hiflier

Where Are The Dead Sasquatch?

153 posts in this topic

Hi Everyone. I was looking through the late John Green's database which is something I often do to see if there is something interesting in the way of an idea for a new thread. I try to create topics that will hopefully help advance the Sasquatch closer to the day discovery/proof and maybe this is one of those kinds of topics. What struck me during my research were the dates of the sightings. Sightings like this one:

 

"XXXX XXXXXXX was bow hunting in a wilderness area in the Snow Peak vicinity when he came to a clearing around a pond and saw on the other side of the pond a large male sasquatch sitting against a tree, and behind it a female lying down with an infant leaning against her. They watched him and he watched them for about an hour, until he left because of approaching darkness. They did nothing except occasionally look at each other. Only description is that they had dark faces and heavy coats of dark brown hair."

 

 This sighting occurred in Linn County in an area about 18 miles ENE of Lebanon WA. It's an interesting report to be sure. But what struck me was the  TIME in which the encounter occurred. It was in September of 1987. The report stated a grown male and female Sasquatch along with an infant. That was almost 30 years ago? So, are the parents now dead? One might surmise that they may very well be as an estimate because of being of child-bearing age would place the parents at least in their 40's if not pushing 50. If Sasquatch are territorial then their remains may be in that general area? Some say that remains don't survive well in the PacNW or that clan members or offspring may have buried or hidden the remains somewhere. But the question of burial is not for this thread, please.

 

What is for this thread is the idea of creating a database of locales in which older sightings have taken place where it would be obvious that the creatures would be old enough that we can be pretty sure a certain area might contain the remains of the creature or creatures in those accounts. Let's face it, looking for a skeleton or a carcass in the middle of nowhere is the needle in the haystack. But if a location with an incident date can be used for this purpose then I very much think the odds for discovery can be increased in our favor. Your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there a member(s) here that has or is working on a sightings database that is searchable by various fields or criteria?  If so, as long as the dates of the sighting are a searchable field then there you go!  I'm sure someone will chime in with more information on this.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Twist. And here probably should be some kind of time window for any likely dates. Too far in the past and remains will not be likely depending on the region. Too near our current time and old age will not come into play, If I was to take a stab at the time window in a general sense I would say the period should go no further back in time than 1985 or so and no further forward in time than around 1995. A pretty short window to be sure but adult Sasquatches witnessed in that time frame- even young adults- will have added 30 to 40 years to their life spans. I would also say that the remains of any creature sighted older than 1980-1985 will have the least chance of being found and reports for encounters between 1990-1995 might have the best chance for success. All of this is subject to input from members of course so it's only a starting point for this discussion.

 

We can all look at the data anytime we wish so research isn't proprietary and can be done by anyone for their particular locale. Searching databases and getting into the mindset of looking for remains should be a top priority especially for those who do not wish to see one shot for science- which is all of us!

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiflier

It is theorized that the territory of Sasquatch is very large, I believe it is on hundreds of square miles.

 

And as you state the remains would not survive more than a year, the skeleton a bit longer but would be eaten by rodents, porcupines, and other animals looking for calcium and minerals.

 

The best bet would be in the remote recess of a lava tube cave.

 

Or you could assume that some fossil finds, although classified using a known schema, are not inconsistent with the remains of a Sasquatch.

Homo Erectus from the nation of Georgia come to mind. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, MGF, the area estimated IS quite large. But this is where one needs to be smart. Topographically cliff structures and known caves and ravines could narrow the search. Talus fields and old quarry sites could be good candidates as well. We have discussed much over the course of the last two years and with winter coming I think it is time to start putting all the pieces together.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hiflier said:

Yes, MGF, the area estimated IS quite large. But this is where one needs to be smart. Topographically cliff structures and known caves and ravines could narrow the search. Talus fields and old quarry sites could be good candidates as well. We have discussed much over the course of the last two years and with winter coming I think it is time to start putting all the pieces together.

I'm just reading on the older human fossils in the Americas being found in deep water springs and caves.

The problem is still preservation. It may be that some desert areas of the PNW, Oregon, Nevada, etc at one time had good environments for Sasquatch and have since dried up since the last  ice age. It would be a lot easier to find remains in a cave in a drier environment that have been well protected from the elements and animals.

Not as much beating around in thick jungle and in rainy conditions.

 

The reason that Anthropologists look there is the same reason that a Sasquatch researcher would.

In fact we may find that Sasquatch research is a sub specialty of anthropology.

 

The only change in approach would be to look for cave structures in higher elevations than commonly used by modern man.

The presence of prehistoric water sources such as dried up lakes might also help to locate a promising area.

An international team of researchers have announced the discovery of the oldest hominin (early or archaic human) fossil ever found in Western Europe, pushing back the clock on when early humans first colonized Western Europe after their exodus from Africa.

 

homoerectusgurche.jpg

The find, a fossil tooth (molar) uncovered through excavations at the site of Barranco León in the Orce region of southeastern Spain, was dated to about 1.4 million years ago using several combined dating techniques, including Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) in combination with paleomagnetic and biochronological data.  

"While the range of dates obtained from these various methods overlaps with those published for the Sima del Elefante hominin locality (1.2 Ma), the overwhelming majority of evidence points to an older age," reports study author Dr. Isidro-Moyano and colleagues. "Thus, at the moment, the Barranco León hominin is the oldest from Western Europe."* Until now, Sima del Elefante, a rockshelter located in the Sierra de Atapuerca mountain range of northern Spain, held the record for the earliest human fossils in Western Europe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised at that molar find. Neanderthal were thought to be a hybrid of two species of hominid already living in Europe and Central Asia at those early time periods.

 

And as interesting as all that is if we can get back closer to the topic it would be good :) I'm going to start generating a database encompassing that ten year segment of time I am talking about. It will take a bit to do as re-reading reports to glean the necessary details will be time consuming. I probably should have done that before posting this topic but what the heck. Can't think of everything ;) Deciding what info for each sighting report is pertinent and valuable will be the first step in creating the column variables for the data sub-base. Info where available for direction and distance from towns and cities should be part of the dataset as well as any reports of creatures that were shot or photographed. You would be surprised how many photographs in the whole database have been taken over the years but the subset of ten years or so may not reflect that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting question but I don't see anything new being added, just a rehash of the same old stuff.    The bottom line is we don't know.

 

They are not just dropping dead and decomposing on the surface to be found.   If that were happening we'd have found some.   We don't have those deep cold water springs here.   Most of "my" area is too far from lakes for those to be a possibility.   It is sedimentary rock country .. in other words, no caves.   The couple small areas with caves are, like the lakes, too far to account for more than a fraction and most of the caves have been explored.   The eastern edge of the area is volcanic but the rock is andesite primarily ... not the sort of flow lava that creates tubes.   Most of the mining area is placer, not hard rock, so there are few mine shafts.

 

If there is a one size fits all option, the most likely is hand-dug graves in softer soil, maybe in very brushy locations, that are carefully camouflaged, perhaps several times so they STAY hidden.

 

Those 2 roars I heard in 2012 ... might maybe have been grief from a loss.   That is, assuming they were sasquatch at all.  I'm still not confident enough that I'd bet lunch money on it .. but now I wouldn't really bet lunch money against it either.   If it was NOT bigfoot ... I want a bigger gun.  (That's not intended to be funny.)

 

I think Randy / SWWASAS has a good opportunity.   I think large scale natural disasters like the eruption of Mt St Helens present a chance for accidental burial and eventual weather-based un-burial.  Definitely worth looking into by walking stream banks.   There are rumors, but no strong evidence, of BF killed by fires.  

 

Most of us are probably ahead to look at other kinds of data since we don't know precisely what to look for or the kinds of places to look at in our particular areas.   We stand some chance of bumping into an upright, moving bigfoot.   That continues to happen to people.    I don't think we stand nearly as much chance of finding a dead one since that has not happened yet.   ... just looking at history and playing the percentages.

 

MIB

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post MIB. And that's what I'm trying to do too- cut the percentages. You and other folks in the field know your territory and so there will be things subjectively that will and will not apply. That is to be expected. I thiknjk though that anything that has even a small potential of scaling down an area for the search would be fine to post up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be something to run across the remains of the maker of the Bossburg trackline, foot and all, not only providing concrete evidence, but also vindicating Dr Krantz....unlikely, but an interesting idea.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiflier -

 

I'm fairly confident of burial of some sort.  However, within the areas I do most of my searching, I'm unsure of the characteristics of preferred locations.   If I guess right, I've still got several hundred square miles of similar area to search.   If I guess wrong, then I'm not even in the right hundreds of square miles.   For now what I'm doing is more productive, I've managed a daylight sighting and a handful of interesting audio recordings.   I've been interested in burial for quite a few years now and indicators of ground disturbance are things I keep an eye open for.   If I happen to find indicators there's a concentration of burials in a small area, then I'll shift and refine my focus.

 

That said ... if I find a "sasquatch graveyard" I'm not digging them up.   I will show respect, hope that it is understood, hope that understanding breaks the ice ... and if it doesn't, I'll still be able to face the guy in the mirror without making excuses.   I value that a lot.

 

MIB

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two most likely guesses at BF burial sites, since they likely do not have shovels, and forest soil is difficult to dig because of roots,  are talus slopes, rock cairns, and anything using rock to pretect the body from scavengers.     Also in the Western forests there are literally hundreds of rock quarries that were used once as a source of gravel for logging roads then never used again.   There are frequent sighting reports in and near rock quarries.   Something must be attracting them there to break cover, and be out in the open near quarries.       As I have mentioned before, I found a large 4 x 12 foot rectangular rock cairn in the Lahar near the Ape Canyon trail.   For those of you that do not know that lahar is a huge area of large rocks.    The cairn was totally unnatural looking and had a delicately balanced rock stack at one end.     A talus slope, or a mountain crag are an ideal place to stash a body where humans are unlikely to venture.   Hard to get there and dangerous at the same time.    Lava tubes would be another guess.    Stash the body and roll a rock over the entrance.    They are powerful enough that they could simply put a body on the ground and roll logs on top.   A cedar log would retard deterioration.    There are all kinds of ways and from my experience and interaction,  they are intelligent enough that I think it unlikely they would just leave their dead and walk away.   

 

I agree with MIB on messing with a grave.    That find on the lahar was probably my big chance.    But alarm bells were going off in my head as I examined it not to disturb it in any way.   I stayed about 4 feet away from it and had the feeling I was being watched.   If I had anything to do over again,  I would have collected some wild flowers and laid it on top out of respect.   If I was being watched, that respect might have been appreciated.      

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned there's no digging THEM up and one should never be thinking that way. I hope you are not getting the wrong impression here. But then, once more this thread isn't about any burial ideas. It's about determining a locale where a deceased one might be looked for as opposed to roaming through that hundreds of square miles which could take years. Using the tools we have is the proper methodology for research. All we should do is figure out what those "tools" are telling us. If the creature doesn't live often beyond 40 or 50 years then it tells us how best to determine which direction that one facet of a database might be showing us.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideal find would be a body that died after some calamity.    Avalanche buried in the winter and melts out in the spring.      Hit a large forest fire burn before salvage loggers, if they are allowed in at all, get in there.   Don't vote for another eruption of Mt St Helens,  because I live too darn close.  Lightning could kill several a year.    Does human's,  why not BF who don't have a roof to hide under.   There of course the relatives might be around to come looking for the missing tribal member.    

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites