new every day.

 

This doesn't seem to fit into the conversation at this point. What are you responding to??

[Guest DWA]

6 hours ago, FarArcher said:

So. Some can whine and moan over the lack of bones, but these same folks seem a bit uninformed about what others have seen, what seems to be the operative when it comes to the dead BF's, and I don't think they really have a full grasp of the immensity of the terrain these things live in.

 

Every year, millions of deer lose their antlers, and it's very rare that one comes across antlers.  I think those who must have a skeleton are either really ignorant on what goes on in a wilderness and how vast they can be, or they're trying to move the needle of proof beyond likelihood of attainment.

 

Yep.  One or the other.  The deniers (I am getting increasingly tired of scarring the word "skeptic," which accurately applies to the scientific proponents) routinely

1. Fail to understand how natural ecosystems work;

2. Fail to understand how much room there is for wild things to operate;

3. Fail to understand how little attention humans - particularly those raised and living in civilization - generally pay to what is going on around them, particularly in wild places;

4. Fail to understand how sasquatch evidence very neatly squares with animals we know about, apes in particular;

5. Fail to understand that the only animals for which man has relied on skeletal remains are extinct animals;

6. Fail to show an acquaintance with how evidence, particularly anecdotal and footprint evidence, is used in science all the time; and of course

7. Fail to understand why proof is an afterthought in science, and not required to know, for all intents and purposes, that something exists.

 

And the scary thing about that list is:  I could go on.

Edited July 26, 2016 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

Lack of fossil evidence in North America should not be a big surprise since there are no human fossils here either.    We have to presume that BF like humans did, migrated here if not the last ice age like humans, then the one before that.      That is not enough time to create fossils since mineralization of takes a very long time and requires special conditions for it to happen in the first place.   .   Another problems is that during the 1800s where archeology was cranking up world wide,  and Native American skeletons were being discovered,   sectarian influence was very strong in science.      So much so that things that did not fit the sectarian view of history caused them to be dismissed or ignored.    I think that had a lot to do with large skeletons sent to the Smithsonian disappearing.   While it may not have been official policy of the institution, you can be sure that individuals might be willing to destroy or cause artifacts to disappear that conflicted with their personal beliefs.    That prejudice works both ways with science more recently dismissing finds that support religious beliefs.   That pendulum is now swinging because old texts are being used to find cities lost for millennia that were thought to be just fables.   If fabled cities were real in such old texts,    could it be that giants mentioned were also real?   One has to wonder.           

Edited July 26, 2016 by SWWASAS

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, salubrious said:

 

This doesn't seem to fit into the conversation at this point. What are you responding to??

Oh, the previous five postings.

[FarArcher]

10 hours ago, Lake County Bigfooot said:

The bones, well that is easy, because we know that that this type of forest will decay bones at a rapid rate and that the small animals not only eat the bone but scatter them as well. Try to find the remains of any elusive animal, such as a cougar which I would deem far more common, and you will be hard pressed to produce a skeleton. Or even a bear, which is indeed common. The fact is the acidic nature of such environments lends itself to a rapid decay of the skeletal remains. Now I diverge, couple this with the possibility that this creature is intelligent enough to bury their dead. If the creature understands that its existence is predicated on not being discovered, it very well could take measures to ensure it is not. This is not to great a leap for even an animal to develop such an instinct, as whatever niche an animal finds to survive will control the development of its instincts, and that might be exactly the case here.

 

 

LCB, don't you find it amusing that someone would find it hard to believe that an 800 pound body would go undiscovered?  That's some kind of field craft there.

 

If one wishes to traverse terrain undiscovered, you stay off the trails and you do NOT follow waterways.  

 

Oddly, humans find trails more convenient to walk, and I'd go so far as to suggest - it's a bit lazy - but it truly is easier to walk trails than to parallel trails.  I've had a bit of experience ambushing myself, and to prevent getting ambushed - I avoided walking trails, but if I were the ambush-or rather than the ambush-ee, I'd set up just off trails, with the preferred location being where two trails converged.

 

One doesn't have to be a genius to figure this out.  To go further, if one doesn't want to be discovered, you stay out of open areas, off trails, and one can hide an entire company in the thick stuff - assuming everyone is practicing good noise discipline.  I can actually hide a 4,000 pound truck in the thick stuff without a problem.  There are old log structures rediscovered after decades and decades every once in a while.  A man buys a property - and a couple years later discovers an old building on his land that was previously unknown.

 

North of Nome, there's no trees and while there are some shallow mountainous elevations, the terrain has reindeer, musk ox, brown bear, and caribou.  I dare you to find a brown bear skeleton or reindeer skeleton.  And you don't have to worry about trees or underbrush.

 

Some folks know so many things.  That are just wrong.

 

 

1 minute ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

LCB, don't you find it amusing that someone would find it hard to believe that an 800 pound body would go undiscovered?  That's some kind of field craft there.

 

If one wishes to traverse terrain undiscovered, you stay off the trails and you do NOT follow waterways.  

 

Oddly, humans find trails more convenient to walk, and I'd go so far as to suggest - it's a bit lazy - but it truly is easier to walk trails than to parallel trails.  I've had a bit of experience ambushing myself, and to prevent getting ambushed - I avoided walking trails, but if I were the ambush-or rather than the ambush-ee, I'd set up just off trails, with the preferred location being where two trails converged.

 

One doesn't have to be a genius to figure this out.  To go further, if one doesn't want to be discovered, you stay out of open areas, off trails, and one can hide an entire company in the thick stuff - assuming everyone is practicing good noise discipline.  I can actually hide a 4,000 pound truck in the thick stuff without a problem.  There are old log structures rediscovered after decades and decades every once in a while.  A man buys a property - and a couple years later discovers an old building on his land that was previously unknown.

 

North of Nome, there's no trees and while there are some shallow mountainous elevations, the terrain has reindeer, musk ox, brown bear, and caribou.  I dare these field experts to find a brown bear skeleton or reindeer skeleton.  And you don't have to worry about trees or underbrush.

 

Some folks know so many things.  That are just wrong.