If Bigfoot Were Real.

[Incorrigible1]

So is there a bigfoot burial ground?

 

Does every bigfoot that ever died get recovered by other bigfoot?

 

Aren't human bodies discovered on a regular basis, even in the wild? I can assure you the occasional human body is scavenged by coyotes, wolves, etc. They aren't all immediately discovered and carried out. Just as it's impossible every single bigfoot body cannot be immediately discovered by its pals.

 

Not being sarcastic, just have a tough time buying the spiel being offered. So it's simply never going to happen, a bigfoot body or any skeletal remains discovered. Cuz they're bigfoot, I guess.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Incorrigible1

[Guest SquatchinNY]

I find this discussion to be fascinating as the lack of bodies/physical evidence is probably the best and most common argument employed by skeptics. To think that every squatch body, if they are indeed buried by their peers, is recovered is incorrect, IMO. Surely some, as incorrible1 said, die alone and/or suddenly. But if you think about population proportional to humans, a very small number of individuals would die this year in a given unit of time, making it far more unlikely to discover a squatch heart attack victim, say, than a human heart attack victim.

 

Still, the case presented above relies on more assumptions than I am comfortable with. The lack of bodies is one of the biggest mysteries in the bigfooting world, and one that has yet to be definitively explained. I am comfortable saying that sasquatches do indeed exist, yet I have no concrete explanation for the lack of bodies.

 

Just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.

[SWWASAS]

I have no idea even if they bury their dead just suspect they might.      Some solitary BF probably die but the same thing happens to them that happens to humans not found and recovered.    Scavengers get to them and scatter the remains and then they are never found.      4 humans have gone missing in mine and the neighboring county in the last 4 years and in spite of extensive searches they have not been found.    They likely never will.   I doubt that BF had hundreds of searchers out looking for a missing BF.    Yes now and then dead humans are found but the numbers of humans, missing or otherwise is orders of magnitude greater than alive,  dead  or missing BF.    It boils down to probability and common sense.     Rare things, dead or alive are less likely to be found dead or alive.     

[Guest SquatchinNY]

As someone who has gone through search and rescue training, I can say that finding people who dissapear in the woods is no certainty. For every day they are missing, the possible search area expands dramatically with a decrease in survivability. Many, many people are never found. 

 

Even larger events can be hard to come by. Take this example, in the search for a high-profile small plane crash out west, I cannot remember the gentlemen's name at this time, searchers from CAP found over a half dozen previously undiscovered crash sites unrelated to the one they were looking for. A crashed aircraft is considerably easier to find than a dead squatch, no?

 

Again, just my opinion.

[MIB]

Inc1 -

 

There is not "a" burial ground just as there is not "a" bigfoot.   Whether or not there are truly burial grounds, I don't know.   What I'd say is the evidence at the moment suggests burial is the most likely situation.   Does not make it true.   If we had **proof** of burial grounds, we'd have proof of bigfoot, right?   So the idea of burial is merely the best fit for the data.   That can change if there's more or a better fit theory comes along.  

 

I'd say no, human bodies are not discovered on a regular basis outside of populated areas if you leave out locating people known to be missing.   Very few people in the outdoors, especially in remote areas, stumble over human bodies.    With over 300,000,000 of us in the US and ... many fewer bigfoots ... finding bigfoot bodies scattered around doesn't seem too likely.   I find .. maybe a dozen deer in a year.   How may deer are there in my area compared to the number of bigfoots? 

 

I'm struggling for a way to say this without seeming sarcastic and pushing you into a corner.   Uh ... I think your base assumptions about the outdoors are pretty far off track.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Might be interesting to think about the areas that have reports of gray ones. White ones not so much methinks. There is some speculation that the gray ones are old. So the areas reports of gray ones could offer a better chance of finding bones?

[Incorrigible1]

7 minutes ago, MIB said:

II'm struggling for a way to say this without seeming sarcastic and pushing you into a corner.   Uh ... I think your base assumptions about the outdoors are pretty far off track.

 

Appreciate that. I might say my assumptions are no more whacky than the contortions some are going thru to attempt to explain the utter lack of physical remains. Stop bye sometime to view my shed collection. Someone claimed how rare sheds are. Talk of being off track.

[salubrious]

42 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Aren't human bodies discovered on a regular basis, even in the wild? I can assure you the occasional human body is scavenged by coyotes, wolves, etc. They aren't all immediately discovered and carried out. Just as it's impossible every single bigfoot body cannot be immediately discovered by its pals.

 

Not being sarcastic, just have a tough time buying the spiel being offered. So it's simply never going to happen, a bigfoot body or any skeletal remains discovered. Cuz they're bigfoot, I guess.

 

Sure sounds sarcastic to me.

 

One thing that often gets overlooked is the simple fact that we humans like to stick to the path or road. We don't like to bushwhack. But from all the sighting reports apparently this is not such a big deal for BF. I would not be at all surprised that there are indeed bodies on the landscape that have yet to be discovered, miles from the middle of no where or maybe even in the middle of nowhere. The amount of wilderness available is enormous and the terrain often just not what humans like to traverse. I just rode through some vast portions of British Columbia and NW Montana on my bike. The amount of huge-osity out there can't be overstated.

