Why Don't We Have a Bigfoot Body Yet?

[Celtic Raider]

Even though I'm by nature a skeptic I would like to believe Bigfoot to be real. I've read and seen the breakdowns of the PGF and to be totally honest I just can't explain the film away as so many skeptics appear to be able to do. The animal looks real to me, acts realistically to me and Bill Munn's book is very persuasive too. However, I have a problem with some other evidence put forward, most notably the anecdotal - if the creature is really in peoples back yards and throwing rocks at cabins and we don't have good pictures or video or a body then that doesn't tally to me, it makes the alleged sightings less convincing. If there really is an 8ft tall 600lbs ape in the woods who makes itself known apparently quite frequently, acts aggressively by throwing rocks, communicates with people by gifting etc. I can't fathom how one hasn't been felled by now.

 

So my question is - assuming in this instance that the animal is extant - what are the reasons behind the absence of a bigfoot corpse?

 

Are all the 'hunters' incompetent? They seem to be quite able to kill bears, moose and so on almost as a matter of course.

Are the animals so rare as to be practically impossible to find? If so, what about the reports of them throwing rocks at cabins, being spotted near housing etc.which seem to contradict this?

Are there simply too few people attempting to bag a body?

Have there been any other larger scale attempts other than the NAWAC one?

Are the efforts all part time by amateurs that fall short for lack of resources?

Ultimately, what is the best scenario to try and take a body? 

[hiflier]

I've have read from several researchers here that there was activity when they first entered an area but that the activity had not recurred even though they still visit the same areas. That tells me something. I'm not sure folks realize just how sensitive these creatures apparently are to frequent, or even not so frequent, Human presence. IMHO I think they behave like any other animal........times TEN. In other words, there is no "hide and seek". There is only hide and leave.

[OkieFoot]

Wouldn't a dead Bigfoot body have to be discovered within a certain period of time, bones included, to be recognized as a possible Bigfoot? After decomposition, won't bones get eaten by bugs, small animals, organisms etc. for the calcium? I'm not sure how long this would be.

 

 

[hiflier]

4 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

Wouldn't a dead Bigfoot body have to be discovered within a certain period of time, bones included, to be recognized as a possible Bigfoot?

 

Do you mean like this morning?  Just kidding of course, bones do last quite a while. They may become disarticulated at the site and gnawed on as there will be striations from small rodent teeth and small animals like porcupines for, as you say, the calcium, and for the need to wear down their teeth. There is a danger in certain soil conditions that bones can be dissolved over time however.

[7.62]

Could be bones have been found but unless it's a skull people could have thought it was a bear or other animal.

 

Bones get scattered and even human remains could be passed over as a animal in the woods unless you see a skull.

1 hour ago, Celtic Raider said:

Even though I'm by nature a skeptic I would like to believe Bigfoot to be real. I've read and seen the breakdowns of the PGF and to be totally honest I just can't explain the film away as so many skeptics appear to be able to do. The animal looks real to me, acts realistically to me and Bill Munn's book is very persuasive too. However, I have a problem with some other evidence put forward, most notably the anecdotal - if the creature is really in peoples back yards and throwing rocks at cabins and we don't have good pictures or video or a body then that doesn't tally to me, it makes the alleged sightings less convincing. If there really is an 8ft tall 600lbs ape in the woods who makes itself known apparently quite frequently, acts aggressively by throwing rocks, communicates with people by gifting etc. I can't fathom how one hasn't been felled by now.

 

So my question is - assuming in this instance that the animal is extant - what are the reasons behind the absence of a bigfoot corpse?

 

Are all the 'hunters' incompetent? They seem to be quite able to kill bears, moose and so on almost as a matter of course.

Are the animals so rare as to be practically impossible to find? If so, what about the reports of them throwing rocks at cabins, being spotted near housing etc.which seem to contradict this?

Are there simply too few people attempting to bag a body?

Have there been any other larger scale attempts other than the NAWAC one?

Are the efforts all part time by amateurs that fall short for lack of resources?

Ultimately, what is the best scenario to try and take a body? 

 

I don't think there's a whole lot of hunters going out to bag a bigfoot and the ones who claim to have had one in the cross hairs didn't want to pull the trigger.

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

Are all the 'hunters' incompetent? They seem to be quite able to kill bears, moose and so on almost as a matter of course.

Are the animals so rare as to be practically impossible to find? If so, what about the reports of them throwing rocks at cabins, being spotted near housing etc.which seem to contradict this?

Are there simply too few people attempting to bag a body?

Have there been any other larger scale attempts other than the NAWAC one?

Are the efforts all part time by amateurs that fall short for lack of resources?

Ultimately, what is the best scenario to try and take a body? 

 

I think ultimately the last question in the list is the one Celtic Raider may be really focusing on. What's say we tackle that one and let the other questions ride for the time being? The key words in that last question highlighted above being "best scenario".

