The more I think about this, the more ludicrous the claim is. I live in the area that the name "Sasquatch" comes from. I have personally found carcasses of moles, ravens, squirrels, rabbits, mice, rats, and salmon. All of which should preserve worse than Sasquatch. I haven't come across a dear bone, but I have friends who have. I have also come across antlers and deer scat. All that, and I'm not particularly "woodsy". Why should Sasquatch be so much harder to find samples of?
If we are to accept that these creatures exist, we have to accept that no one, since N.America has been inhabited, has ever found the carcass of, shot, trapped, captured, dug up, or hit with a car one of these creatures. Even if you only count the time since Europeans arrived, you still have a couple of hundred years at least for most of N. America. Think about how many people have lived, worked, camped in the woods. And still, not even one skeleton?
@Everstruggling There were 22 new primate species discovered over the past ten years,including the "giant chimpanzee" .Many (not all) of the primate species are very shy and timid,and are only being discovered because of habitat loss!I can not say that bigfoot exists,and had been a skeptic for most of my life.Over the past few years I've changed my skeptisism,and entertain the idea that they may exist.They have now found dna belonging to an unknown primate in North America!
@plopnod I never said that Bigfoot / sasquatch for certain don't exist. I'm saying the argument that it would be next to impossible to provide bones, some other physical remains, or a live specimen doesn't hold water. People claim to have seen these creatures, therefor if they do exist, they exist in places that have been explored. Therefor, it should not be impossible to provide the evidence. The primates found in N. America are completely different than apes. They aren't even monkeys.
@Everstruggling I appretiate your tone,some folks get rude when debating this topic.I'm not too familiar with specific primates found here in North America,I'll have to check that out though!I've been more intrigued by primates found elsewhere,such as Africa,northern Congo region,they've discoveried a group of giant Chimps, confirmed to be a different species!They live in a very hard to get to area,hence not being discovered until just recently.I'll send you a link
@plopnod Oh, thanks about the tone comment, I appreciate yours too. I looked up the giant apes. According to my quick and dirty research... They are called the Bili apes, they live in a remote region that has been very difficult for researchers to get to. The popular press reported that it was a new species, but DNA tests show it is a member of a known subspecies, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Weird... I can't post the link either... it's at new scientist, search for "mystery ape".
@plopnod Cont.... So great chimps are not a completely new species. It is a completely new culture of a known subspecies. BUT even if the giant chimp if it were a new species, we still have evidence of many closely related species in central Africa. Sasquatch would be an entirely different case. It would be a new genus of great ape making it's way across Asia and the Pacific, then dispersing through N. America without a trace. That would be like finding a new species of kangaroo in Africa.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. There is no evidence that these things exist other than some grainy photographs and low quality film. Without some physical evidence, there is no reason to believe they exist. My point is, if these things do exist, then you would expect some kind of evidence. Even if they were 100,000 times less of them then there are deer, you would expect at least one or two carcasses. cont.
Anybody who uses the "where are the bones/dead sasquatch" theory is very IGNORANT to nature or the woods in general. I'm an avid deer hunter...spend much of the fall and winter in the woods, moreso than the average hunter...very rarely will you come upon a deer carcass, much less any other type of carcass.
It will happen every once in a while, but it is very rare...keep that in mind and than think to the number of deer in the wilderness compared to the supposed number of sasquatch.
@jkstock04 So... you have seen one "every once in awhile" or "very rarely"? So you... one person... have seen more than one. Let's say you account for 1/10,000th of the total number of hours that people spent going through the woods in the last 100 years. Let us also say that you found ALL of the deer carcasses. If there was 1 sasquatch for ever 1000 deer, we would still expect to find at least a couple of sasquatch carcasses.
Honestly interesting rebutal...however I think you are underestimating the number of deer (at least where I am at) they are grossly overpopulated. By rarely seeing a carcass in the woods I mean I have seen it twice in my 20 years of avid hunting. Only other carcasses I have seen is when I kill one, someone I know kills one, or one gets hit in the road.
Also, studies have shown that within 7 days of a deer carcass laying in the woods...it will be eatin and decay into nothingness...essentially within 7 days it is unrecognisable. And the bones will soon be eaten by squirrls and whatnot...also will be carried off in bits and pieces. Another thing to think about, I don't live in 'sasquatch' country...but I'm going to assume mostly it's very desolate places where human population is at a minimum.
