Proof of Bigfoot Is in the Bones
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on May 19th, 2015
Is the mystery of Bigfoot’s existence finally solved?
One Centralia College professor said he has discovered scientific evidence that proves the creature’s existence.
He believes the information will be one of the biggest scientific finds of the century.
Mitchel Townsend, a Winlock resident and teacher in the college’s Continuing Education program, said he was walking through the woods near Ryan Lake in East Lewis County when he came across a stack of bones. The find itself was unusual since predators typically disperse remains rather quickly, he said. Upon further inspection, he noticed large human-like teeth imprints in the bones.
“I got to looking at the bones and they had been gnawed on by what looked to me to be giant human teeth,” he said.
After two of his students from Lower Columbia College found two more stacks of bones on the south side of Mount St. Helens, he said it became clear the “kill sites” were similar in a variety of ways. The bone stacking technique is specific to a humanoid and was cited as human behavior, he said.
Again, human-like teeth imprints were notched into the bones.
No predator impressions or tool marks were found on the remains, and after consulting with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Townsend said, all natural predators in the area were ruled out.
The two additional sites located by his students shed more light on the creature responsible for the activity.
The trio found footprints with a length of 16 inches, he claims. Height, weight and proportion calculations, paired with the length of the stride between steps, conferred the creature had to be about 8 feet, 8 inches tall. Although the footprints looked human, they had a much wider and broader profile and did not have an arch.
“If you add it all up, you have an 8-foot, 8-inch tall creature that is killing animals at different areas of Mount St. Helens with its bare hands, chewing them up, literally skin and bones and all, and spitting them out between its legs,” Townsend said.
The teeth marks in the bone show what Townsend said were impressions of incisors and canines, but 90 percent of the teeth were beyond “the range of human possibility.” As for the mouth size, the bite ratio was calculated at 2 1/2 times wider than that of a person.
The bones also showed dental signatures and different human chewing strategies from ancient caveman, including bone peeling, he said.
“The bottom line is only humans do that because of the shape of our teeth and the shape of our jaw so we have to gnaw on the edge of (the bone),” Townsend said.
A double arch structure also showed the teeth were closely related to the Neanderthals, and the molars left triangular impressions as opposed to circular impressions an ape or chimpanzee would leave, he said.
The evidence is what the professor said was forensic dental evidence and behavioral evidence showing the massive creature is part human. His discovery aims to prove there is in fact a hominin species living in the area of Mount St. Helens that derived from the breeding of Native Americans and a giant ape.
“My theory is it’s not an ape, it’s a hybrid that has been interbreeding with Native Americans for the last 80,000 years,” Townsend said. “That’s why it is so smart and it has human teeth.”
Townsend’s information will be published in a research paper, and he challenges the scientific community to discredit his information. He said the four-year project helped solve the mystery because the focus was based on forensic evidence. The information used was also heavily based on comparison proof from the top scientists in the world.
“The evidence stands on its own, you prove the evidence wrong,” he said, adding that the bones would be made available for examination to any scientist who wanted to examine the remains. “. We’ve put thousands of hours in this. We just want to give this to the world and the scientific community free of charge to add to the scientific body of knowledge.”
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
I wish I’d known about this study sooner. About two years ago we heard rumors of Bigfoot calls being heard outside a neighborhood. We went up in the woods behind that neighborhood and heard what I know to be Bigfoot screams. While we were up there I found a pile of elk bones. I knew immediately that it was not like the usual predator kill because of the way they were in a pile. We picked them up and looked at them and I found no sign of a cougar, bear or coyote having gnawed on the bones. We thought at the time that it was probably done by a Bigfoot. It was getting near dark so I didn’t take any pictures and never went back for a closer inspection. If only I’d known about this study. I live very close to Centralia. Oh well, it seems they did quite well without my help.
Having done some more detailed reading of this over on The Bigfoot Forums, all I have to say to any scientist attempting to debunk this is: you better damsight do your homework, because it will be obvious to anyone paying attention if you haven’t.
Sounds fishy to me. What’s this guy’s background that he knows what Neanderthal dentition looks like? He’s a part-time instructor in continuing education, not a biologist or bio-anthropologist (or a dentist, for that matter). Having someone with that background examine the evidence is what is needed – anything less is a waste of time. The idea that only humans gnaw on the edge of a bone is also erroneous – any carnivore can make similar marks through the action of gnawing a bone. Another big assumption is that the animal that made the bite marks also did the stacking. Easy enough for a person to stack up a pile of bones after an animal has finished with them.
Well science has already “solved” the alleged mystery with DNA evidence: Big Foot (BF) is 100% modern human.
One thing one must understand is that ever since this phenomena was discovered in 20th century, criminals have wanted to hide their criminal activities in deep remote forested areas. What better way to scare off nosy people like hikers and campers (and BF Hunters) than to have a really big dude (note: and not too bright) walk around your illegal marijuana patch or moonshine operation, give him a opaque ghilley-suit like clothing, bad smells, wood knocking, screaming, and give him instructions to act Big Foot-ish to keep the spotlight off of the target operation.
They (BF) have to eat & eliminate (i.e. bathroom) and they are probably told to never enter the drug cartel’s encampment as it would lead LEO (law enforcement officers) to ground zero. So they (BF) hunt and kill game and either eat it raw or use some sort of paramilitary like smokeless and concealable cook fire or solar cooker to dry meat. They must cover up their scat better than a US Navy Seal.
Also the footprints are too deep for dry-ground. Most of the photos of prints are not in muddy soil nor are there bunches of them leading somewhere. If something allowed one footprint to exist it stands to reason it wants you to see it and follow it. But only humans would display such behavior. Leaving bones stacked and deliberately not burying them is clearly a human behavior and they wanted you to find them. Animals would have left them scattered everywhere.
Mitchel (aka Jonny Dagger) is not a real college professor. He’s got a degree in education and leadership. He is a paramilitary-type alleged ex-Special Forces dude who teaches a Facebook course on Big-footery. Here are a couple of his YouTubes – clearly his camo skull cap is wrapped a little too tightly:
http://youtu.be/ts1K6vRy5DU
http://youtu.be/zs8UmjAHolI
Actually, as Townsend’s research partner has said about it: “there has been some reining in during the course of this research” on questions like that Neanderthal issue. (This person isn’t coming to that conclusion.)
It might be worth it for curious folk to join The Bigfoot Forums and read up on this…not from the “it’s a Neanderthal” perspective. A lot of other “fishiness” concerns might get addressed too, in fact, make that a yes.
Also, semilama, he says they’ve been interbreeding for 80,000 years. Nope, no way is that possible. Kinda destroys whatever credibility a junior college instructor might have, yeah?
I’m extremely surprised that nobody’s picked up on the fact that “Native Americans” hadn’t reached America (according to the latest data we have) 80000 years ago so how can “it” have been interbreeding with them for the last 80000 years? I don’t think that any “Native Americans” reading this would be too happy with the conjecture that they’d been breeding with giant apes in the past either.
I concur with semillama in that this all sounds very fishy. It just reeks of hoax.
Interbreeding with Native Americans for 80,000 years? The date of earliest human migrations into North America across the land bridge that once connected Eurasia with North America is disputed and could have occurred from 14,000 to 25,000 years ago. Obviously this is a far cry from 80,000 years ago at which time modern humans may have just reached Asia. Someone has his numbers a little jumbled. This date of 80,000 years of human/Bigfoot interbreeding only could occur in Asia as humans and presumably Bigfoot type primates headed East to eventually cross Beringia into North America during the last part of the Wisconsin Glacial Stage. Of course, at that earlier time the Humans could not have been referred to as “Native Americans” yet. Undocumented Americans perhaps?
really interesting stuff.
would love to know more on how he came to the conclusions.
I’ll try again because the information here is pretty incomplete; seeing all of it is pretty compelling; and what folks are focusing on is superficial and unimportant (mainly because it has nothing to do with the evidence under discussion but is, as so much is in this field, wild speculation).
First: the guy saying this isn’t unanimous; his research partner (whom I’m reading) considers his conclusions a leap. Second: the focus is on evidence showing earmarks of an animal…but not of any known animal; and no tools, marks of same, or any other evidence pointing to people as the source.
One might not be interested in doing this. But joining The Bigfoot Forums, and reading about this research, is really the ticket to getting beyond wild speculation. (Unless one wants to reserve one’s judgment for when the paper comes out, which is cool too.) There is no reason any scientist has to listen to Neanderthals, interbreeding or anything else not directly pointed to. But scientists must address these findings; and I will only listen, as per usual, to those who have shown that they did.
I for one don’t think it does the field any good to go off with a scattergun focus when good science is being done. Unfortunately that is rampant in this “discipline.”
No split bones for their bone marrow ? Surely there should be bone marrow eating ?
DWA: The Bigfoot Forums is not accepting new members right now. Can you sum up for us what the research partner is actually saying? Because we are getting the old fish wrappings here – what’s the fresh catch?
semillama: as is the case with most scientific work, the management summary won’t really cut it here.
But much has been noted including:
– Disarticulation and stacking of bones such as isn’t done by known animals, seen at several kill sites, with no evidence at all that humans had anything to do with it; no human tracks, tools or tool marks, etc.
– Trauma to the nasal area, similar in each case, on several deer skulls
– Flat incisor impressions not matchable to known animals; not human due to size and spacing but similar in appearance; mouth sizes, estimated based on tooth impression arcs, indicated significantly larger than human
– No scattering of bones found with time, as is the norm (possible indication that other local wildlife might not want to mess with kills made by whatever did this, although that’s just speculation); piles remained intact
– Hunter kills found incidentally showed clear evidence (e.g., saw marks on bones)
– No marks on bones of any animal (known) capable of bringing down game of this size; numerous teeth marks from small scavengers but none from wolf, bear, cougar, etc.
– Elk killed by researchers (who are hunters) as a control; activity around site observed over a period of approx. six months (they did brain-fart, as the researcher himself asserts, by not game-camming the site)
Again, it’s much better to be reading through this post by post. Not to mention seeing the many photographs and measurements. Some excerpts from his posts:
—————————————————————–
If a deer or elk was killed by a hunter and boned in the field. You will probably find saw marks on the lower leg bones and pelvis. This evidence is present on our control specimen. We also found some older bones about 50yds behind EK #1 that showed saw marks in the above mentioned bones.
In western Washington the most likely predator for adult elk would be adult male cougars. We don’t have grizzlies yet (that could change). We also don’t have any wolf packs yet. Although there are occasional sightings of individuals. Black bear would be able to do it but are more opportunistic scavengers or would prey on elk calves or deer fawns instead.
I have given some thought to this disarticulation while feeding. When we eat a rack of ribs, we pull them apart. The shape of our faces won’t allow us to remove the flesh between the ribs without doing so. If we find a skeleton with the ribs still attached, then it was probably a carnivore (of the order Carnivora) that fed on the kill. Of course the legs could have been removed and the rest left to be scavenged. Then we might have something else going on here. But, unless we can see what happened it’s just speculation.
As my OP asks… What about the bones? Tooth impressions can be forensically identified and categorised as to known or in these cases unknown species. It is the only way to be certain of what we are seeing. The rest is just speculation.
….
Continuing with the investigation of the deer and elk kills north and east of Mt St Helens. We’ve made comparisons of other possibilities in this area as to whether the predator of these kills is known or unknown. I have commented on the possible animals that would result in the tooth impressions found on the bones. However, we have found other evidence in the area that also relates to an unknown animal.
This is track evidence in our research area. People have problems with track evidence but it can’t be overlooked. Tracks tell us what animals are living in an area. They can tell us where an animal has come from and where it is headed. Tracks can tell us how fast an animal is moving and even possibly what it is feeding on. If you can read them, tracks can tell us a story about an animal.
The first track we found was about 2 miles east of EK#1 in July 2013. It was 2 miles down a blocked logging road in the median of the road. The animal had stepped from one side of the road to the center, then to the other side and up a bank, where it had dug just its toes in. No details were visible on the bank impression. However, the one in the road showed pressure cracking along the side of the track. When cast we could also see compression of the small gravel from toe pressure. Five distinct impressions can be seen in the cast. The ground was so hard in July that no impressions would have shown no matter the weight of the animal. I figured the track was made just as the snow was melting and the ground thawing after freezing. At that time the ground would have been soft enough to accept impressions. Access by people is very limited this time of year because it is 10 miles behind a gate and there would not have been enough snow for snow mobiles. The track measured 14″ long by 5″ across the ball. The Leatherman is 4.5″ closed. [obviously, accompanied by, yes, intriguing photos of what look like sasquatch tracks, not human or hoaxer tracks]
The second track was found on the same day as EK#1, about 500yds away, 8/25/2014. It was on a skidder road pressed into the hemlock cones and needles down to the hard surface of the road. We found 3 impressions in the road where the subject had crossed. I estimated the trackway was up to 5 days old because the cones that were flattened in the tracks had to have been wet to be smashed flat and stay that way. There had been thunderstorms in the area during that time. I cast the best track of the three, which didn’t turn out very well because the small cones the track was in, pushed out making the track wider than it actually was. I tried following the tracks up a small bank onto the forest floor above the road but couldn’t tell which way they went in the forest duff. This duff is a thick layer of springy intertwined needles and small branches; for those who think there might be any impressions on the ground underneath. By using a step length stick we were able to backtrack it for over a hundred yards through the old growth below the road by following broken branches and other disturbances on the forest floor. It came from an area across a creek and parallel to Boundary Trail #1. The whole area is covered with blue huckleberry which were ripe at that time of year. We decided from the trackway that a hiker or motorcycle on the trail had spooked it. It then ran up the hill away from the trail. Later I decided we could have spooked it because the rough old logging road we came up to get in there was about 300yds on the opposite side of Trail #1. There was no way to for us to see that far through the forest. We had come in the previous afternoon to setup camp.
The step heel to heel was 72″ and the stride 144″. That is why I figured it was running. The tracks measured 16″ long by about 7″ wide at the ball and 4.5″ across the heel.
When I took the photo I finally used my flash to get some definition on the track. The flash reflected off the flat cones in the track and not so much at the edges.
[w/photos, ditto above]
In conclusion, we found the tracks from two different unknown large animals. We found teeth impressions on the bones from unknown large animals. I trust my skills and experience as a tracker that these were made by a real animal. However, since I didn’t witness any of these things taking place, either we have two unknown types of large animals here or a single type leaving the tracks, killing and eating deer and elk, and leaving large tooth impressions in the bones here in the PNW.
Canine Measurement Revisions.
We found in our comparative research that jaw width is usually measured across the canines or the distance between (DB). So we had to extrapolate this distance from the three impressions that we have in the bones. By using the average angle between the impressions that we have and placing three more points at this angle on the radius already calculated, I was able to measure the distance between the 1st and 6th extrapolated tooth positions. I used the primate tooth arrangement which is 2 incisors / 1 canine per side, rather than the carnivore arrangement of 3 incisors / 1 canine per side. The arc of the impressions better matches the primate arrangement rather than the carnivore arrangement. Besides if the carnivore tooth arrangement was used the jaw would be even wider; and still not match any known carnivores.
These measurements are estimates because I only have 3 impressions to work with. However, I also extrapolated the reference bite (mine) using the same method and then actually measured the distance between my canines. It came out to within 1/16″ of the actual measurement which is accurate enough to make comparisons.
Revised figures. …
In our research we did look at the possible predators of elk in the PNW. Yes I have found deer killed by coyotes. The damage done by them is usually in hind leg and lower throat areas. Cougars are the most likely suspects of the known predators that do prey on elk. [DWA note: cougar kill would have been very visible and easy to ID. The damage, usually to skull and/or vertebrae, is distinctive.] They usually attack the neck area. Be it at the back of the neck or the throat area. A bear may inflict this type of damage though black bears are more opportunistic and would go for the fawns and calves, plus that fits their foraging styles. These were mature cow elk in the two to five year old range. There are no confirmed wolf packs or grizzlies in this area. Though in our research we did not rule them out as possibilities. …
This brings us back to the evidence presented in our research which we can’t ignore, regardless of the method of killing the animals. That is the disarticulation while feeding, the tooth impressions in the bones, and the stacking behavior. One thing I see that people are not realizing here is that the type of predator that fed on a kill can be and has been researched and is currently being used to identify the predators responsible or the scavengers after the fact. Using this forensic research we found that we have something not previously identified going on here. It is the bones, and the story they tell that is important here. The method of killing is just speculation.
[posted 14 May:] We are in the final stages and will be getting together next week [this week – DWA] to discuss the final arrangement of our research prior to submitting for publication.
——————————————-
You get the drift. There’s this interesting post from another member that I’ll include:
For what it is worth, before I had any idea that bf could be something other than a myth, I came across a very strange area in the woods while tracking a bow shot deer. The specific details of what I found are in a much older post (BFF1), but basically, I found a bunch of deer skeletons laid very close to each other and within 30-40 ft, I found a very unusual jawbone. It looked very similar to a human jawbone, but was much larger than my own. I never picked it up and left the area immediately (I sensed immediate danger), but visually, the jawbone looked very square. In that I mean very wide compare to its length. I used my hand to measure my own jaw and then visually compared it to what I was seeing. Not even close to my outside measurements. I now this is very unscientific and had I known it could have been important, I would have taken it with me before I hauled out of there. Only thing else that stands out is that it was under some wet leaves and was very green colored from some growth on just the surface of it. If what I saw was from a bf, their jaw will be much wider than a humans but not proportionality as long. And yes, I went back to that area many times trying to find it again and only found other smaller animal bones. I also checked with a SAR group and no recent missing folks near this area.
And another one:
I’ve come across stacks of bones before and in particular, I’m thinking of a stack of turkey bones I came across when turkey hunting, in 1992, near an area about 80 miles SE of San Antonio. The bones were stacked and almost devoid of meat. The rib cage was split and the ribs themselves were individually split, from each other, in opposing directions and I could see where something had stripped the meat off the bones, with its teeth, as I could see the striations. The other major bones had been cleaned in a similar fashion and then piled up. The feathers had been plucked and pulled off in an area that was about 30 feet in diameter. The last interesting thing of note was the bones were stacked next a fallen mesquite tree, with an arch, that was a perfect place to sit.
No substitute – that’s science! – for grinding through the posts. But make no mistake: this is addressible by scientsts, and I’d know if anyone that addressed it had done his homework or not.
cryptokellie: They may not have been interbreeding with Native Americans for 80,000 years, but the same people’s forebears existed 80,000 years ago, which is probably what he meant to say.
As did the Bigfoots’ forebears. In the same place.
Always looking to throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Goodfoot;
Did I not say that if there was any interbreeding 80,000 years ago, it was being done in Asia? I merely stated that no interbreeding was done 80,000 years ago in North America because no one had reached it yet. I’m not in control of what he meant to say and you need remedial reading exercises.
There is no verifiable evidence that any humans were present earlier than around 20,000 years ago in the Americas. Even on the other side of Beringia in Sibera, the evidence says about 27,000 years ago, and that’s right before humans retreated from the onset of the last glacial maximum.
First I an not standing on either side of the argument about bones on Mt. St Helens, or any other beliefs. I know what I saw in 1976 and in 1979 in two different places. Bur as to the fact that Natives and Tsul’kälû (Bigfoot like in cherokee which I am half) There is legends of the Tsul’kälû marring indian women and that part of the cherokees who didn’t leave on the Trail of Tears, That they moved into a mountain where the Tsul’kälû lived Tsuwa`tel’da (Pilot knob) And that was just one tribe and one Mountain. I actually went and talked to some of the elders in my tribe.
Now the comment of interbreeding is the wrong word, it was said that due to famine some of the native women married the The Slant-eyed Giants and because we were alike they had cross breed children. now to the Cherokee The Tsul’kälû were actually smarter then the humans when it came to hunting and woodland ways. If you want to read the legends just look up. 1. Tsul’kälû, The Slant-eyed Giant. 2. Käna’sta, The Lost Settlement. 3.Tsuwe’nähï: A Legend Of Pilot Knob