Edited September 18, 2019 by hiflier

[ioyza]

2 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

Are all the 'hunters' incompetent? They seem to be quite able to kill bears, moose and so on almost as a matter of course.

Are the animals so rare as to be practically impossible to find? If so, what about the reports of them throwing rocks at cabins, being spotted near housing etc.which seem to contradict this?

Are there simply too few people attempting to bag a body?

Have there been any other larger scale attempts other than the NAWAC one?

Are the efforts all part time by amateurs that fall short for lack of resources?

 

You forgot: Are they simply that intelligent and talented at evading us?

[Celtic Raider]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

I've have read from several researchers here that there was activity when they first entered an area but that the activity had not recurred even though they still visit the same areas. That tells me something. I'm not sure folks realize just how sensitive these creatures apparently are to frequent, or even not so frequent, Human presence. IMHO I think they behave like any other animal........times TEN. In other words, there is no "hide and seek". There is only hide and leave.

 

This is a really interesting thought and one which I'd not seen proposed until now. It would explain the number of reports of people having limited interactions before they peter out and never start back up again. Assuming the interactions are real (and the creatures of course!) the trouble is nobody knows what all the wood knocking, whooping etc. all mean so maybe by doing certain things researchers are actively driving them away maybe without realising it?

[Celtic Raider]

7 minutes ago, ioyza said:

2 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

Are all the 'hunters' incompetent? They seem to be quite able to kill bears, moose and so on almost as a matter of course.

Are the animals so rare as to be practically impossible to find? If so, what about the reports of them throwing rocks at cabins, being spotted near housing etc.which seem to contradict this?

Are there simply too few people attempting to bag a body?

Have there been any other larger scale attempts other than the NAWAC one?

Are the efforts all part time by amateurs that fall short for lack of resources?

 

You forgot: Are they simply that intelligent and talented at evading us?

 

That is a possibility, but in that case doesn't that rule out a whole number of sightings, reports and videos etc. where the creatures seem to have been caught out in the open or not been aware of the witness. Wouldn't that put doubt on the PGF subject as she's caught right out in the open seemingly unprepared? Even the Area X reports claim that the creatures throw things at the camp and are (correct me if I'm wrong) pretty close to the camp, if the reports are credible then that doesn't seem like the act of a creature that doesn't want to be located.

The thing I struggle to understand is the contradictions presented (not just by yourself but in general). If they are so intelligent and elusive, why do they show up in reports very near civilisation? There are many reports of these creatures being caught in the open. Do we discount all those reports in that case as a hoax?

 

 

[MIB]

3 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

So my question is - assuming in this instance that the animal is extant - what are the reasons behind the absence of a bigfoot corpse?

 

Three parts to the answer all converging.    First, I don't think there are as many as people assume, I think they travel farther, faster, and are seen more often, so there are fewer bigfoots accounting for the reports than people realize.   Second, I do not think they are alone, I think even if you only see one, there are others "near enough" that they simply do not die alone.    Third, I think they engage in deliberate ritual burial, and move the body as far as necessary for that to occur in a remote location seldom, if ever, visited by humans.     Given their reported strength and ability to travel distance quickly when they choose to do so, I could see them relocating a body more than 100 miles if needed for secluded burial.

 

It all points back to the almost unavoidable conclusion we are not dealing with a mere wild animal that decomposes where it falls, we're dealing with an alternate kind of person with intelligence, ritual, etc.

 

3 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

Ultimately, what is the best scenario to try and take a body? 

 

I believe you have to find the burial locations and exhume one.    I think there could be some risk involved in doing that.   

 

The next best situation would be some sort of natural disaster that could wipe out a group so there are no survivors to remove the bodies.   Could well be that Mt St Helens provided that scenario.    SWWASAS has suggested this in the past and I do not disagree.    Actually, Joe Beelart suggest a variation of this in his first (fiction ... darn good fiction) book.

 

4 minutes ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

That is a possibility, but in that case doesn't that rule out a whole number of sightings, reports and videos etc. where the creatures seem to have been caught out in the open or not been aware of the witness. Wouldn't that put doubt on the PGF subject as she's caught right out in the open seemingly unprepared? Even the Area X reports claim that the creatures throw things at the camp and are (correct me if I'm wrong) pretty close to the camp, if the reports are credible then that doesn't seem like the act of a creature that doesn't want to be located.

The thing I struggle to understand is the contradictions presented (not just by yourself but in general). If they are so intelligent and elusive, why do they show up in reports very near civilisation? There are many reports of these creatures being caught in the open. Do we discount all those reports in that case as a hoax?

 

 

 

Talented is not the same as infallible.    And in the absence of a person who is both willing and instantly ready to pull a trigger, a sighting does not produce a body to recover.