And who knows how many of these things there really are? Or, more imporantly how long they live? If they live 100 years or more, that cuts down chances of walking up on a carcass tenfold. Deer life expectancy is 15-20 years in optimal conditions.
@jkstock04 Continued from other post.. Sorry, my math was off in the last one. I shouldn't have said, "Let's say you found all the carcasses", I should have said, "let's use the number of carcasses you have found as the average"... oops.
The scientist is correct, he's talking about clean bones not carcasses. Bodies are easy to find everyone smells them. The scientist is talking about bones after the decay of the carcass and that is a rare sight. What he neglected to tell us is that it's not a magical mystery most bones are destroyed by animals that eat them like the porcupine and also from decay. This is the reason why we don't have animal fossils scattered throughout the forest.
Funny how museums are full of all kinds of bones. More dug out everyday. But no Bigfoot fossils not a one. Just excuses and anecdotal stories. Bigfoot doesn't exist. Never did. Deal with it.
@seymourbbest Nobody believes in Seymour anymore. He is negative. Negatives cannot be proven. We haven’t found any of his footprints or heard any sounds from him. He has left no sign of fossils or bones. We haven’t found any of his DNA. There’s no evidence of his existence whatsoever. In fact the only evidence we do have is a bunch of ones and zeros hoaxed into your computer. He is not for real.
Homie showed us a few photos of bear and cougar carcases taken over what we can only assume is the entire width and breadth of North America, and we know nothing of the circumstances under which those carcases were found. Bones of animals in arctic or desert environs must be considered "no counters" for purposes of his argument; those bones typically lay on open ground where they are highly visible and are not as quicly consumed as bones in heavily forested environs.
oooh, I have this documentary you showed a clip from at home. Do you know of any vids that analyze other parts of it? If I remember correctly the documentary mentioned hairs identified as being from an "unknown primate" as well as carvings of monkey heads out of stone by native americans which I'd like to see a skeptical take on
this guy is full of shit! check the Boonne and Crockett website and record books the world record grizzly and brown bear where FOUND i dont know what non hunting dips he was talking too, but EVERY HUNTER BUDDY i have has found bear and lion remains. U dont have to believe me, just check the RECORD BOOKS, a good part of the top 20 world record bears WHERE FOUND AND DIED OF NATURAL DEATHS. dont believe everything some nerdy looking scientist guy tells u he couldnt be more WRONG!
Even a city boy like me has found animal bones and even (almost) complete skeletons in the woods on hikes. If those people he was asking haven't seen bones, I'm betting they just weren't looking.
If you google "road-killed grizzly" you will get a results for a story from November 2007 about a grizzly killed by a pickup truck near Lincoln Montana.
Hey Grover, bears get hit by cars, too! Number of roadkill Bigfoots; zero, zip, nada....
Regarding bears, I'm not sure roadkills fit Krantz's definition of "a natural death". That is not to say that bigfoots have never been hit by automobiles (a few have), or that they did not later die of their injuries. Indications are, however, that those creatures are wary enough to avoid collisions with automobiles in nearly every instance and stout enough to cover a great deal of ground before succumbing if hit.
I'm wondering. Are the figures you get for finding the bones of bears and stuff based on deliberate searches for bear bones, of which there are a lot more of then deliberate searches for Bigfoot bones? Or is it accidental finds?
I'm specifically addressing the claim that nobody ever finds bear bones, which some see as a valid reason to dismiss the need for sasquatch/bigfoot bones to prove their existence. The PA bear study contained reference to thousands of bear bodies, but the ones I'm pointing to were the ones found where nobody killed the bear - the "natural" deaths.
I wasn't so much asking about the exact cause of the death, but of the intention of the person looking: were they out there to look for bones of bears? Or not?
In this particular study, the overall data includes deliberately studied bears (like radio-tagged, for example) as well as the ones people stumbled upon - which is the statistic I was most interested in. But I think you're getting closer to the real issue: You can easily find animal bones and carcasses if you go into the woods. At least for known species with large populations...
So what you're saying is that given the volume of claimed sightings, then considering what happens with bears, we should be finding bones. You can't just have so many sightings and not find one bone if the creature is real. Is that right?
First of all, Bigfoot's no animal but they're quite obviously 'people' of a different kind. Bipedal and humanlike, you bet. You hardly ever find bones of anything in the wild, that is fact, so no Bigfoot bones is no mystery. It's natural. The only solace we have, is that when the first Bigfoot is found and examined by the scientific community, all you jokers will vanish into thin air. Back to your shameful existences, and YOU'll become the mystery. Oh, what a glorious time that will be. :))))
Very interesting facts. I must say I appreciate your quest for answers. After watching this video, I do have some questions. Can we make a logical assumption (no bones, no Sasquatch)if all the data cannot be examined? In other words if man has not been every in the continental US even in present day, can we assume this? Also taking into account, not everyone that goes into the forest is looking for bones or recognizing them. i.e stepping right over them unaware of what they are. continued.....
Last year I was working at a major shopping chain in West Edmonton. I walked into the field while talking on the cell. There is a neighborhood on the other side of the field. I would say the field is a wide as a football field. Anyway, while walking there I found the sun bleached skull of a steer. I would say that there has been steer in that area for at least 45 years based on the homes and shops. But it was there, undisturbed. My point being no one noticed. So I think the data can be skewed.
Heres a rebuttal for both of you douche bags to chew on.Ever stop & think that we are dealing with an intelligent primate that buries its dead hence why no sasquatch bones have ever been found? Losers.
Thank you for your thoughtful rebuttal. Nothing helps punctuate a clever thought like an insult. Any idea how many primates (besides humans) bury their dead? Maybe we can study their burial practices to help us track down these graves.
Oh - one more thing. The point of this particular video is to answer a specific question: Do people ever find the bones of naturally dead bears? And yes, it turns out that they do. And not just bears - lots of animals.
I'll try to look into the "burial hypothesis" when I get some time. Just off the top of my head, it seems like a lot of trouble for a tribe of 7 to 8 foot tall 800 - 1600 pound animals to have to dig graves for each other by hand - all without leaving any obvious traces.
I think that you may be a little confused which takes away from the validity of this video. He isn't saying that bears don't die of natural deaths, he's saying that you don't often find the remains. The study that you site is a projection, we do them all the time, when we "lose" a bear we've been tracking, and we have no confirmation of a hunter's kill, we consider it deceased, this doesn't mean that we've found the physical body, it just means that we can no longer account for the bear.
Sorry. That data comes from the table "Other documented black bear mortalities besides legal harvest and illegal kills that occurred during the hunting season, 1980-99." I talked with the biologist who ran the study, and he said that those were bears that were found dead that weren't killed by cars or hunters. In other words - real corpses, not projections. I link directly to the study on my site - link in video notes.
"I'll try to look into the "burial hypothesis" when I get some time. Just off the top of my head, it seems like a lot of trouble for a tribe of 7 to 8 foot tall 800 - 1600 pound animals to have to dig graves for each other by hand - all without leaving any obvious traces."
ROFLMAO!!!! Well said!
By Exciter's logic, the reason we never see elephants hiding in trees is because they hide so well... ;)
How about millions of hunters in the woods and not one bigfoot has been shot?
retiredsearge 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
100 bears for every one bigfoot...lol More like all bears to every zero bigfoot.
retiredsearge 1 month ago
Comment removed
retiredsearge 1 month ago
The more I think about this, the more ludicrous the claim is. I live in the area that the name "Sasquatch" comes from. I have personally found carcasses of moles, ravens, squirrels, rabbits, mice, rats, and salmon. All of which should preserve worse than Sasquatch. I haven't come across a dear bone, but I have friends who have. I have also come across antlers and deer scat. All that, and I'm not particularly "woodsy". Why should Sasquatch be so much harder to find samples of?
Everstruggling 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bigfoot doesn't exist. That is the explanation for no specimens.
seymourbbest 1 year ago
If we are to accept that these creatures exist, we have to accept that no one, since N.America has been inhabited, has ever found the carcass of, shot, trapped, captured, dug up, or hit with a car one of these creatures. Even if you only count the time since Europeans arrived, you still have a couple of hundred years at least for most of N. America. Think about how many people have lived, worked, camped in the woods. And still, not even one skeleton?
Everstruggling 1 year ago
@Everstruggling There were 22 new primate species discovered over the past ten years,including the "giant chimpanzee" .Many (not all) of the primate species are very shy and timid,and are only being discovered because of habitat loss!I can not say that bigfoot exists,and had been a skeptic for most of my life.Over the past few years I've changed my skeptisism,and entertain the idea that they may exist.They have now found dna belonging to an unknown primate in North America!
plopnod 9 months ago
@plopnod I never said that Bigfoot / sasquatch for certain don't exist. I'm saying the argument that it would be next to impossible to provide bones, some other physical remains, or a live specimen doesn't hold water. People claim to have seen these creatures, therefor if they do exist, they exist in places that have been explored. Therefor, it should not be impossible to provide the evidence. The primates found in N. America are completely different than apes. They aren't even monkeys.
Everstruggling 9 months ago
@Everstruggling I appretiate your tone,some folks get rude when debating this topic.I'm not too familiar with specific primates found here in North America,I'll have to check that out though!I've been more intrigued by primates found elsewhere,such as Africa,northern Congo region,they've discoveried a group of giant Chimps, confirmed to be a different species!They live in a very hard to get to area,hence not being discovered until just recently.I'll send you a link
plopnod 9 months ago
@Everstruggling sorry,unable to send link.Check out giant chimps BBC NEWS,or U.K Science mag,there's a good number of links!
plopnod 9 months ago
@plopnod Oh, thanks about the tone comment, I appreciate yours too. I looked up the giant apes. According to my quick and dirty research... They are called the Bili apes, they live in a remote region that has been very difficult for researchers to get to. The popular press reported that it was a new species, but DNA tests show it is a member of a known subspecies, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Weird... I can't post the link either... it's at new scientist, search for "mystery ape".
Everstruggling 9 months ago
@plopnod Cont.... So great chimps are not a completely new species. It is a completely new culture of a known subspecies. BUT even if the giant chimp if it were a new species, we still have evidence of many closely related species in central Africa. Sasquatch would be an entirely different case. It would be a new genus of great ape making it's way across Asia and the Pacific, then dispersing through N. America without a trace. That would be like finding a new species of kangaroo in Africa.
Everstruggling 9 months ago
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. There is no evidence that these things exist other than some grainy photographs and low quality film. Without some physical evidence, there is no reason to believe they exist. My point is, if these things do exist, then you would expect some kind of evidence. Even if they were 100,000 times less of them then there are deer, you would expect at least one or two carcasses. cont.
Everstruggling 1 year ago
Anybody who uses the "where are the bones/dead sasquatch" theory is very IGNORANT to nature or the woods in general. I'm an avid deer hunter...spend much of the fall and winter in the woods, moreso than the average hunter...very rarely will you come upon a deer carcass, much less any other type of carcass.
It will happen every once in a while, but it is very rare...keep that in mind and than think to the number of deer in the wilderness compared to the supposed number of sasquatch.
jkstock04 1 year ago
@jkstock04 So... you have seen one "every once in awhile" or "very rarely"? So you... one person... have seen more than one. Let's say you account for 1/10,000th of the total number of hours that people spent going through the woods in the last 100 years. Let us also say that you found ALL of the deer carcasses. If there was 1 sasquatch for ever 1000 deer, we would still expect to find at least a couple of sasquatch carcasses.
Everstruggling 1 year ago
@Everstruggling
Honestly interesting rebutal...however I think you are underestimating the number of deer (at least where I am at) they are grossly overpopulated. By rarely seeing a carcass in the woods I mean I have seen it twice in my 20 years of avid hunting. Only other carcasses I have seen is when I kill one, someone I know kills one, or one gets hit in the road.
jkstock04 1 year ago
@Everstruggling
Also, studies have shown that within 7 days of a deer carcass laying in the woods...it will be eatin and decay into nothingness...essentially within 7 days it is unrecognisable. And the bones will soon be eaten by squirrls and whatnot...also will be carried off in bits and pieces. Another thing to think about, I don't live in 'sasquatch' country...but I'm going to assume mostly it's very desolate places where human population is at a minimum.
jkstock04 1 year ago
@Everstruggling
And who knows how many of these things there really are? Or, more imporantly how long they live? If they live 100 years or more, that cuts down chances of walking up on a carcass tenfold. Deer life expectancy is 15-20 years in optimal conditions.
jkstock04 1 year ago
@jkstock04 Continued from other post.. Sorry, my math was off in the last one. I shouldn't have said, "Let's say you found all the carcasses", I should have said, "let's use the number of carcasses you have found as the average"... oops.
Everstruggling 1 year ago
What's the bone density and decay rate of a pile of Sasquatch bones?... Exactly, nobody knows yet.
RedSouthern 1 year ago
The scientist is correct, he's talking about clean bones not carcasses. Bodies are easy to find everyone smells them. The scientist is talking about bones after the decay of the carcass and that is a rare sight. What he neglected to tell us is that it's not a magical mystery most bones are destroyed by animals that eat them like the porcupine and also from decay. This is the reason why we don't have animal fossils scattered throughout the forest.
budrep 1 year ago
Funny how museums are full of all kinds of bones. More dug out everyday. But no Bigfoot fossils not a one. Just excuses and anecdotal stories. Bigfoot doesn't exist. Never did. Deal with it.
seymourbbest 1 year ago
@seymourbbest Nobody believes in Seymour anymore. He is negative. Negatives cannot be proven. We haven’t found any of his footprints or heard any sounds from him. He has left no sign of fossils or bones. We haven’t found any of his DNA. There’s no evidence of his existence whatsoever. In fact the only evidence we do have is a bunch of ones and zeros hoaxed into your computer. He is not for real.
Jamydicr 1 year ago
Homie showed us a few photos of bear and cougar carcases taken over what we can only assume is the entire width and breadth of North America, and we know nothing of the circumstances under which those carcases were found. Bones of animals in arctic or desert environs must be considered "no counters" for purposes of his argument; those bones typically lay on open ground where they are highly visible and are not as quicly consumed as bones in heavily forested environs.
nealcole 2 years ago
oooh, I have this documentary you showed a clip from at home. Do you know of any vids that analyze other parts of it? If I remember correctly the documentary mentioned hairs identified as being from an "unknown primate" as well as carvings of monkey heads out of stone by native americans which I'd like to see a skeptical take on
technologysucks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its been decades a bigfoot body would of almost certainly been found by now
deiterkirkbride87 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this guy is full of shit! check the Boonne and Crockett website and record books the world record grizzly and brown bear where FOUND i dont know what non hunting dips he was talking too, but EVERY HUNTER BUDDY i have has found bear and lion remains. U dont have to believe me, just check the RECORD BOOKS, a good part of the top 20 world record bears WHERE FOUND AND DIED OF NATURAL DEATHS. dont believe everything some nerdy looking scientist guy tells u he couldnt be more WRONG!
bigNMhillbilly 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even a city boy like me has found animal bones and even (almost) complete skeletons in the woods on hikes. If those people he was asking haven't seen bones, I'm betting they just weren't looking.
chance20m 3 years ago
If you google "road-killed grizzly" you will get a results for a story from November 2007 about a grizzly killed by a pickup truck near Lincoln Montana.
Hey Grover, bears get hit by cars, too! Number of roadkill Bigfoots; zero, zip, nada....
matthetube 3 years ago
Most 'Bigfoot' supposedly live in remote wilderness far away from roads.
oggiedoggy 2 years ago
Regarding bears, I'm not sure roadkills fit Krantz's definition of "a natural death". That is not to say that bigfoots have never been hit by automobiles (a few have), or that they did not later die of their injuries. Indications are, however, that those creatures are wary enough to avoid collisions with automobiles in nearly every instance and stout enough to cover a great deal of ground before succumbing if hit.
nealcole 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmmm yeah, sasquatch burys its dead? Does it bury it's shit also? How come you never see sasquatch skat?
GilbertSyndrome 3 years ago
I'm wondering. Are the figures you get for finding the bones of bears and stuff based on deliberate searches for bear bones, of which there are a lot more of then deliberate searches for Bigfoot bones? Or is it accidental finds?
mike4ty4 3 years ago
I'm specifically addressing the claim that nobody ever finds bear bones, which some see as a valid reason to dismiss the need for sasquatch/bigfoot bones to prove their existence. The PA bear study contained reference to thousands of bear bodies, but the ones I'm pointing to were the ones found where nobody killed the bear - the "natural" deaths.
DoctorAtlantis 3 years ago
I wasn't so much asking about the exact cause of the death, but of the intention of the person looking: were they out there to look for bones of bears? Or not?
mike4ty4 3 years ago
In this particular study, the overall data includes deliberately studied bears (like radio-tagged, for example) as well as the ones people stumbled upon - which is the statistic I was most interested in. But I think you're getting closer to the real issue: You can easily find animal bones and carcasses if you go into the woods. At least for known species with large populations...
