Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Rafterman

We shouldn't expect to find Bigfoot bones....

231 posts in this topic

Well, except when bear bones are found. So raise a glass to No. 56 - she lived well.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/276308/

Oldest-known wild bear dies in Itasca County

The world’s oldest-known wild bear has died of old age in Itasca County at the age of 39½, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

The world’s oldest-known wild bear has died of old age in Itasca County at the age of 39½, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Known to DNR researchers as bear No. 56, the female American black bear was first captured and radio-collared in July 1981 by DNR scientists during the first summer of a long-term research project on bear population ecology.

The bear was 7 years old at the time and was accompanied by three female cubs.

DNR wildlife research biologist Karen Noyce, tracking a signal from the bear’s radio-collar, found No. 56 on Aug. 20, she said. Noyce said the bear, judging from its condition, probably had been dead for several weeks.

Oh, and before someone asks, yes, there are porcupines in Itasca County, MN.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/porcupine.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So because a bear with a radio-collar fitted, which could therefore be tracked and located, had died and the corpse, with bones, subsequently examined, we should believe it is impossible for sasquatch bones to not be found?

I don't know where to start to dissect the tangle of illogic that would produce such a claim.

And is "Bigfooters" a new perjorative term for those who don't automatically discredit the possible existence of such a creature?

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly Bigfooters.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So because a bear with a radio-collar fitted, which could therefore be tracked and located, had died and the corpse, with bones, subsequently examined, we should believe it is impossible for sasquatch bones to not be found?

I don't know where to start to dissect the tangle of illogic that would produce such a claim.

And is "Bigfooters" a new perjorative term for those who don't automatically discredit the possible existence of such a creature?

It has nothing to do with a radio collar. It has everything to do with the absurd claim made by Matt Moneymaker and many other Bigfooters that the reason Bigfoot bones are never found is that they disappear back into the environment too quickly or are eaten by porcupines (no ****, Moneymaker actually said this).

http://ourbigfoot.co...foot-bones.html

The point of my post is that No. 56's carcass was found several weeks after she had died. So clearly (and as anyone who has ever left their keyboard and actually taken a walk in the woods knows) bones of large mammals hang around for quite some time after death and can easily be found (radio collar or not). Particularly so given that Bigfooters claim that these creatures range all over North America and thus would require breeding populations across the entire continent. Yet not one single bone has ever been found. Let me say that again. Yet not one single bone has ever been found.

Also humorous that any Bigfooter would complain about a "tangle of illogic (sic)"

Edited by Rafterman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they bury their dead, or eat them?

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they bury their dead, or eat them?

Just a thought.

Or bigfoot is boneless

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've always wondered what the estimated size of bf's bones would be. Like the femur of this 8-10 foot few hundred pound bipedal animal.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

following a radio signal to a bear carcass is far different than roaming around the woods waiting to stumble upon bones of an animal.

i venture out into the woods on a weekly basis in an area that is abundant with deer, a fairly large animal(though admittadly not as big as a bigfoot)

do you know how many deer carcasses i have come across in the woods? just one! (and it was only a skull) with your logic seeing how there are a huge amount of deer in my area, clearly a breeding population i should be stumbling across deer carcasses all the time.

My counter to your logic is that with an animal as abundant and big as deer are in this area and only finding one skull in the woods during a lifetime of being in the woods what are the chances of someone stumbling across a carcass or bones of a bigfoot in areas as wide open as the pacific northwest...... not great if you ask me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

following a radio signal to a bear carcass is far different than roaming around the woods waiting to stumble upon bones of an animal.

i venture out into the woods on a weekly basis in an area that is abundant with deer, a fairly large animal(though admittadly not as big as a bigfoot)

do you know how many deer carcasses i have come across in the woods? just one! (and it was only a skull) with your logic seeing how there are a huge amount of deer in my area, clearly a breeding population i should be stumbling across deer carcasses all the time.

My counter to your logic is that with an animal as abundant and big as deer are in this area and only finding one skull in the woods during a lifetime of being in the woods what are the chances of someone stumbling across a carcass or bones of a bigfoot in areas as wide open as the pacific northwest...... not great if you ask me

Perhaps you're just not looking in the right places. I find bones and carcases pretty much every time I venture into the woods. Heck, I remember a cow carcass where the bones stayed there for several years.

And while I might agree that the odds are a bit high for a one person to find a Bigfoot carcass, keep in mind that tens of millions of people go afield either for work or pleasure every single day in North America. And again, not one bone has ever been found.

Oh yeah, this isn't about the radio collar.

I've always wondered what the estimated size of bf's bones would be. Like the femur of this 8-10 foot few hundred pound bipedal animal.

It would be quite a meal for a porcupine no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you're just not looking in the right places....

I am in the woods along streams, rivers, lakes, open fields, known deer paths..... just what are the right places to look for deer bones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And while I might agree that the odds are a bit high for a one person to find a Bigfoot carcass, keep in mind that tens of millions of people go afield either for work or pleasure every single day in North America. And again, not one bone has ever been found....P

Perhaps they are not looking in the right places either (or even looking at all).. they could still very well exist just like you suggest the deer bones exist that i have not stumbled upon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the woods along streams, rivers, lakes, open fields, known deer paths..... just what are the right places to look for deer bones?

