hiflier

Where Are The Dead Sasquatch?

153 posts in this topic

Great post SB. I think the subject of this thread is valid for two reasons: Not everyone hunts but would still like to find a specimen. Not every one owns a gun. Not everyone who owns a gun hunts. Some who have guns and had the opportunity to shoot one didn't. Some hunters won't even go back into the woods.

 

This database would be for especially those people- along with anyone else who may find it useful.

Actually no CMB. Snow Peak in the Colville National Forest in Washington.

 

Ah, I see the issue now: The report IS for Oregon. I was focused on the Snow Peak in the CNF in WA. My apologies. And your summary of your field work is much appreciated and very helpful. Thank you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiflier -

 

I apologize as well.

 

My perception here is that we have a lot of sketchy assumptions we can't verify.   We don't know about bigfoot demographics.   Life span .. we assume, but when we assume, we have to remember the assumption is off the mark some amount in some direction.   We don't truly know about size, we have report data but we only assume it is representative of the whole age spectrum, we don't actually know that.   Could be that like buck deer, when bigfoots hit a certain age/size, their behavior changes in a way which causes them not to appear in the data anymore.   Big bucks do not behave like the rest of the population made of younger bucks, does, and fawns.   Big bigfoots might do the same.   Maybe our data is all about their teens and adolescents, not the mature adults.   We don't know.   We assume.   We should have sense enough to question our assumptions.

 

Where I'm going ... we have reports of old-looking bigfoots .. but we only assume they're near end of life, we don't know that and we don't know WHEN they reach end of life.   That makes it hard to predict where, and when, to start looking. 

 

I think ... speculative ... the habituators would be those most likely to have the information that is needed.    Very likely they've had years, even decades, watching the same bigfoots.   They might well have a good idea of the age progressions.   Certainly a better chance than different people, each with one sighting, who might or might not be seeing the same bigfoot crossing the road every 3rd or 4th year at a particular milepost, right?

 

I think so far as finding a corpse goes, SWWASAS has the most probable approach to produce results.   Since we're not finding dead ones lying around, somehow, some way, they're either gathered up or they sense death and hole up to die.   Natural disasters seem the most likely mechanism to disrupt that pattern.   Normal landslides are possible but on such a small scale I think they are unlikely.  The lahars, etc left by Mt St Helens' eruption are the best bet with fires coming next.   I do not think avalanches present much chance of catching a bigfoot.   They are not Bugs Bunny Abdominal Snowmen living in deep snow.   They might cross it but they are more likely to stay at lower elevations and go around the ends of ridges staying where food is more available.   Avalanches generally do not occur where there are significant year around animal protein sources.

 

The unfortunate thing is we are probably not going to have good enough demographic data about bigfoots 'til after their existence is proven and we can study them (or just ask, depending on what they prove to be) to predict where to look.   Catch 22, cart and horse, etc.    I think we will remain somewhat reliant on accident.    We can do things to learn, to hedge our bets, but even tripling the odds if they start at less than a percent still leaves us with low odds.    It is possible we've already done the most probable thing we could do and given up on it because it didn't pay off fast enough.

 

Edit: what if, rather than looking for old age deaths, we look for where they are born, for infants that die?   Perhaps that could be more predictable with fewer data points?

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MIB, that was one fine post. Assumption as you say is most of what we have. We may be able to assume things based on age vs. temperament and we maybe able to use bear age as a general guide. A member here named Branco mentioned an old BF who was around 52 that some townsfolk were always watching and had been watching for decades so I used that as a criteria for old age. That creature was reported to always cross a road in a certain spot and being elderly motorists would have to stop to let it slowly cross over.

 

From there I backtracked into the dates in the database and chose the time frame that would allow for a creature to be between mid 40's to a little over 50 in the present day. You bring up an excellent point WRT infants. There have been discussions on when birth may be likely to happen, again we used a database to note the time infants were witnessed. In the case of the report in the OP the infant was seen in the month of September which would coincide with a discussion on Spring births, It would therefore follow that mating would be more likely in the Autumn months? Does that mean that the male in that report was only hanging around for mating purposes? Or is there a definite family unit or couples that mate for life? So much to know...... 

Edited by hiflier
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often wondered why they are never any remains found. The earthquake in Nepal would have been a great chance . The fire aforementioned as well. If they did exist these would have been great opportunities for discovery. Certainly, with the possibility of them being so far and in between ,this is not a slam dunk on existence. Even with all the hunters and other possibilities for death be it natural or by accident or chance . The rarity of the creatures still make it possible for not being found .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True stuff there PG. And even though the kind of thing I'm talking about here may seem somewhat or even mostly ridiculous the alternative is to sit and do nothing to gain even the tiniest edge in the field for myself or for others. I mean it's not like we have NO data so trying out ways to make what we have work for us is good.

 

FYI and for everyone else I've populated the database for the time span 1985-1995. Now it is simply a matter of people letting me know what specifically they would like to have for the different fields pertinent to this topic. If need be I can list the criteria from which to choose? There's a lot but they of course all of them don't have to be part of this data subset. If choosing variables too much trouble then I can probably choose which headings to install.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This notion came to me a while ago.
Reading this forum, I get the feeling that BF is hungry all the time, or nearly so.
Instead of burying their dead, seems likely they'd eat them.

 

I'm reminded of a story from the Donner Party, 1846-47, stranded in the Sierras over winter,

slowly starving. As a man lay dying, he looked at his wife & said, "When I pass, promise me

you'll eat your share."

 

Cannibalism occurs when necessary even for those with a taboo against it.

I suggest that BF has no such taboo, and being sensible ... they eat their dead.

 

What do they do with the bones?  I don't know.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thought. ^

 

There have been cultures throughout human history that honoured their dead family members by consuming their flesh shortly after death, thereby "absorbing" the ancestor's spirit.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so what is there to do with this idea about where the dead Sasquatches are- or could be? Obviously older reports won't be of much help if the environmental conditions run counter to preservation. Even newer reports could be moot as a result of nature's processes. But only bey looking through the data thoroughly could something be added to this discussion.

 

I realize that Sasquatch reported with grey hair does not necessarily indicate age but is that always the case? How does one work with that detail then? For myself I would like to venture along the lines grey hair could indicate age. I figure it this way: one at some point has to make a stand in order for any progress to be made. Otherwise we are just flags fluttering in the wind.

 

John Green's database (you're going to get tired of me saying that) shows 142 instances of creatures with grey hair. If someone plugs that data into the ten-year time frame to see any overlaps and then does a search for the right conditions for preservation then would that get anyone closer to the mark? Assuming that 40-50 years ago is the top end for the creature being alive. I am convinced that if someone thinks stuff like this out it may serve to keep the field narrower instead of trying to correlate all of the data we have access to to determine a direction to follow.

 

Small exercises and steps like this at least open doors as small as they may be in order to try to gain an edge of some kind? Time, location, and grey hair. Nothing wrong with checking to see if there are any examples that contain all three elements. Going down the line brown, red, or black hair, each with silver tips could be the next thing to check out. Winter is a really good time for this kind of stuff :) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2016 at 2:49 AM, Oonjerah said:

This notion came to me a while ago.
Reading this forum, I get the feeling that BF is hungry all the time, or nearly so.
Instead of burying their dead, seems likely they'd eat them.

 

I'm reminded of a story from the Donner Party, 1846-47, stranded in the Sierras over winter,

slowly starving. As a man lay dying, he looked at his wife & said, "When I pass, promise me

you'll eat your share."

 

Cannibalism occurs when necessary even for those with a taboo against it.

I suggest that BF has no such taboo, and being sensible ... they eat their dead.

 

What do they do with the bones?  I don't know.

 

 

Probably crack them open with rocks to get the bone marrow out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight....

 

You want to find the buried remains of a Sasquatch, based on 30+ year old eyewitness accounts, or the word of an alleged habituator, and hope that if the animal died somewhere in the area, there might be some remains intact...? 

 

Imagine if you will, a one mile wide by one mile long area of land.  Within that one square mile area, are lying millions upon millions of uniform sized sewing needles, about a foot deep.   Only one of these needles out of all the millions, has had its appearance altered-lets say by dipping it in red paint.  Your task if you choose to accept it, is to find that needle. 

 

The hopes or chances of finding some Sasquatch remains by the technique outlined in this thread, is far less greater than the chances you'll ever find the red paint dipped needle. 

 

Good luck !!  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hiflier's idea is a good one.

 

Not for finding remains, although it helps in that regard, but to focus in an area where there is an elder BF which may be easier to track or kill. Like any other animal, BF's physical abilities must degrade as it gets older and its helpful to know an area which may have one.

 

Hiflier, you should use the SSR for this, it easily creates google earth maps of search results. Below is a google earth layer of all Class A sightings in WA between 1990 and 1995. Load it into google earth and go to town...

 

wa-90-95-class-A.PNG

 

wa-90-95-elbe.PNG

 

This is the KML file:  WA-1990-1995-Class-A.kml

 

 

A screen shot of part of the SSR search function is below, the form is so big it won't fit in a single screen....

 

 

ssr-search.png

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An animal that dies in a Pacific NW will leave no remains as rodents will eat the bones and the acidic soils will take care of the rest.

The same reason that fossil are never recovered from ancient rain forests but from drier areas with alkaline or volcanic soils.

The exception is if you find the skeleton within just a few years before nutrient recycling takes place.

 

Just wait. if a Bigfoot exists it is likely only a matter of time before a tractor trailer or car runs into one.

 

Nothing is safe from traffic I think.

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hiflier said:

Obviously older reports won't be of much help if the environmental conditions run counter to preservation. Even newer reports could be moot as a result of nature's processes.

 

2 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

An animal that dies in a Pacific NW will leave no remains as rodents will eat the bones and the acidic soils will take care of the rest.

The same reason that fossil are never recovered from ancient rain forests but from drier areas with alkaline or volcanic soils.

The exception is if you find the skeleton within just a few years before nutrient recycling takes place.

 

CFM, we are saying the same thing but it's good to have other members reinforce the idea :) 

 

3 hours ago, Art1972 said:

You want to find the buried remains of a Sasquatch, based on 30+ year old eyewitness accounts, or the word of an alleged habituator, and hope that if the animal died somewhere in the area, there might be some remains intact...? 

 

......The hopes or chances of finding some Sasquatch remains by the technique outlined in this thread, is far less greater than the chances you'll ever find the red paint dipped needle.

 

Good luck !!

 

Well, the thought of just doing nothing never has appealed to me. Thanks for the goo luck wish too as that's exactly what it would take- being in the right place at the right time ;) And personally? I would rather search a one mile by one mile area than search all of North America. You probably would too. And you know how beginner's luck goes right? You just may be the one who succeeds. And I hope you do too.

 

DANG! Where are my manners....... welcome to the Forum

Edited by hiflier
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of using the best sighting reports from 20 or 30 years ago to identify areas where an elder BF might be living.

 

This is something that has not occurred to me until Hiflier pointed it out.

 

BF has a home territory equivalent to a bear, 100 square miles according to many scientists. If the animal is old, its physical abilities will be greatly diminished and much easier to track. The explanation for our failure to track, capture or kill a BF is it's exceptional physical attributes -- speed, knowledge of the territory, etc.

 

It is a fact that older animals, including humans, degrade with age... their range is reduced, their memory fades, etc. Bigfoot, if it exists, is no different. BF is not a super being immune to old age and all of the consequences associated with it. Some think of BF as a static entity that never changes, it's fast, smart, etc. but that cannot be the case if its a real flesh and blood animal. Age will have an impact just as it does for all of us at some point.

 

Do not think remains, think old BF with reduced abilities. That's the target.

 

I think Hiflier is onto to something here. Good thinking man!

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Probably crack them open with rocks to get the bone marrow out.

 

Yes!  That makes sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites