When it comes to the reality of bigfoot, one of the major questions to it's impossible existence is, where are the bones? The following excerpt is from "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" by John Green, that was published 38 years ago. Is there a sasquatch graveyard yet to be discovered? Do they bury their dead? Does the forest consume, decompose organics faster than any other biological environment? Or has some bones been found over the years? More after the jump.
There are at least five dead sasquatches to be found in old stories in British Columbia, but that's about the only place where they are so common. When it comes to producing a body nowadays, there are none anywhere.
That is always the ultimate argument If there against the existence real animal, of such a creature, and an excellent argument it is. Then the remains of one should have turned up somewhere, sometime, and they should have attracted attention. Other forms of evidence for the existence of the sasquatch are ignored partly because they aren't the sort of thing that any branch of science ordinarily deals with, but bones would be something else again. Physical anthropology and paleontology have always been waist deep in bones.
I would never argue that there could not be some sasquatch bones around that have gone unnoticed. On the contrary, it could probably happen quite easily. A person who finds some interesting bones has no clear-cut course of action laid out for him. He can keep them around the house as a conversation piece, or take them to a newspaper for a story, or ship them off to a museum or university for study. Any of those actions could possibly bring the bones to the attention of someone competent to identify them, but none of them would necessarily have that effect. It might seem that any university or museum should be able to identify just about any bone that might be submitted, but that is very far from being the case. Smaller institutions may well have no one on staff who deals with that sort of material at all, and even where there is some such person there is no guarantee that the bones will come to his attention. That line of thinking is not just speculation. I could site examples. None would be adequate, however, since they all involve cases in which someone has complained of the fact that bones sent to the institution have disappeared, or else the stuff, after being lost for a period, has come to someone's attention. The perfect examples of bones lost without trace have got to be those that really were lost without trace and still are.
Speculation along that line serves little purpose, however. While it is reasonable to point out that there could be some bones that have been found and that have since been lost track of and lost again, it is not reasonable for that to have happened every single time. I am more and more inclined to think that the reason no institution is known to have any sasquatch bones is that none of them do have any.
The same line of reasoning holds good with regard to reasons why bones are not found at all. It is reasonable to suggest that when sasquatches die naturally they may first crawl into holes where they are as good as buried. It is not entirely out of the question to suggest that the survivors may bury them, since it is claimed for both apes and elephants that they sometimes heap things on dead members of their own species. It is also true that bones are eaten by a large variety of creatures; and that in the climatic conditions of the west coast bones disintegrate quite quickly, so that it is rare to find the bones of any animal that has died a natural death. All those things are true and they would account for the finding of bones being rare, but as the years go by they are less and less adequate to account for the fact that no one finds any sasquatch bones at all, anywhere, ever.
It is the same old problem. If you consider this one matter by itself it indicates clearly that there is no such animal. The trouble is that such a conclusion does nothing to provide an explanation for all the evidence indicating that there is such an animal.
After putting that problem aside as insoluble, there are still the stories of sasquatches that were found dead or were killed or captured. Recognizing that none of those stories is very satisfactory, since in every case physical remains should go with them, and there are none, still the stories exist. Let's take a look at what there is.
I have mentioned Bruce McKelvie, who told me that he had a friend who had killed a sasquatch, but would say no more about it. That and the story of Jacko, already told in full, are the only reports from non-Indian sources in British Columbia. Turning to Indian stories, there are two that are well known over a considerable length of the B.C. coast. One involves the late Billy Hall, of Kemano. Like many well-known stories, it varies somewhat according to the teller.
To read more, you can purchase "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" here.
No comments:
Post a Comment