Dead Sasquatch

[hiflier]

Hello All,

John Green's database lists 139 reports of Sasquatch with grey hair. It also lists 81 in which the hair color is white. Now while it can be argued that these particular colors may not necessarily indicate age I think that for the most part they do. There may be instances where genetics play a role in early greying but it shouldn't affect the focus of this thread by that much IMO.

The database itself became idle by the year 2000 as you know by now, so how would the reports of Sasquatch with those two hair colors reflect on the current situation? I've proposed in another thread a while back that if these two colors were largrly age related then many of these creatures would now be dead. So, what of it? Is it important to think about?

You betcha it is! My whole focus has been on the problem of proof of existence as it has been for many of you as well. So, I thought I would run this idea up the flagpole for discussion. I mean, when an idea hits I think more brain power is better. I spend a lot of time in freefall thinking. There's a awful lot of details about Sasquatch to think about after all and sometimes just having the subject on my mind without really thinking about it allows my thoughts to wander. Sometimes pieces come together like this one.

So,IF hair color is indicative of age then there should be at least 200 dead Sasquatch bodies/skeletons scattered around. Keep in mind that it only sums up a small fraction perhaps of a total population as the database only reports ones that have been seen AND reported. So the number of bodies/bones could be much higher. The point is this: If these creatures are in fact territorial then hunting for remains in an area of known sightings could be one of the most important endeavors one could undertake.

We've discussed burial ideas to include rockpiles, and earthen mounds, etc as a rather anthropological answer to why no bones. But I think people are truly focused on the LIVING Sasquatch and perhaps not enough on the DEAD ones. Personally? I think they are out there and can be found. We have counties, names of nearby towns, terrain type, water and road data. Even without names there is a great deal to consider and possibly investigate.

There have been reports of creatures that smell like skunks or dead animals. Is that because they have been around or handling a dead Sasquatch? Those of you who are no-kill should be all over this idea but does anyone think that a serious extended program of searching known areas would be of any benefit? Has any of you or anyone you know, or have heard of, ever specifically gone out to look for dead Sasquatch?

[Guest]

Our group has recently shifted our mindset from pro-life to pro-kill completely. We realize now a type specimen is the only thing that will work, and we will shoot one eventually, and post hundreds of photos once we do. Let me tell you though, pulling that trigger, it's a tough ordeal.

[Incorrigible1]

Much of my doubt centers around the fact no creatures, living nor dead, have been produced.

 

 

I don't subscribe to fantastic tales, I believe in a flesh and blood creature. That said, they must occasionally suffer the unexpected demise, the sudden death. If they exist, they must leave physical remains.

 

Where the hell are those mortal remains?

 

It's enough to cause one to question the creature exists. I hold little patience for those claiming otherwise. Sorry, not gonna hold a seance with you.

[BobbyO]

I've read a fair few reports of grey/white ones that are little ones.

[Guest]

Bobby O it also seems like white ones are reported in specific areas over the course of many years. Kentucky is one of the areas that has many reports of white sasquatch. Personally I don't feel like the true white ones are white from age I believe it has more to do with the genetics and possibly it is a recessive gene they carry in that area.

[norseman]

Much of my doubt centers around the fact no creatures, living nor dead, have been produced.

I don't subscribe to fantastic tales, I believe in a flesh and blood creature. That said, they must occasionally suffer the unexpected demise, the sudden death. If they exist, they must leave physical remains.

Where the hell are those mortal remains?

It's enough to cause one to question the creature exists. I hold little patience for those claiming otherwise. Sorry, not gonna hold a seance with you.

This doesn't bother me much because if I gauged what lived in my forest by the remains I've witnessed? Deer, elk and moose would be about it for large game. I've never seen bear remains nor a cougar nor bobcat....,,

Hello All,

John Green's database lists 139 reports of Sasquatch with grey hair. It also lists 81 in which the hair color is white. Now while it can be argued that these particular colors may not necessarily indicate age I think that for the most part they do. There may be instances where genetics play a role in early greying but it shouldn't affect the focus of this thread by that much IMO.

The database itself became idle by the year 2000 as you know by now, so how would the reports of Sasquatch with those two hair colors reflect on the current situation? I've proposed in another thread a while back that if these two colors were largrly age related then many of these creatures would now be dead. So, what of it? Is it important to think about?

You betcha it is! My whole focus has been on the problem of proof of existence as it has been for many of you as well. So, I thought I would run this idea up the flagpole for discussion. I mean, when an idea hits I think more brain power is better. I spend a lot of time in freefall thinking. There's a awful lot of details about Sasquatch to think about after all and sometimes just having the subject on my mind without really thinking about it allows my thoughts to wander. Sometimes pieces come together like this one.

So,IF hair color is indicative of age then there should be at least 200 dead Sasquatch bodies/skeletons scattered around. Keep in mind that it only sums up a small fraction perhaps of a total population as the database only reports ones that have been seen AND reported. So the number of bodies/bones could be much higher. The point is this: If these creatures are in fact territorial then hunting for remains in an area of known sightings could be one of the most important endeavors one could undertake.

We've discussed burial ideas to include rockpiles, and earthen mounds, etc as a rather anthropological answer to why no bones. But I think people are truly focused on the LIVING Sasquatch and perhaps not enough on the DEAD ones. Personally? I think they are out there and can be found. We have counties, names of nearby towns, terrain type, water and road data. Even without names there is a great deal to consider and possibly investigate.

There have been reports of creatures that smell like skunks or dead animals. Is that because they have been around or handling a dead Sasquatch? Those of you who are no-kill should be all over this idea but does anyone think that a serious extended program of searching known areas would be of any benefit? Has any of you or anyone you know, or have heard of, ever specifically gone out to look for dead Sasquatch?

I certainly investigate any kill sites I come across yes.

I do not know every bone though and if I find a piece of a rib or something I usually surmise its a deer by the odds of sheer volume.

Sometimes it's just that way no kill site, just a odd bone that was packed off by a scavenger and discarded.

I pack my rifle where ever I go, in the hopes of collecting a type specimen but if I stumbled upon an obvious squatch carcass and I knew what I was looking at? It would be just as good as killing one, better even because iam not sacrificing one for the species.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

I read an interview recently given by Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum. In it he stated that in his opinion the population in the state Of Idaho was somewhere in the vicinity of 60 Sasquatch. I don't pretend to know how he came up with that figure and I would never hold him to it of course. It may be the result of his knowledge of the size of the habitat, the range of known animals, and the food supply in the wild. It would seem that even so, over the course of several decades there should be two or three dead every year.  

 

As I said in the OP, even though there may be genetic reasons for early greys and whites or, as BobbyO mentions, a genetic line producing those hair colors, by and large I think it to be a function of age. The recent thread discussing where they might reside has had some good input. There should be carcasses in those areas somewhere. Trail cams have pick up virtually nothing on the live ones and so there is even less chance they would record dead ones LOL. Stumbling across large animal carcasses anyway doesn't happen that often as Norseman points out but then does anyone go out specifically looking for them? Are there people or naturalists trained in targeting that kind of thing?

 

Nature does a fairly quick job of hiding death but would a concerted, consistent hunt produce results? Maybe "Finding Bigfoot" should stop looking for the moving targets and concentrate on the immovable ones.

Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier

[Sasfooty]

White ones aren't necessarily old ones. I have seen three young white ones here. One was a little female, about 5 years old & there was a baby that was white. Their father was also white & appeared to be young & strong. I got a glimpse of another one running through the woods behind the house that was skinny, about 5 or 6 ft. tall, gray & had darker gray splotches on it, although the splotches could have been shadows. This one appeared to be young, but I couldn't tell for sure.

 

I've also seen one that was pale tan, kind of a buckskin color. Hubby saw him sleeping under a pile of brush & said he thought at first he was a huge feral hog, until he realized that there was way too much hair. He was riding a horse at the time & the horse wasn't afraid. He's terrified of the feral hogs, but doesn't pay much attention to the BFs, unless they're strange ones.

[NCBFr]

There are reports that they bury their dead.  They don't just let their dead family member rot in the woods like a simple squirrel.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

There is a thread on the burial aspects which you can check out here:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/42405-ssq-burial/?hl=%2Bsasquatch+%2Bburial

 

So this discussion need not include that possibility. Sasfooty, are you saying there are no black, brown, or red ones in your back yard? I think what Norseman was getting at with his animal list was that what IS seen are the dead creatures that are in abundance. Rarer species translate into rarer carcass finds. I'm sure that Cougars and Bobcats do not bury their dead. But then that brings up an issue in and of itself now. I truly doubt if anyone is going to find a dead Sasquatch on a trail. Next to a road? Well, there are reports of collisions with them but evidently the chances for the creature surviving those seem to be 100% ? No , if there is a chance for finding the remains of a Sasquatch it must be done like anything else I've read about them- on their turf, in their habitat, and by those willing to bushwack around in groups.

 

If Sasquatch hides from them as would be expected then the chances of not being interfered with get better. If they are afraid of the presence of guns who cares; all the better for the investigators IMO. No need for stealth, deer urine, guillie suits, being stealthy, placing trail cams, looking for hair in hair traps, thermal imaging costs........NONE of that. To me it would appear to be a shoe-in. A GPS with a map and a compass and perhaps a wooden "rifle" that looks real and an large inventory of bear spray. Oh yes, I almost forgot.....a saw fior the taking the skeleton's/carcass's head. Don't forget the HAND, and FOOT!

Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier

[Sasfooty]

Sasfooty, are you saying there are no black, brown, or red ones in your back yard?

No, and as far as I know there aren't any in my backyard at the moment, of any color.

 

I was answering your post where you said " So,IF hair color is indicative of age". It has been my observation that hair color isn't indicative of age.

[hiflier]

Hello Sasfooty,

 

 

I was answering your post where you said " So,IF hair color is indicative of age". It has been my observation that hair color isn't indicative of age.

 

How long have you been seeing these creatures?

[Sasfooty]

I saw one for the first time in '06 or 7.

[hiflier]

Hello Sasfooty,

 

Ok, thanks. I would like to say that Mr.s Greens database covers a lot of time. From the year 2000 back to 1774. It would seem that while color doesn't always reflect age as I've mentioned (and even included the "IF" word LOL) There are other observations that do indicate age-related color. This thread does discuss that:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/43134-sasquatch-age-vs-hair-color/

 

Be that as it may, this thread's topic is finding a dead one. Any ideas? They can't all be young where you are. Those young ones you mention had parents after all and maybe even grandparents? So do you think there are dead ones in your neck of the woods?

Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier

[Sasfooty]

Yeah. "He-who-shall-not-be-mentioned" already has a dead one.

 

I certainly have to bow to Mr. Green's greater knowledge, and since I'm not interested in finding another dead one, I'll bow out now & stop cluttering up your thread.