RebelBubba 3 years ago
So what you're saying is that given the volume of claimed sightings, then considering what happens with bears, we should be finding bones. You can't just have so many sightings and not find one bone if the creature is real. Is that right?
mike4ty4 3 years ago
That is - I believe - correct.
DoctorAtlantis 2 years ago
Thank you for the explanation.
mike4ty4 2 years ago
First of all, Bigfoot's no animal but they're quite obviously 'people' of a different kind. Bipedal and humanlike, you bet. You hardly ever find bones of anything in the wild, that is fact, so no Bigfoot bones is no mystery. It's natural. The only solace we have, is that when the first Bigfoot is found and examined by the scientific community, all you jokers will vanish into thin air. Back to your shameful existences, and YOU'll become the mystery. Oh, what a glorious time that will be. :))))
komodoman 3 years ago
Very interesting facts. I must say I appreciate your quest for answers. After watching this video, I do have some questions. Can we make a logical assumption (no bones, no Sasquatch)if all the data cannot be examined? In other words if man has not been every in the continental US even in present day, can we assume this? Also taking into account, not everyone that goes into the forest is looking for bones or recognizing them. i.e stepping right over them unaware of what they are. continued.....
POPPASHANGO 3 years ago
Last year I was working at a major shopping chain in West Edmonton. I walked into the field while talking on the cell. There is a neighborhood on the other side of the field. I would say the field is a wide as a football field. Anyway, while walking there I found the sun bleached skull of a steer. I would say that there has been steer in that area for at least 45 years based on the homes and shops. But it was there, undisturbed. My point being no one noticed. So I think the data can be skewed.
POPPASHANGO 3 years ago
Are there any predators out there that can drag an 800 - 1600 pound animal into a hiding place?
RebelBubba 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You miss the point. Most likely a Sasquatch is going to be scattered piece by piece by scavengers, not a predator.
40milesband 3 years ago
Heres a rebuttal for both of you douche bags to chew on.Ever stop & think that we are dealing with an intelligent primate that buries its dead hence why no sasquatch bones have ever been found? Losers.
Exciter1000 3 years ago
Thank you for your thoughtful rebuttal. Nothing helps punctuate a clever thought like an insult. Any idea how many primates (besides humans) bury their dead? Maybe we can study their burial practices to help us track down these graves.
DoctorAtlantis 3 years ago
Well done! Another bigfoot myth bites the dust!
heatherssss 3 years ago
Oh - one more thing. The point of this particular video is to answer a specific question: Do people ever find the bones of naturally dead bears? And yes, it turns out that they do. And not just bears - lots of animals.
I'll try to look into the "burial hypothesis" when I get some time. Just off the top of my head, it seems like a lot of trouble for a tribe of 7 to 8 foot tall 800 - 1600 pound animals to have to dig graves for each other by hand - all without leaving any obvious traces.
DoctorAtlantis 3 years ago
I think that you may be a little confused which takes away from the validity of this video. He isn't saying that bears don't die of natural deaths, he's saying that you don't often find the remains. The study that you site is a projection, we do them all the time, when we "lose" a bear we've been tracking, and we have no confirmation of a hunter's kill, we consider it deceased, this doesn't mean that we've found the physical body, it just means that we can no longer account for the bear.
thegirl44 3 years ago
Sorry. That data comes from the table "Other documented black bear mortalities besides legal harvest and illegal kills that occurred during the hunting season, 1980-99." I talked with the biologist who ran the study, and he said that those were bears that were found dead that weren't killed by cars or hunters. In other words - real corpses, not projections. I link directly to the study on my site - link in video notes.
DoctorAtlantis 3 years ago
"I'll try to look into the "burial hypothesis" when I get some time. Just off the top of my head, it seems like a lot of trouble for a tribe of 7 to 8 foot tall 800 - 1600 pound animals to have to dig graves for each other by hand - all without leaving any obvious traces."
ROFLMAO!!!! Well said!
By Exciter's logic, the reason we never see elephants hiding in trees is because they hide so well... ;)
heatherssss 3 years ago
Very well done! This is an absolutely devastating rebuttal to the quasi-religious "Read Krantz" ideologues.
I've found animal bones on three occasions myself, though I have very limited outdoor experience. One bone I found was in Ape Canyon!
matthetube 3 years ago 2