[Incorrigible1]

Ya caught me. A bit 'o sarcasm did creep in there.

[FarArcher]

3 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

 

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.

 

Well, chuckle it up.  And congratulations - out of hundreds of deer - you occasionally find some antlers - that's quite an accomplishment.  Find a good number of deer skeletons?  After all, they're out there too.  You find the antlers in the really thick stuff - like do you have to crawl around and break brush to penetrate the really thick brush to find these antlers?  Find them in mountain crags and steep slopes?  Most of them above 6,000 feet?  Climb lots of 30-degree plus slopes to find them?  Ever find any near water?

 

You do know that over thousands of years, there's probably a few humans who've died in the very  same area you find your antlers.  Killed or dropped dead. Just how many human skeletons/skulls you find?  Ever look at how many humans disappear in the wild - when hundreds and hundreds of searchers look for days and weeks, and never find anything?

 

Are those the kinds of contortions you're referring to?  

 

No amazing contortions are required to realize the odds of finding a skeleton or body in the wild are very, very small.  I hear that some folks postulate that critters have very small populations per hundred thousand acres.  A whole lot less than bears, mountain lions, or wolverines as you mention.  Think the numbers alone may contribute to the scarcity of remains?  See - you got to do a bit of thinking.  

 

So we have a small population - relatively speaking - but you're forgetting one little thing.  These are very elusive critters - and they don't walk the game trails so much - as they may parallel them to strike from ambush when hunting.  They hold to the more difficult terrain.  So while a coyote or bear, or deer may wander many terrains, they're not intelligent enough to realize they may be tracked or that humans even at distance, are quite a threat - although they do well enough avoiding humans.

 

Terrain.  Those animals that hold to difficult terrain - uncommonly visited by humans - would logically be more difficult to find remains of.  Throw in the very good possibility that they live in family groups or clans - and that the multiples of reports of them carrying off their dead - and now you have an additional problem finding remains.

 

 And no, I don't expect anything of you.  It's no skin off my nose what you believe.  

 

There are three legions of dead Romans somewhere in the Teutoberg forest - and while on occasion they'll find a coin, spear head, or other metallic artifact - they don't find the skeletons.  Near Arbela, tens of thousands of Persians died at the hand of Alexander's Macedonians, and to this day, they're not absolutely certain in this flat land where the battle actually took place.  By your logic, we should have thousands of remains so very easy to just go pick up and find.

 

The real world doesn't work that way - contrary to your preference.

Edited July 27, 2016 by FarArcher

[Incorrigible1]

I honestly find deer skeletons regularly. Why wouldn't I?

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

....So it's simply never going to happen, a bigfoot body or any skeletal remains discovered. Cuz they're bigfoot, I guess.

 

Oh the irony. Think you may have stumbled upon something profound here? 

[hiflier]

38 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Might be interesting to think about the areas that have reports of gray ones. White ones not so much methinks. There is some speculation that the gray ones are old. So the areas reports of gray ones could offer a better chance of finding bones?

 

Hey looga that! I get to quote myself LOL.

 

In the SSR there are 117 reports of gray Sasquatch. John Green's database has 139. So even with some overlap between the two databases that's not that many. But there is more to be said here probably in the area of gray ones sensing they are more vulnerable and so are more reclusive than normal? The SSR seems to point to them maybe preferring the lower elevations (easier terrain?) and seem to have a better sighting percentage in April and October (less cold, less heat?).

 

It's as I've mentioned before, the pieces of the puzzle are there. They just need to be plugged in somehow. I think the gray ones help paint the picture. And should they succumb to a wildfire they are already the color of ash.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

That's an interesting thought, hiflier. Such a low number of reports suggusts a gray hair coloring to be some sort of oddity. Age is certainly a possibility. 

[guyzonthropus]

Shed collection?  I used to collect sheds myself, back in the day! Not those prefab plastic ones all the kids are flaunting these days, no! The sheds I had were like the ones yer grandpappy used to make by hand, designed in regard to what was to be stored in em. 

Yup, I built up quite a collection over the years. People' d come from far and wide to see em all arranged by various parameters depending on the season. It got pretty bad though, I'd see a shed, had to have it, do anything it took to get it...eventually, the Mrs. left, took the kids and her doghouse collection with her...I ended up going to shed anonymous meetings, and selling off the sheds, all but one,that is, my first and favourite, Ted. Ted was made to hold the corn husks shucked for the annual corn festival, and the town council wanted to archive each years winning husk pile from the big husk off held the last night of the festival. Old Ted the shed lasted a long time, twice the average for a shed, mind you...but then one year, he came up against the tragic end he could no longer forestall....termites....(sniff) 

I swear the pain of watching his suffering was too much, and I will never collect another shed, so help me Ted.....