 

MIB

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by MIB

[Celtic Raider]

Great post MIB, thanks!

[hiflier]

6 minutes ago, Celtic Raider said:

Great post MIB, thanks!

 

Agreed. Stay with it, CR  

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

.......Are all the 'hunters' incompetent? They seem to be quite able to kill bears, moose and so on almost as a matter of course........

 

 

Not all hunters are incompetent, but I would venture to guess that most are, and the percentage of incompetent hunters has increased with social urbanization. Moreover, hunters aren't hunting for sasquatches, and they are fairly well versed with hunting laws and regs, which literally didn't exist a century ago. 

 

While hunters seem quite able to kill bears and moose in Alaska, you might be surprised to learn that the overall success rate in Alaska for moose is @ 20%, and that is for nearly 100,000 hunters hunting 200,000 moose, the success rate in most game management units is much lower (under 10% is common), and the success rate for bears (especially brown or grizzly bears) is significantly lower than that.

 

Quote

.......Are the animals so rare as to be practically impossible to find? If so, what about the reports of them throwing rocks at cabins, being spotted near housing etc.which seem to contradict this?......

 

I believe they are extremely rare. For example, there are only an estimated 45,000 brown/grizzly bears in all of North America, Canada and Alaska included. Of these, 75% of them are in Alaska, and of the Alaskan bears, the vast majority are concentrated in Game Management Units 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9.  If there are only an estimated 5,000 sasquatches on the continent, that's less than 10% of the grizzly population, and also extremely localized in remote habitat featuring great cover and concealment. 

 

Conversely, there are human habitations and structures literally everywhere, including in the middle of classified wilderness lands and parks. Many are often uninhabited, which encourages wild animals of all kinds to become emboldened to hang out in the area only to bevome invaded when the humans show up. This is a common theme with all kinds of animals.

 

Quote

.......Are there simply too few people attempting to bag a body?......

 

No doubt about it. As an example, I'm an experienced, accomplished, and frequent Alaskan big game hunter, I'm a strong believer in the existence of sasquatches, and not only do I not hunt for them, I have come to the reasoned conclusion that the only way I would shoot one is in self defense. Of all the people on this forum, there are just a few who regularly state that they are pro kill and they regularly go out looking for sasquatches. 

 

......Have there been any other larger scale attempts other than the NAWAC one?.....

 

I believe so, especially in the 1970's. Has NAWAC professed a pro kill position and mounted hunting expeditions to that end?

 

...Are the efforts all part time by amateurs that fall short for lack of resources?.....

 

Probably, along with a lack of experience, know how, time, access, and sasquatches to shoot.

 

Quote

........Ultimately, what is the best scenario to try and take a body?

 

Good question. Everybody on this forum who is pro kill has proposed a number of scenarios. I'm confident that quite a few factors are important:

 

* Fresh reports in the area would be ideal

* A history of sightings in that area are important

* Funding, which isn't cheap; even a relatively local week long caribou hunt for me will cost a few hundred dollars just in fuel, communications subscriptions, spare parts, etc. That doesn't include food (I eat anyway at home) or license and tag (a sasquatch hunt might require some sort of license and tag, however, to legally justify the carry of firearms in the woods, depending on the politics of the area, but in Alaska, I already have a lifetime license), and I'm already all geared up

* The proper tactic is critical; baiting? Calling? Spot and stalk? Stalking upwind along a noisy creek like Patterson & Gimlin?

* Spending plenty of time on location........like weeks

* Complete access to the area, both legally and tactically

* A good plan for carcass preservation and extraction, including out of the woods as well as to a final destination, which would include a plan for interstate/international smuggling, all of which is illegal on the federal/international level (CITES)

* A good legal defense plan and funding in the possible event of criminal prosecution

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Huntster

[hiflier]

An upvote for you, Hunster, plus 99 more for addressing the last question in the list.

Edited September 18, 2019 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Celtic Raider started this thread and I respect him for doing so. It shows a real focus on the issue of no Sasquatch body. In deference to that I think some suggestions for accomplishing things to that end might be good. Something beyond tree knocking or howling/call blasting being preferable? At least to me anyway.

 

What about tree shaking as a way to draw in a creature who thinks another is trying to dominate the immediate area? How about simulating chest thumping which is something that male Gorillas do to attract females or draw them away from another male? Or break dry sticks by levering them between larger trees? In other words, find a way or several ways to attract one with the sole purpose of dispatching one for science? It doesn't mean anyone will actually do any these things unless they are armed and ready to take one down but who's to say any one of these techniques would be better than just roaming around trying to find one? It seems to me trying drawing one in might be easier than trying to run one down or catch one by surprise.

 

There must be something that convinces a creature to expose itself because of a natural response to a natural threat of some kind that it understands because it is a natural response to a natural stimulus?