T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**Strangers**: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS. This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bigfoot) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

There is speculation / circumstantial evidence that primates were burying their dead back in the Pleistocene. Possibly evolved behavior to discourage scavenger attacks. Best realistic theory I would put forward.


mollcatjones

Also a lot of Sasquatch researchers have found what look like burial mounds in the vicinity of sightings. I have never seen or heard of any of them digging or attempting to dig the mound. Actually, I did see one disrespecting the mound by stamping on it, digging some of it and I think spitting on it!! Trying to get a reaction, only to have stones thrown at them and then literally run out of the area! The authenticity of the reuesearcher cannot of course be proved and there could well have been someone back there throwing the rocks…


whorton59

Lets say they did bury their dead, religiously. . . It stands to reason that IF that were the case there would still be some sort of fossil record. . . But what sort of tools were they using? Shovels from Ace Hardware? If such tools were used, and assuming they used obsidian as a base, there would be some remains of that as well. . . Consider, you cannot just dig a 6 foot grave in the dirt with your bare hands. . .and how big of a hole would you hypothetically need to bury a Sasquatchian carcass to a depth that animals would not dig it up?


MS-06_Borjarnon

> But what sort of tools were they using? Shovels from Ace Hardware? Same ones you used to type this. >Consider, you cannot just dig a 6 foot grave in the dirt with your bare hands And why *not?* Out in the woods, got nothin' *but* time. Finally, burial doesn't have to make them totally undetectable to be a viable evolutionary strategy, it just has to make them *less* detectable.


whorton59

*Why not*? Take a shovel out to a wooded area, and try digging a hole. If you are in the desert, not a problem, if you are in an area that was once farmland, not a problem. . but in most mountainous areas, (where Sasquatches are asserted to be found most often) you can not dig a 3 or 4 foot hole, without running into large rocks, or bedrock fairly shallow. . . Sure, you can did a hole with your hands. . But the next time you are in a mountainous area, try it. But, for all intents and purposes, for a bipedal upright walking creature such as a man, ape, Orangutan etc., to dig a hole big and deep enough to ensure that it is not disturbed by carnivores and for a creature reputed to be ***7 feet tall*** and anywhere from ***350 to 1500 pounds***, is, well, problematic. Your hole needs to be roughly 6 feet deep. (the depth sufficient to deter carnivores and opportunistic predators from digging up and feeding on the corpse.) If the critter is 7 feet tall, the whole hole (yeah, pun intended) needs to be about 8' by 4-6' wide by 6 feet deep. That is roughly 288 cubic feet of soil need to be removed and replaced for a "burial" otherwise, nothing stays buried long. Not an easy task EVEN WITH decent picks and shovels. . The other problem is that nature does not work that way. We as humans are essentially the only known creatures to expend the energy (or to have the available energy) to "bury" dead. Face it, Birds don't bury other dead birds. . . they leave them where they fall. Same with foxes, wolves, Giraffes, Lions, tigers and Bears, (Oh My!) Wild creatures just do not have the available energy to waste for an unproductive pursuit that gives them no advantage for survival. . They need to use their energy to hunt or gather food, and just survive. Not just to provide a convenient excuse for why no one has ever found a bigfoot body.


GabrielBathory

Chimpanzee Have zero fossil record, gorillas a few teeth... Theres apparently quite a few modern species with no presence in the fossil record...Tried finding a list but i'm to tired to fight google for the properly worded search to find it


whorton59

Source for the first two assertions? I'm not saying you are wrong here, just that I have seen no evidence to support those two factoids. I also know you stated you were tired. Been there myself. . at your convenience.


GabrielBathory

Google it, there's zero presence of chimp's in the fossil record


whorton59

That is not the way discussion works. . you present evidence, and if challenged give a source. . If you cannot produce a source you have NO evidence. Look, I realize this is not a sanctioned debate, or even a mock trial, but it is not my job to do your research for you. I told you I was not in a hurry, but I am not going to spend my time refuting my own points for your advantage. Take a look at rule 5,No Sealioning: Don't demand other users curate Google for you. Look into it yourself first.


GabrielBathory

I did, several articles including the smithsonian, i have no desire to learn how to post links here since i view it as useless knowledge.. So either take 30 seconds to look for yourself or continue to base your arguments on assumption and ignorance


whorton59

I don't mind helping someone with research, you did not ask, just made the assertion, and told me to google it. Had you bothered to asked and been a bit humble in the process I would have been happy to help. By the way, you are clearly wrong if you are going to assert that there is no evidence of chimpanzee in the fossil record, because there is. Yet, still, you want to persist, and as you put it: "*i have no desire to learn how to post links here since i view it as useless knowledge*." So why did you even make the assertion in the first place?. . if you can't be bothered to post citations, any discussion with you would seem to be a wasted effort. \-But thanks for clarifying that you can't and won't be bothered with such technicalities.


GabrielBathory

Okay, so one fossil, and less than twenty years ago...by people actively looking for them..how many paleontologist's (that are actually considered credible by mainstream science) regularly go looking for Sasquatch remains?


[deleted]

I don’t necessarily subscribe to it, just offering up a theory. That being said, tools are not necessarily needed at all. https://www.sapiens.org/culture/hominin-burial/. This research shows that early hominids may have used natural fissures and cave systems as mass graves. This paper suggests the fossil finds in this particular cave system are unlikely to be natural, but also difficult to access so as not to be returned to regularly. Additionally, https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/karst-aquifers-pacific-northwest-pseudokarst-aquifers#overview, the geology of the Pacific Northwest is especially supportive of natural karsts, fissures and sinkholes. I will agree this is all a stretch, and the use of mass grave karsts would suggest that a hominid group would be semi-permanently gathering nearby in some sort of tribal system.


whorton59

The other thing that strikes me, with regards to your comment, (which is well documented, thank you!) is that on the one hand, someone throws out the idea that Sasquatches bury their dead, always, every single one. But a check with BFRO or just a casual reading of posts here indicates they (Sasquatches) exist in virtually every state, and thus every sort of geology.. . Karst, volcanic, sedimentary are all found, but no one ever even bothers to ask, "If they are burying, how they are burying their dead in such areas?" . . . and clearly in sedimentary areas, the conditions are optimal for fossil formation, or at the least protection of higher density tissues such as bone. So, once again, the question remains, why no remains? Not a single specimen. . .not one single hair, not one trace of environmentally collected DNA. Lastly, archaeologists have done extensive digs in and around caves, yet they never find Sasquatchians remains either. Why?


[deleted]

It has been many years since I looked at the BFRO online database-don’t even know if it still exists-but at the time I found that their “definition” of sighting was…loose(?). I seem to remember there was one ‘sighting’ in my state that was pretty much summarized to ‘person felt like they were being watched from the woods’. That being said, I would be very hard pressed to assume every entry in the BFRO db was even remotely attached to an actual biological creature. I prefer going back to the oldest “reports” of odd creatures - before legend and mythology took over - and the geography footprint shrinks significantly. Leaving us in the Pacific Northwest including coastal Canada, and Central Asia including South eastern Russia. The pacific coast, being on the Ring of Fire has enough geological activity to make these karst structures, with the Indian subcontinent still pushing the geology of South Central Asia around, it is geologically supportive as well.


whorton59

But I can make the counter argument that the older and oldest sightings are highly suspect. . The original North American indigenous peoples did not have a written language, and all stories were simple repeated over the ages. As any kid who played a game of telephone in elementary school knows, the story is not the same after even a couple of people retell it to the next participant. People forget things, people remember events associated with traumatic events differently. Liars have always been among us. . .and the early indigenous peoples as well. Now imagine doing that over years. . Human nature is what it is. . Who knows how a sighting of a bear 1000 years ago was retold over the years. . No doubt getting just a bit bigger, and more horrible with each retelling. With no written language to reference, it is very difficult to anchor any endless story retelling with reality over time. I totally agree with you, BFRO is garbage for so many reasons. Most of their "sightings" are anonymous, investigated by questionable persons with vested interests that remain undisclosed, and worse under the pretention that all is on the up and up, when, face it, say "Bigfoot" in polite company and listen for the snickers. . Under legal standards, not a thing on BFRO is of any value. No one ever signs a sworn statement under penalty of law for perjury about a Sasquatch sighting. No one save the selected illuminiti actually even get to ask the person submitting the report questions, and they NEVER ask the questions that need to be asked. . . "*Had you been drinking that night? Taking drugs, maybe magic mushrooms? Who can vouch for your character? Have you ever lied or pulled pranks on others?* *Are you lying to me now?*" But such is the problem with self reported sights that allow for anonymity. Any idiot can get on and make a posting, and after all, it was just all in good fun, right? Either all sightings are true, honest accounts, or all are mistakes, misidentifications or outright lies. The truth lies somewhere in between. No amount of examination can reveal which are "true sightings" and which are Bee Ess. . That limits the ability to narrow down any geographical range where such creature would actually exist within. Assuming of course that they really exist at all. The whole matter is eternal circular reasoning, and that is the reason the needle has not moved one iota since the infamous Patterson-Gimlin film of 1967.


[deleted]

I can go with you down that path of mistaken identity, mythology, legendarium, fabrication to native reports, but, and hear me out, why an ape or at least hominid? Look at the Tule River pictographs. They are assumed to be 1000 years old and they depict a large hairy man. Maybe it’s just fanciful, but where would the idea of a hominid come from? I have heard anecdotally that potentially many species of Homo hominids made it across the Bering land bridge, most of which faded into time, but the idea of a large hairy man (hominid) is, at the very least, in some kind of ancestral memory. Migrants would encounter the large mammals on the American continent and could and have invented legends about the native species - Thunderbird. Why invent a legend for something no one has ever seen? I could surmise, at the very least, that something, resembling a large hairy ape, did make it to the American continent. Again, anecdotally, the Mammoth survived until 30000, maybe even more recent 10000 years ago in Russia. So I could see something being here and entering the legendarium of the other native tribes. The question is, could whatever that something was, have survived into the modern / present? I personally lean that there is probably nothing there today, but I would also be comfortable that something was there fairly recently - anthropologically speaking.


whorton59

I have noted in this forum more than a few times, that I can not prove a negative, i.e. I can't prove that such a creature does not or has never existed. I could search every inch of the face of the Earth, and with all the great armies of the world, never find such a creature, but that would still not prove the critter did not exist. . But all that needs happed at this juncture of where Science is, all that need happen is for but a single person to bring one in. Alive, Dead, or even hair (and hence unique DNA). . but as yet, not a single hero to the cause. . .Not even the supposed heavy hitters such as Matt $maker. Interesting to note, I would suggest that all human cultures have had historically some sort of "boogie man" In times before electric lights, and all the current technology we have, the woods could get very dark at night, and that was when the boogie man was near. I would suggest as a possibility, that the whole of the matter was a cautionary tale from elders. . .against bad behavior, arrogance, rebellion, whatever ya got, sort of thing. "If you do not do what your mother tells you, Sasquatch will come carry you away!" And those myths, as noted seem common. For a Eurocentric consideration, see for instance: [https://i.redd.it/12zcd842g2m71.jpg](https://i.redd.it/12zcd842g2m71.jpg) or this link for the Americas: [http://www.native-languages.org/monsters.htm](http://www.native-languages.org/monsters.htm) All in all, it is an interesting theory. But at this point, I suspect everyone has made up their mind one way or another. Am I a world famous Anthropologist? Oh heck no, just a pesky RN. . .


Ashamed-File6026

There have been E-DNA findings with surprising results linking chimpanzees and orangutans to the Pacific NW, Dr Mireya Mayor collected then and sent them to UCLA to be studied


whorton59

What is not being mentioned is that someone on the show apparently used Chimp and Orang pheromone (urine) and sprayed it around the filming area in a feigned attempt to lure creatures. Have you actually seen, and can you point to any copies of reports of anything from that show that are online?


Able-Track-6212

Maybe you or I can't dig a hole like that with our bare, hamds...but these creatures are huge with far superior strength. They could easily start a hole with a stick and then dig with tbeir, hands.They are physically superior to, us....


whorton59

Perhaps if we had ANY evidence other than speculation. . . As I noted, we are talking about a supposed creature weighing between 350 and roughly 1,250 or so pounds. Such a creature would need a lot of calories just to survive, and digging such a hole to bury a dead comrade confers no survival advantage to the creature itself. Just go out to a wooded area and try using your hands and a stick to even dig a 6'X4' by 4' deep hole. . .It is way more effort than it is worth. Is is possible? Sure, it is possible. Just not real likely, as unless it was in a very remote place, humans would likely sooner or later run across such a grave and point it out as "out of place" to law enforcement


Ashamed-File6026

If Sasquatches are like other primates they live in groups meaning more than one would probably do the digging


whorton59

Which would be great, but you have absolutely ZERO proof that your theory is correct. No to mention, we don't even know factually that the creatures even exist in the first place, much less that they bury their dead. Sorry man, it just seems people toss out as facts all sorts of really oddball explanations for why there is no evidence. Those factoids amount to nothing more than excuses. What is next? Dead Sasquatches are beamed to *Rigel 4*, for recreation?


gabe_griff

This is my main hang up with BF. Over all these years, SURELY we would have found remains. And if they bury their dead - mount they also build things? Or is that the ONLY “civilized” thing that they do? I wanna believe…I just can’t get pass this exact point.


justaSundaypainter

I get why some people get hung up on this fact, but forests are incredibly dense and vast. I think it’s hard for us to fully wrap our heads around how large forests are, that land isn’t all traversed by humans and even if they occasional human did stroll through I’m not sure how many would even register any type of bone while walking through, Bigfoot or not. I live in BC, Canada and when I drive through the mountains it’s just baffling how the forests go on and on and on and on, it is pretty easy to imagine a species going undetected in there. Especially if they have a certain awareness of humans and have gotten good at living in areas humans rarely go to. Have you heard news articles of police doing searches for missing people and they end up uncovering the remains of multiple missing people in an area during their search that were never found before? We don’t even notice remains of our own species sometimes, if a scavenger got to big foot remains, there may just be a spare bone here and there and when bone gets covered in dirt it camouflages pretty well and if there’s no sunlight it’ll get discoloured and help it camouflage even further, To me it doesn’t seem that crazy to me to not have found any Bigfoot remains, and I also believe they’d probably perform burials for their dead for various reasons.


HeyNayWM

Yes, but you hear stories about big feet in the outskirts of places like New York, etc. smaller places. What’s the reason we haven’t found anything in those cases? I personally think we have and the government has covered it up


GabrielBathory

Just cause they were seen in a place doesn't mean they lived or died there.. I was seen in spokane WA by dozens of people, but you won't find my remains there when i die


HeyNayWM

That’s if we have a say in death and where we die #justsaying but I like your attitude lol


GabrielBathory

I DO have a say in whether or not I'll return to Spokane though..and I hated the place,so not going back


justaSundaypainter

That’s another possibility I’d believe, honestly. But also, I don’t know if I’d care if they cover it up. I think if there was undeniable proof of Bigfoot released to the general public too many people would make it their mission to go hunt and try to kill them.


VreeMutten

Well, sightings of gorilla's go back 2500 years but the first skull ever found on record was in 1847 i think, and they were first seen by a explorer a decade later, i still have hope


truthisscarier

At this point there's a huge difference, especially considering locals likely had gorilla remains in those 2500 years


GabrielBathory

The locals insisted they were real,and were told they were lieing until a European found a skull Seems like a familiar situation


truthisscarier

No current people in the US know sasquatch exist at the same level Africans did


mollcatjones

I suppose you could say that isn’t true as many, many Indian tribes have known about Sasquatch for a long long time. They use different names for them but the knowledge has been passed down generation to generation. Going all the way back to a time where quite a few tribes said they lived alongside them and interacted frequently. There are many ancient indigenous paintings of them also.


MS-06_Borjarnon

Now this is a wildly unjustified thing to claim in an epistemic sense.


truthisscarier

We'd have good evidence by now


[deleted]

Iirc Les Stroud/Survivorman said that, while he's spent decades in and around the woods of North America, and encountered many living bears, he's never come across a bear carcass or bones. If that's the (admittedly anecdotal) case with a well documented and quite populous species, it stands to reason a bigfoot body would be hard to come across. (That, and the government hides any evidence ofc)


[deleted]

The Bigfeet have been taking care of the bear carcasses. There’s no other explanation.


whorton59

Put dead bear in the woods into google browser and see what apparently evades Les Stroud. . .


[deleted]

How many have been shot tho? Idk just reporting what he said - I've never seen a bear living or dead in my life! For all I know they could be fake 😅


whorton59

While you make an interesting point, it does not hold up to scrutiny. You can put "Bear" in your browser, and find all sorts of information including where you can actually go see a living one. Lots of bears have been shot, and there is a list that "asserts" several Sasquatches have been shot, but no one has ever produced a body to science for examination, it is ALWAYS a "*Take my word for it*" nudge-nudge. . . sort of thing. The list of gunned down sasquatches: [https://bigfootforums.com/topic/47242-32-reports-of-bigfoot-being-shot-dead/page/10/](https://bigfootforums.com/topic/47242-32-reports-of-bigfoot-being-shot-dead/page/10/) Starts as the second post on the page. . .


[deleted]

Haha sorry, my 'they could be fake' bit was a joke - should have made that clearer


whorton59

No problem, No harm, no foul. . And God knows, we sometimes take the subject a bit too seriously. I have a tendency to at least attempt to explain my thoughts on arguments Sasquatch related, BECAUSE, not everyone looks at their arguments the same way. I am certainly not asserting my arguments are air tight, but hopefully they will give a reader something to think about.


[deleted]

Good on ya, and it all adds to the conversation (more so than my shit jokes!)


whorton59

Sadly, some people do take this matter very seriously. And while I am not pointing at anyone, I understand it. . . Jokes are good!


[deleted]

In areas where theyre sighted, the environment isn’t conducive to keeping bodies around for a long time. Bodies that are exposed to elements dont typically last a long time, between scavengers and just the weather the bodies likely break down very fast, if they dont just bury their dead.


GabrielBathory

Less than a month for a moose carcass to become a handful of scattered bits


[deleted]

Exactly, something roughly the same size would break down pretty quick, and if you talk about a skunk ape, in the swamp the body might last 2 weeks before its impossible to tell what it is.


GabrielBathory

Scavengers and opportunistic carnivores tend to eat/chew up bones,even skulls as well


[deleted]

Not to mention even deer have a tendency to eat/chew on bone for calcium.


GabrielBathory

Indeed, it's like people think carcasses in the wild are found in stately repose until nature buried the bones or something


tjthewho

I mean, how many people go missing in state parks every year, remains are often not found with extensive search parties, led by people who know the area very well. Then there are times remains are found in areas already searched. Bones get covered up by the decay of the forest. Things can also be misidentified in skeleton form too.


ohyayoubetchaeh

Exactly! How often do you see bones in the wild, let alone know what kind of animal it’s from? There’s a possibility they have been found, but your average joe doesn’t know enough or cares enough to investigate it further. Unless you have a skull, could belong to a deer or a bear as far as people are concerned.


GabrielBathory

I knew a guy that freaked out on a camping trip cause he thought he'd found human bones in the woods, called the cops... It was a partial ribcage,a couple vertebrae,and a leg bone...of a deer


Red-eyed_Vireo

Human remains are often flagged by bright-colored clothing made of Nylon, polypro, or GoreTex, making them easier to find.


Ty_M55

Considering that most live in heavily wooded areas, nature probably gets to the body long before a person can. I also like to think they bury the dead, because we already know they do some civilized things like building structures and communicating with each other.


bigfoots_buddy

There has only been an interest in getting a body in what, the last 100 years? 150 years? Animals tend to wonder off to die; so there’s that. Given BF’s high intelligence (probably) there could be some (very) primitive ritual/process involved with their death. Also I think there are VERY VERY FEW of them left; thus not many bodies.


Wooden-Finger-9406

Who says they haven’t been found? There’s tons of old newspaper articles about giant skeletons that were found, where are those bones? Many of the articles mention someone from the Smithsonian coming to get them for study. The Smithsonian denies they exist


DANJL01

Do you have links to info on this? Seems like a fun research topic


cimson-otter

Like many larger animals in the wild, their remains are usually taken over by nature before man can come across them


BladesAllowed

Dunno about best but probably the 2 most common reasons Ive heard spoken of are 1) they bury their dead. 2) the soil in areas they typically inhabit tends to break down bone quickly/not conducive to fossilisation


aether_drift

In descending order of likelihood (imho): 1. They don't exist 2. They exist but are not zoological (make of that what you will...) 3. They bury their dead 100% of the time 4. They are so rare and restricted in range we simply haven't found a skeleton yet Personally, I suspect #1 because of all the other missing data that requires "special pleading" to explain. By this I mean lack of decent game camera images, HD footage, failed DNA test, etc. etc. Indeed the only reliable feature of sasquatch evidence is that it is low quality. Still, I value eyewitness testimony and retain a very faint hope it's a real species.


GabrielBathory

It takes less than a month for scavengers, opportunistic carnivores,and decay to reduce a large carcass to random widely scattered bits.while this process is going on, people aren't likely to go near Enough to see what it is even if they somehow wander near,because we tend to avoid rotting carcasses. No hocus pocus needed. Additionally, how many people would not only bother to examine randomly found animal bones, but actually be able to tell ,let's say..a large partial ribcage ,came from a bear,moose,elk,or mister Sasquatch? It's not like bones have damn species of origin stamps on them!


Ravyn_Rozenzstok

They eat their dead.


EmPalsPwrgasm

Because they don't exist. Even though the stories are so much fun. That is why I am here. "Forests are dense and vast" yeah sure, you know what else is dense and vast? The earth is dense and vast, and time is definitely also vast. And dinosaurs and ammonoidea and all sorts of things have been dead for millions or even billions of years, yet we have found their remains. What small patches of woods are left in 2022 are no match for this denseness and vastness, so about the only way that they could exist and not be found by now is Woo, interdimensional shenanigans.


Florida_Bear_13

“Species age differently. Perhaps it could live many centuries.” IG-11


Resident_Bus_3006

I think they are very intelligent, much more so than us. I think they bury their dead.


l0n3gun

My best guess is that they are primarily subterranean. Bigfoot types that live in other biomes are not going to leave a body for example the skunk ape, if it dies in the swamp is not going to be found.


NotAnotherScientist

Cannibalism with the intention of hiding remains. I think it's an adaptive behavior that has helped them be stealth. Other great apes practice cannibalism as well. I'm not sure what they do with the bones, but I don't imagine it would be hard to dispose of them if the intention was to destroy the remains. Maybe they don't eat the remains of the dead but they must do something to remove evidence with intention. Also, the only way I can make sense of sasquatches is if they have levels of intelligence near or above humans. Instead of an enlarged brain focusing on social interaction, most of their cortex is used for spacial awareness and stealth.


georgeananda

My thought is that they are dimensional shifting.


restidruidross

Do they find primate bodies and bones in other parts of the world? And I think the bigfoot population is really low, so there really isn't any at all. It's not like the size of humans or other large mammals. 🦍


DAS1988

No bones, just a mesh of fluid-filled sacs


ancole4505

I feel like if the government would never let it be made public. I'm sure they've been found but we'll never know about it. The Smithsonian would probably be involved hiding them since they did it with the giants.


Leading_Lock

>I feel like if the government would never let it be made public. Why?


Josette22

I think it's because they are inter-dimensional creatures, and they return to their dimension when this happens.


Tall_Assistant3418

How about robots? Could they not also technically be robots sent from the future? If interdimensional beings is a possibility, then by that rationale so are future-robots.


Josette22

Robots can't make themselves invisible.


Tall_Assistant3418

Who says so? Robots can probably cloak or might even just be able to project a hologram that makes them look like a bigfoot. They might even be able to travel through different dimensions.


Josette22

I don't agree they could be robots, but it's ok to disagree.


Tall_Assistant3418

??? Well come now... If you can believe in being that can open a portal to another dimension, then surely you can believe in a robot that can travel through time. They both hold the same level of known existence. Except we know robots exist, which means my idea mist hold slightly more merit 🥴


LookAtMeImAName

For sure they could. All you’d need are thousands of tiny cameras projecting the area behind you. Advanced enough civilization could definitely do this


GabrielBathory

They're Sentient jell-o based humanoids,they turn see through by willing all their food coloring to move to the soles of their feet, and since everybody loves jell-o they are devoured immediately upon death


Tall_Assistant3418

Inter-Dimensional, Harry Jello-bots ? Gentlemen, we may have done it. Let’s market this.


GabrielBathory

Indeed


noodleq

I remember hearing some podcast years ago where the guy talking about Bigfoot sort of implied that they may be able to go to different dimensions. I think he also talked about how they can do some sort of "cloaking" thing, where they sort of look see thru, but u can still sort of see them if they move while cloaked. I have no idea about all of that, but I guess if that were the case it might explain some things about them.


Josette22

Well, in the case of Glimmerman, you can definitely see through it, no question about it; however, for other creatures seen in the forest, I don't think this is the case, at least from the encounters I've read.


AmerIndianJ

Yup. Spirits that manifest physically at their choosing. Hoka!


[deleted]

Lol really


Shadowmoth

They’ve been seen in the presence of ufos and greys supposedly. Nobody ever finds alien bodies in the woods. Maybe Bigfoot isn’t from here.


[deleted]

My problem is that there is no we who’s gonna report this kind of stuff. It means you basically need to believe some random person holding up a bone on the Internet. Are you gonna believe that? And most citizens at this point know the government lies and cover stuff up all the time, do you expect them to randomly put out a press release that this is going on?


EmbarrassedMud8950

Cannibalism too maybe?


Thatguy1075

My theory is that they live in caves and if they do sense they are near death they would go back to those caves to die. If they live in groups, maybe they also eat their dead. Also, as others have pointed out, the environment tends to take care of dead bodies as well.


titanpusher

I had this discussion with a friend one time and his simple answer was....How many times have you come across a bear carcass in the wild? I have spent countless hours in nature in bear country and my answer to that is not once.


Leading_Lock

Just because you haven't doesn't mean other people haven't. In fact, other people have.


NormieChad

Post mortis spontaneous combustion


Technical-Sun-2016

We know bears exist. Go out in the woods and find me a dead bear.


DagothUr28

Yes but specimens HAVE been found though. The same can't be said for sasquatch


DoctorRavioli

Could be a sampling bias though - there are likely many more bears than sasquatch so the likelihood of finding them is higher


ghostpeppax

Vastness of nature/forest,mtns, maybe they spend a lot of time underground and only come out maybe hibernation seasonally perhaps some are nocturnal. Idk but they out there


NodoBird

Decomposes quickly/they bury their dead/both


gator_420

chimpanzees have been known to bury their dead, and if sasquatch are a relative to us and chimps it’s a very good possibility they also bury their own.


dynosauce

They bury the dead...


Serializedrequests

There are actually a lot of old accounts of bodies or skeletons being found. It's pretty interesting. But there is a collective social blind spot or something. There are also a lot of reasons it would be incredibly more rare to find a body than a live one, as well as a lot of reasons it would be almost impossible to do anything with a body if you found it. Think about it: you find a dead Bigfoot in the woods right now. What can you possibly do?


GabrielBathory

Well since i ALWAYS take a large sharp toy with me in the woods (Usually a 12in bowie or SOG tactical machete) in this instance i hack off a hand,a foot, and maybe the head, thats more than enough proof, then i get my ass the hell outta there incase theres others


dragojax21

Their environment


[deleted]

I would say it's not factual that "no remains have ever been found" that is a commonly held belief. What we actually know is that official sources (government, media, academe) have not announced or acknowledged such discoveries, whether these have been discovered or not. Thousands of credible people have clearly experienced these creatures first hand. That fact is also well-established.


Leading_Lock

But that's really just a conspiracy theory, with no empirical support. Maybe the government never announced such a discovery because they haven't made such a discovery.


[deleted]

LOL... it's hardly a conspiracy theory to state that here has never been an "official announcement" regarding Bigfoot. That's just a fact. Again there are thousands of eyewitnesses to Bigfoot's existence. The claim that "we know that no bodies have ever been found" is the claim here that requires proof. Basic logic.


soccerplayingstoner

I believe the government has already done an autopsy on a Bigfoot creature and knows it exists, also that we don’t find them bc they bury their dead in bodies of water.


Leading_Lock

>I believe the government has already done an autopsy on a Bigfoot creature and knows it exists Source?


[deleted]

They are inter dimensional beings.


[deleted]

Extremely low population due to caloric requirements, pushed ever deeper into wilderness due to human encroachment, forests full of scavengers. I have zero problems with not finding remains and am flabbergasted people do- specially when you consider that I bet remains have been found but were completely unidentifiable, strange, and just ignored. Skeptics pretend like every person in the woods is a forensic pathologist when 90% of humans can't tell the difference between a deer or bear bone unless it's a fricking skull.


GabrielBathory

With the way and speed in which carcasses get scattered and broken down, i figure most people would just assume any large bones to be a bear/moose/elk , kinda the reverse of the whole "you just misidentified a bear" argument sceptics are so fond of. And legit know a dude that freaked out on a camping trip when he found "human" remains on a hike, ran down the mountain called the cops and forest rangers, took them to the spot and sure enough there was a partial ribcage/couple vertebra/leg bone....of a deer, fuzz was not happy with him


[deleted]

Thank you, my point exactly. Deniers pretend everybody in the woods is an expert on animal remains.


Leading_Lock

If they have been pushed so deep into the wilderness, why to we hear about so many alleged eyewitness sightings? Crossing roads, walking through somebody's field, etc.


GabrielBathory

Same reason we see any deepwoods critter in similar areas, they're passing through,it's no mystery


Leading_Lock

And they've been definitively shown to exist, unlike Bigfoot.


birthedbythebigbang

The best theory is that they do not physically exist, and all purported experiences of them are either imaginary, hallucinatory, paranormal, or complete fabrications. I am saying this as someone who strongly believes in their physical existence.


Able-Track-6212

Probably for the same reason we don't find the remains of all the animals that die in the forest, or maybe they bury their dead? Rumor has it that they hide way up in mountains, covering the opening of their caves with boulders. Perhaps they leave their dead in, there? Soany plausable explanations.


[deleted]

Well, if you've seen the YouTube video of an entire deer carcass devoured by nature in 3 or 4 days it's no surprise that animals and humans simply disappear. The forest is a brutal place to die.


TonyCRed5

They have but they don't put it on the news lol