If Bigfoot Were Real.

[hiflier]

This thread has taken a turn into familiar themes. But before I enter some thoughts that I've brought up some time back I need to address incorrigible1 on a matter first. And I think it's an important thing to say: I DO expect physical remains. That 800 lb. creature's remains are out there. This thread's conversation has moved into ideas for why that 800 pounder's remains hasn't been discovered (And now, back to your regularly scheduled program).

 

So let's take Inc1's 800 pound specimen as an example. A talus field- or more precisely- a large rock quarry. The report involving a witness seeing a Sasquatch digging a six foot hole in a quarry looking for rats comes to mind here. I've brought up burial before as some of you know but you may not remember a certain point regarding the burial aspect. The Sasquatch was seen in the quarry going after rats. What then were the rats feeding on? Give yourself ten points if your answer was, "A Sasquatch body".

 

The mention of millennia of learning bush craft and all the ins and outs of survival just may have taught the creature how to kill two birds with one stone. The dead body attracts a food source. Now saying something like this means a creature would have to be capable of putting two and two together to see the correlation between a dead body and chasing down rats for food. Maybe it's coincidence and maybe it's not? In other words I for one don't think Sasquatch bury their dead because they saw Humans do it.

 

I would like to bring up one more thing too if I may. This is getting back to that dead 800 pound beast. What does anyone think happens to the rock pile that's on top of that kind of bulk flesh? As the flesh decomposes there will be less volume and the weight of that amount of rock will have to give in to gravity and sink down unless the pile gets locked against each other- that would mean very large stones. More than likely not- so the pile will eventually flatten down and become less visible as it becomes more level with the surrounding terrain's contour. Those are my thoughts and that's only regarding quarries and other rock piles. 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2016 by hiflier

[Twist]

While I do not find it at all impossible to speculate or believe that BF bury their dead as a possible explanation for the lack of remains, I think it is jumping to conclusions to believe that it is part of a process to harvest a food source.  I appreciate possible brainstorming to come up with theories in regards to a mysterious creature, but I do not believe a being that will go to the length of burying its dead will do so to generate food.  As we know bigfoot to be, it is the ninja of the woods, why would it resort to digging up its own dead to harvest rats?  We as humans can easily hunt deer, yet it is believed that multiple BF can sneak up on us and observe us at will.  Why would it not be able to do the same with other game in the woods and use those abilities to hunt and kill prey?  Sorry hiflier, I just do not subscribe to this theory, no offense.  

[hiflier]

LOL, no offense at all taken! And digging up it's own dead wasn't really the idea as much as chasing rats which for an 800 pound buried-under-rocks individual would be all over the place. Anyway this is what happens when my brain goes into freefall- I try to think of as many angles as possible and sometimes things crop up without trying- like this whacked out idea. Trying to tie everything up into a nice neat package can't work EVERY time ya know  Besides- it's a slow summer here on the ol' Forum and I thought I could get away scot free with something like this LOL.

Edited July 27, 2016 by hiflier

[Twist]

Nothing wrong with throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.  For all I know, I am completely wrong and you are dead nuts accurate in your theory.  Open dialogue goes a long way to viewing unknowns from different angles.  

[hiflier]

Yep, especially with a subject as crazy as Sasquatch, eh? I mean cracking the nut of no body isn't easy and as a skeptic who leans toward existence and who therefore expects physical remains to be somewhere there aren't a lot of avenues to chase down. Ah well....

[Twist]

Try being a someone that had an experience that to this day only equates to empirical proof of BF and thus considering myself a skeptical BF proponent in regards to scientific proof ( acknowledging the difference of proof vs. evidence). I feel I experienced a fairy tale.  One experience says its true and its as real as anything else I experienced, yet it makes little sense in a scientific manner in regards to tangible proof.

[FarArcher]

Twist, you make a good point.  A lot of the so-called evidence - just doesn't indicate diddly squat to me.  If I didn't know for a fact they are alive and well, then I'd be blowing off about 95% of the supposed evidence myself.

 

I see supposed photos and supposed videos, and on occasion, I'll see a unique movement I've seen before, and so I'll think to myself, "that just may be real."  Others, I know bone-deep that they don't move like that, and most of those are easy to blow off.

 

When that Dyer retard showed supposed photos of one, I instantly knew he was full of .  .  .  himself.  That didn't look anything remotely similar.  A lot of folks think these things are dumb animals - and they may be animals - but they're canny.  Smarter than most hunting them.  

 

Footprints - I understand at least one casting has odd dermal ridges - I don't know - never seen it myself - but that may be indicative these particular ones weren't faked.  But then I look at the variances of shapes, toes, toe spread, overall quality of scores of castings - and I think the wide variances provided within the samples would indicate to any skeptic that there's no way this is one species - they're too different - and probably includes a number of fakes.

 

Which for many folks - ruins the evidence aspect of castings - and they automatically discard all of them.

 

And I really don't blame them.

[Teegunn]

Some really excellent posts and dialogue here in this thread.  Keep it up folks!

[Lake County Bigfooot]

If you buy the evolutionary model, suggesting that man came from a more primitive primate, well then you would have to realize that burial did not just come to us suddenly, like hey now that I am fully developed I think I will bury my dead. Primitive humans had burial rituals, so if sasquatch is a more distant, but perhaps not so distant relative, well burial is certainly a possibility. On the other hand, it need not be mentioned to explain a lack of skeletal evidence. Some suggest that the giants found buried in parts of the country are part of this picture, of that I am suspect, but the short answer is that there are not many creatures and they are likely decayed and scattered before found, or mistaken in identity. Because, who is actually looking for sasquatch skeletal remains with any real devotion of time and money? If they exist, which many believe or know, there bones exist somewhere, they too will be discovered at some point.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[hiflier]

Hi LCB, yeah that's kind f how I look at it too. If this creature exists-which I am inclined to think they do- then the bones are out there. But I doubt few skeletons remain after nature has its way with them. It's why I've pused for early spring hunts for them; BEFORE nature buries the evidence via natural processes. We all know that happens as a rule.

[SWWASAS]

As I have said at least bones do not hide from you when they hear you coming.     It may be easier to find bones under certain circumstances than a living specimen.     We are in fire season now,  with wildfires in the multiple 10's of thousands of acres.    I would encourage those that have the opportunity to get into that and any other large scale natural disasters at the earliest opportunity and look for bodies.   Flash floods,  large scale avalanches,  wild fire,   all have potential.    Even the rare bear bodies are found trapped in such calamities.   I do not know at what point one is allowed in, if ever, but certainly you want to explore such an area before large scale replanting starts.     Anything left at that point would be scavenged or disposed of when discovered.    

[hiflier]

This is certainly a possibility but as stated in a much earlier thread targeting the subject- chiefly wildfires- the terrain left in the aftermath can be quite treacherous with hidden ankle breakers and perhaps even injured animals. It therefore can be dangerous so caution and personal safety should always be number one. Thanks for bring up the point though. Natural disasters could very well leave a dead Sasquatch who was too old or infirm to keep ahead of a raging inferno in the panic of fleeing either by itself or as part of a group.. 

[salubrious]

19 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Oh, the previous five postings.

It really seems then that you did not actually read them.

[Incorrigible1]

27 minutes ago, salubrious said:

It really seems then that you did not actually read them.

 

On 7/26/2016 at 10:45 AM, 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.

 

Yes, it's soooo asking too much to expect flesh and blood remains, or even bones / skeletal remains. Ignorant, even. Bigfoot must be special in that regard. Hmm, name any other creature whose remains cannot be detected and it seems (per this person's posting) are undetectable.

 

We have examples of recovered remains of wolverine, mountain lion, black-footed ferret, etc, and yes, bears, even.. But no bigfoot, and it's "uninformed" to expect such, "ignorant," even.

 

No bigfoot, at any time. has ever keeled over with a heart attack and simply died. To even think of such a thing is quashed by the believers. Sorry, can't help chuckling at the amazing contortions required to continue supplying reasons such a thing can or cannot occur.

 

BTW, many of us go antler shed hunting every spring. I've a fair collection, thank you.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Incorrigible1

[SWWASAS]

Not sure how sarcastic Incorrigible intends to be, but humans and BF are about the only bipedal creatures in the woods equipped with arms and hands and that are capable of picking up and carrying off their adult dead for any reason.      Could that explain why the BF heart attack sufferer is not found just laying around?     Certainly explains why we do not find dead humans around much either even though hundreds of human hunters drop dead in the woods every year.     We find them and carry them out.   There have to be thousands of times more humans in the woods than BF and I have yet to find a dead human.    Wolverines, mountain lions,  ferrets and bears seem totally uninterested in moving their dead and without bipedal locomotion, arms and hands it would be difficult if they wanted to.  

Edited July 27, 2016 by SWWASAS