In my experience, next to highways.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, next to highways.

but thats not in the woods now its it.. i was not saying that ive only seen one deer carcass/bones.. just only one in the woods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also humorous that any Bigfooter would complain about a "tangle of illogic (sic)"

So, because I am actually a skeptic - not a disbeliever - I am a "Bigfooter"?

It has nothing to do with a radio collar. It has everything to do with the absurd claim made by Matt Moneymaker and many other Bigfooters that the reason Bigfoot bones are never found is that they disappear back into the environment too quickly or are eaten by porcupines (no ****, Moneymaker actually said this).

So what? His claim doesn't mean sasquatch exists, just as your claim doesn't mean sasquatch doesn't exist. You are both making equally ridiculous claims.

The point of my post is that No. 56's carcass was found several weeks after she had died.

Because they knew where to find it. And how intact was the carcass? The article doesn't say.

So clearly (and as anyone who has ever left their keyboard and actually taken a walk in the woods knows) bones of large mammals hang around for quite some time after death and can easily be found (radio collar or not).

No, this only suggests an animal fitted with a radio-collar can "easily be found". Nothing more.

Particularly so given that Bigfooters claim that these creatures range all over North America and thus would require breeding populations across the entire continent. Yet not one single bone has ever been found. Let me say that again. Yet not one single bone has ever been found.

That there are claims of "breeding populations across the entire continent", doesn't make that claim true. But neither does what you posted (or that no bones have been found) refute it.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before but I think it makes a good point here.

We've found bodies of Giant Squids. A rare creature that lives deep in the ocean where we rarely see it. Yet we have bodies of it.

It's very strange to me that we don't have bones or any concrete physical evidence of Bigfoot, a creature that lives in one of the most populated places in the world that humans have access to.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but thats not in the woods now its it..

Yes our highways here in Oregon do go through forests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well when i think of venturing out into the woods... coming onto a highway doesnt cross my mind... i am meaning wilderness far from humans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they bury their dead

post-26642-0-13151400-1377729523_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or bigfoot is boneless

Not a bad supposition QC.

My theory is; bigfoot bones are blurry so they blend in with the environment.

Edited by evancj
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

following a radio signal to a bear carcass is far different than roaming around the woods waiting to stumble upon bones of an animal.

i venture out into the woods on a weekly basis in an area that is abundant with deer, a fairly large animal(though admittadly not as big as a bigfoot)

do you know how many deer carcasses i have come across in the woods? just one! (and it was only a skull) with your logic seeing how there are a huge amount of deer in my area, clearly a breeding population i should be stumbling across deer carcasses all the time.

My counter to your logic is that with an animal as abundant and big as deer are in this area and only finding one skull in the woods during a lifetime of being in the woods what are the chances of someone stumbling across a carcass or bones of a bigfoot in areas as wide open as the pacific northwest...... not great if you ask me

Perhaps you are not very observant don't feel bad most people aren't. I find dead animals all the time while out in the wilds, and have posted countless photos of them here in this forum. The fact of the matter is; in North America every species of large animals, no matter how rare they might be have been found dead, killed, or clearly photographed or filmed.

I would challenge you to name one that hasn't, or logically explain why bigfoot is exempt from the laws of nature that the rest of us are bound to.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

following a radio signal to a bear carcass is far different than roaming around the woods waiting to stumble upon bones of an animal.

i venture out into the woods on a weekly basis in an area that is abundant with deer, a fairly large animal(though admittadly not as big as a bigfoot)

do you know how many deer carcasses i have come across in the woods? just one! (and it was only a skull) with your logic seeing how there are a huge amount of deer in my area, clearly a breeding population i should be stumbling across deer carcasses all the time.

My counter to your logic is that with an animal as abundant and big as deer are in this area and only finding one skull in the woods during a lifetime of being in the woods what are the chances of someone stumbling across a carcass or bones of a bigfoot in areas as wide open as the pacific northwest...... not great if you ask me

I don't know where you live but I find deer carcasses(and other types) quite often. If bigfoot were a phenomenom limited to isolated areas I could see how no evidence might be found but given they are reported all over the country I don't see how that's possible. But the existence of an unknown species of ape is entirely possible and I wouldn't rule it out though I see it as improbable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or bigfoot is boneless

Or immortal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never once said bigfoot was exempt.. i never even said he existed or that i beleive that he does exist... im just stating that finding a bears corpse by following a radio signal is far different than stumbling across a carcass that died in the wild. and that because bear bones were found .. again due to someone being led right to it doesnt equate to bigfoot doesnt exist because bones havent been found

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never once said bigfoot was exempt.. i never even said he existed or that i beleive that he does exist... im just stating that finding a bears corpse by following a radio signal is far different than stumbling across a carcass that died in the wild. and that because bear bones were found .. again due to someone being led right to it doesnt equate to bigfoot doesnt exist because bones havent been found

But, dead bears without radio collars are found in the wild, so why not bifoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before but I think it makes a good point here.

We've found bodies of Giant Squids. A rare creature that lives deep in the ocean where we rarely see it. Yet we have bodies of it.

It's very strange to me that we don't have bones or any concrete physical evidence of Bigfoot, a creature that lives in one of the most populated places in the world that humans have access to.

I agree with your points but to be fair before the giant squid was actually found it was considered nonexistent by many main stream scientists. Still I think some evidence of bigfoot would have turned up by now
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.