hiflier

Where Are The Dead Sasquatch?

168 posts in this topic

Thank you for the kind words gigantor. People have been working hard to crack this mystery and maybe, just maybe, going after the weakest link in the chain is better. We are all too familiar with reading reports of powerful creatures that do amazing things that require such strength and bush craft. And it's pretty natural to focus on those things but at the same time I think it's understood that taking down such a creature will take everything a trained person had got and more. I imagine even an old one would give a Human a run for their money. More cunning perhaps? Hides better? Doesn't move around so much like you say. Less likely to throw stones and challenge an intruder beyond desperate defense?

 

Of course if it's part of a clan the story gets complicated but if Sasquatch is a social being with a family mentality then even a younger one of say 30 years might stick close to its elder relative. I read two reports that each had a sighting of a female. The two reports were in the same general area in WA. One was about 6 miles North of Hoaquin and the other was on what is, or was, Weyerhauser Truck Road 7200 West of Matlock. But here's the thing: the two sightings were twenty years apart. Same family different generations? A mating area? Don't have the answers to those questions but, like many of us, I think the solution lies in in the databases. 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't sure the best thread to inject my 2 cents but here goes....In the course of rallying community awareness and support for our film A Wish for Giants I've caught wind that a habber lives near me. This has been corroborated by a local law enforcement officer. So far, I'm told they're using apples as a token to interact with the "hairy giant people" and these subjects are said to have language skills, making "Indian noises". Of course, the stench of a wet dog is also reported. I'll keep ya'll posted as I learn more!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Aaron. As a note of caution though it might be better to mention as little info on the location as possible? Just my two rocks lobbed into the camp. :) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, where to take this from here. Anyone that takes the path that gigantor laid out would be a good place to dive in. In the meantime I thought I might be able to get the ball rolling with a file I put together from John Green's data. The thinking goes something like this: any Sasquatch infants or small juveniles that were around from 1960 to 1976 and survived their lifetimes would be around 40-57 years old. That means they are approaching the ends of their lives with 57 years old being very elderly indeed for a Sasquatch- maybe even dead. So I took those 15 years from 1960-1976 and created a .zip file for folks to look through. Any program that can run Microsoft Excel should be able to open the file.

 

One report will look like it has been duplicated three times but it's because there were three creatures witnessed and so there's information for each one. And even though there are only 62 reports od small Sasquatch in that 15 year timeframe there's a lot of data in the file as you will see so take your time studying it. If anyone needs any tips on how to use the data or other issues let me know.

 

NOTE: The file is in chronological order

 

John Green Small Sasquatch 1960-1976.zip

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


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

I read two reports that each had a sighting of a female. The two reports were in the same general area in WA. One was about 6 miles North of Hoaquin and the other was on what is, or was, Weyerhauser Truck Road 7200 West of Matlock. But here's the thing: the two sightings were twenty years apart. Same family different generations? A mating area? Don't have the answers to those questions but, like many of us, I think the solution lies in in the databases.

 

There has been much discussed in the past regarding the territorial nature of animals. Humans too exhibit this trait. Also mentioned is that there may be movement according to food supply except maybe in areas that see winter without an escape to a more temperate region. The above reports brings up a point to consider. Males may indeed roam more than females so one idea is to study sightings reports that have a female present or more than one female present. The group of nests that were discovered recently piqued everyone's curiosity of course. So maybe reports of female Sasquatch would be a good focus? They may be even more territorial and less likely to move great distances like their male counterparts. Perhaps an abbreviated database containing reports of only female Sasquatch alone or in a group could be its own field of study? Might be interesting to see if any new light can be shed on such a look see. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulled the data on female Sasquatches. There's some early sightings that are included just to see if there is any indication of being generationally territorial. As a note to follow up on the old age idea you can be your own judge on the age thing:

 

John Green Female Sasquatch.zip

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most likely analogue of Sasquatch is that of human hunter gatherer tribes that move with the seasons and changes in food sources.    That may imply territory since the food sources are cyclical and in the cases of animal protein,  they have their seasonal migrations.    In my opinion the big red arrow that points to BF being a hunter gatherer is the apparent lack of settlements.   Human hunter gatherers rarely leave much trace of their movement through an area.   If BF is hunter gatherer, then that has a large impact on the meaning of sighting data related to BF.  One would think it would make interpretation of data much more difficult, but at the same time such data could support the hunter gatherer model.     We see reports of BF being seen pulling root plants out some marsh, or catching fish in some stream.       If these sighting reports recur, this possibly points to harvesting behavior and could be used to tie BF to a seasonal presence in certain areas,  which certainly is helpful in determining when they might be present.   

 

As far as when BF are likely to die,   I also think we should look at humans to answer that question.      In the several families I know well enough to know such things,   most human old people that die of natural causes, the death is usually in the fall or early winter.     I would suppose that BF is even more likely to have issues with pneumonia which is a common killer of human elderly.     So if I picked a season where I would expect BF to die, then I would look at fall and winter.   I have also maintained that birth and presence of infants may be a weakness in BF ability to remain undetected.    Even if they do not cry much,  I expect that they cry some and could be heard by humans.     And if BF birthing is not seasonal,  and year round like humans,    infant mortality would be higher in the winter due to the wet nasty weather.    None if this is a rosy topic but perhaps there are patterns in the data.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be extremely hard finding animal remains in areas where large groups of them are known by the mainstream to live.  Can't remember the chimp researcher's name (his research is cited in Meldrum's book), but he looked for long periods in places where remains would almost have to be and found virtually nothing.

 

Now I've found deer remains numerous times, and not just passing roadkill.  I came up on a dead one once that must have died no more than a couple hours before I showed up, virtually no signs of decomposition, debilitating leg injury, feeding or anything else.  I didn't examine more closely than I could just look, but this was in woods away from a road. But then our landscape is virtually carpeted with deer, adequate testimony to their elusiveness that you don't see one every two minutes.

 

Numerous factors - including finding a secluded spot to die, behavior that is known not to be exclusive to sasquatch - militate against a search being successful.  If anyone has time and technique, I'd never say no. (Big Tree Walker has gotten considerable mileage out of analyzing prey remains, in fact.)  But I still think NAWAC's approach is the best one, and the evidence they've gotten has them still searching the same area in an effort to get proof.  Look for the live animal that people continue to see.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiflier -

 

I don't think looking for the elderly is going to be productive.    This points at why:

 

3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

The most likely analogue of Sasquatch is that of human hunter gatherer tribes

 

Dumb animals often abandon their elderly.   Tribal people do not.  In fact, in general, the healthy members provide for the unhealthy, injured, and elderly.  At a point where such an individual becomes too much burden, then "steps may be taken", but it's seldom just abandoning them to die alone.  Could be deliberate exposure to the elements, could be euthanizing them.   If the elderly, injured, sick, or feeble were just wandering around to be found as suggested, we'd have found them, accidentally or otherwise, just as we'd have found their bones later, accidentally or otherwise.   The fact that we have not is, while short of proof, very strong evidence it's not going to happen in the future, either.

 

I would focus on locating burial sites .. that's the most likely to be productive.

 

My suspicion is that bigfoots are more gregarious than we give them credit for.   I've had a couple of events which point strongly, or even unavoidably, towards groups.   When it is just one, it is one in prime o' life, late adolescent to middle adulthood.   The only exception, ever, that I can think of right now, if it was bigfoot at all, was that roar I heard twice.  That may indeed have preceded a death.   I should have gone when called.   Too late now.

 

MIB

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MIB, I have thought much like yourself on this.

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

If the elderly, injured, sick, or feeble were just wandering around to be found as suggested, we'd have found them, accidentally or otherwise, just as we'd have found their bones later, accidentally or otherwise.   The fact that we have not is, while short of proof, very strong evidence it's not going to happen in the future, either.

 

I would focus on locating burial sites .. that's the most likely to be productive.

 

I absolutely concur. The reason for this thread is that for the infirm (for whatever the reason they are infirm) are less likrly to be wandering around but instead are being perhaps fed or attended to in some fashion. If burial is part of sequence then burial in an area close by would make the most sense as efficiency in burning calories seems a natural course to take in the wild. That said if grey in some reports is indicative of age then burial should be rather local?

 

If there is a traditional burial location but the clan is 100 miles away from it would they expend the time and energy that it would take to carry a full grown Sasquatch to that burial site? It would make more sense to instead bury or hide the deceased in the area in which it died. I will agree that the yes or no about any of it isn't perfect as scenarios go with perhaps too much to assume but it does seem that we have to pursue all kinds of ideas to keep rolling on. Of course there is not enough information to say either way so these are simply offerings to think about with some data added in to explore possibilities. It might be a good way to determine IMpossibilities anyway..   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree more or less.    On one hand we may be underestimating them a lot.   They are not just a lot bigger, they are apparently a lot stronger per pound, so it may not be as much effort for them to carry one of theirs as it would be for one of us to carry one of our own.   There is likely a limit but it may be a lot farther than we assume based on what our limit might be.   The other aspect is if there are burial areas they must be remote or obscure else we'd have found them already.   Those are the same characteristics of core areas.   Perhaps those older individuals who are less able to travel stay in the core areas more and wind up closer to where they'd be buried than the ones who travel far.

 

In a concrete sort of way, that gives me an idea regarding my own search / research.    My locations may be right.   Some I've identified but not gotten to may be more worthwhile than I thought.   Soon as the snow melts in June or so I have work to do.

 

MIB

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not as familiar with other parts of the country as I am with the PNW.    But the opportunities for burial by rock internment are abundant in this area.    Talus slopes, abandoned rock quarries,   etc literally dot the forest.      I suppose I have a better assessment of that because of how much I have flown over SW WA and know how many they are.     The logging roads created for logging may be overgrown, the roads permanently blocked and moated,   but the quarries dug out to get the rock are still there and are all over the place.     Most logging roads have an associated quarry someplace along them that was the source of the rock.   Sometimes on a short side road.     Check out Google earth and you can get an idea of how many there are.      Most were used once to source the rock to build the road.    I think environmental issues have pretty much stopped the practice and rather than dig quarries helter skelter,   rock is now hauled in from larger commercial quarries where it is crushed before use.    Surprisingly some of the quarries are high in the mountains rather than near main roads.    In the National Forest a lot of the quarries that are reachable by vehicle are now used for remote camping.    Perhaps some of the belligerent BF encounters for campers is that the campers have their tent pitched  or camper parked right near Uncle Uggs grave.   

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good posts. You both think well on this. I do like the idea that older or failing individual know they are weak and so head for or stay close to an area known through the generations. It must be difficult and a bit of a conundrum when a large  fire ravages an area at the wrong time. What then, Either find a new place for burial or risk exposure. I'm going too far afield with this of course but old ones, or even old females, may need someone else's better brain or research analysis on it.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not be too far afield at all.    I think "Warren" just let his guard down and let something insightful slip by.   Cool.  

 

Lets look at that.   Y' know, Thom Powell said that each scene, each event, he included in his fictional "Shady Neighbors" came from personal experience or from reports he worked on, he just strung them together into a single story.   Think about the raised burial cairn the protagonist disturbed.   I'm pretty sure Randy has mentioned finding something similar.    Your notion about fire scars is not a bad one, such an artificial rock construct might stand out considerably for a few years before the weeds grow up and cover it again.   It might be well worth watching for flying or studying the satellite images on Google Earth.   

 

You've, without knowing it, pointed out yet another place today on my to-check list that I'd been putting off, each for a different reason or context than I'd been considering, but elevating the priority of each so far as when to look at them.   Still gotta wait for snow-off though.     Anyway, thanks!

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thank you as well. I've lots more to consider now after exchanging these ideas. And snow is a good surface to expose even the smallest of signs- and heat! And new rock piles too. But it also masks sound so be safe out there, my friend when you go. I also find that other than sunny mornings or afternoons the cloudy days are best for seeing things in the bare woods. especially when the sun is behind me coming and going as polarizing lenses work better at those times. And as you know sunlight reflecting off hemlocks can hide much in the way of contrasting shades. Oops, off topic...

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites