94 page scientific paper . . .
http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/bigfoot-bone-stacks-and-binfords-body-part-utility-indices.
. . .
"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 paper describes three "bone stacks" located and documented by the authors in the Mt. St. Helens area in 2013 and 2014. The authors attribute the formation of these bone assemblages to Bigfoot, arguing that (1) the stacks of bones could not have been created by any other known carnivore in the area and (2) the bones preserve evidence of consumption by a creature with very large but very human-like teeth. Here is a quote from Townsend's "discovery narrative" about the first bone stack (pg. 6):​
". . . ​I did a physical examination of the site contents and discovered at least two sets of deer remains based upon the deer skulls found in direct proximity to the main assemblage of bones. The skulls had their noses/snouts crushed by what looked like blunt force trauma and had been placed in the same general nose downhill orientation. This seemed odd at first glance. What really caught my eye was a pile of bones next to a small log. My first impression was that something or someone had sat down and consumed these animals and just dropped the bones between their legs as they finished them. I further confirmed this by looking closely at the stack and noted some very interesting observations. The bones seemed to be mostly rib bones that showed evidence of teeth marks and mechanical manipulation to varying degrees. Some areas had seemingly been bitten out and discernable dental impressions left behind. These dental impressions looked measurably different from the other known species that inhabit this ecosystem."
Townsend later (pg. 7) reiterates his vision of the behavior that created the record he was looking at:
"What resident animal species would kill deer with blunt force trauma on the head, position them in the same directional orientation, eat the animals and drop the bones in a pile? How come scavengers were avoiding this site even though some of the bones still had flesh attached? These were just some of the questions now rushing through my thoughts."
.. . .
I think he makes a conclusive case. He methodically and exhaustively rules out all the other remotely plausible alternative explanations. His use of forensic techniques and evidence is fitting and thorough.
Interesting, imho, at any rate.
Essentially, he says that several bone pile sites demonstrate that 'bigfoot' evidently sat and ate through a lot of deer meat--leaving the bones with teeth marks that are human-like. Curiously, the deer skulls showed blunt force trauma and were all pointing down hill.
Are there any anthropologists or forensic experts on here?
