Where Are The Dead Sasquatch?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Be kind to elderly Sasquatches, perhaps they might like a cookie?

After all she may be somebody's mother.

[SWWASAS]

I talked to Thom Powell about Shady Neighbors rock grave after I found a similar cairn in the lahar on the East Flank of Mt St Helens.      He was involved in the grave incident to some extent but I cannot remember how.     He either was told the story by someone he knows or was involved more directly.     He did confirm that most of the things related in the book about that event did happen including the spirit visits at night.     There is a good reason for his interest in the paranormal.    He has taken a lot of heat for his last books from the BF community.   The big ape crowd do not like paranormal.    As I have mentioned before,  when I was examining the cairn I felt like I was being watched.    I do not know if that was real or if I was paranoid since I was off trail in the Mt St Helens Monument.   I think the fine for that is $500.   That and the fact that I had previously read Thom's grave story made me very reluctant to start digging into the cairn.     The next spring I went back to the location hoping the winter and spring runoff had done the dismantling for me.    The tree that served as a marker for the location had moved, and the bank of the cliff right above where the cairn was had collapsed.     The best I can figure is that the cairn was covered by the collapsed bank because I could find no trace of it.   Perhaps the BF are smart enough to know that would happen.     

 

Related to my theory that BF uses rock burial, one thing I did not mention is the fairly frequent reports of BF sightings in quarries.   Those seem to be multiple BF involved.   Rock quarries are hardly good cover so one has to wonder why groups of BF gather in quarries.    One answer might be that they have either just buried someone in the quarry or are visiting the grave of someone buried in the past.    Anyway every time I encounter a remote quarry I look for evidence.    Piles of rocks deposited by heavy equipment buckets are pretty easy to spot.   The cairn I found in the lahar near Mt St Helens, the rocks were orderly and looked like they have been placed rather than dumped.   In other words they seemed fitted together like you see with a stacked rock wall.   There were piles of rocks on the lahar but they tended to be sinuous in form, and were stacked in a random chaotic nature with gaps and voids.   They are moved by snow and ice runoff during the spring.    The suspected cairn was rectangular in form,    the rocks were fitted together as if placed,  and there were no voids that could be seen.    And there was the delicately balanced stack at the West end that looked like some sort of bird.   That could not have been formed by natural forces.     The talus slope thing can be found anyplace there is a sheer cliff.    Find a crag, deposit the body in a crag, then cover it with the natural talus from the cliff.    That would be much less evident than some sort of cairn on relatively flat ground.    Throw in cooler temperatures year round,  snow and ice part of the year,  difficult access for humans, and you have pretty much a perfect place to stash a dead relative and protect it from being disturbed by scavengers or humans.      In either case a cadaver dog would be of great use if someone wants to find BF bodies. 

[hiflier]

One of the things I noticed in the female Sasquatch file was that reports in the Eastern U.S. start in at about the 1972 mark. This isn't to say that there weren't sightings of females before then. It's just what reports are in the database as it stands. Any ideas on copycat witnesses perhaps? Individual accounts of course might shed some light on that.

Edited December 19, 2016 by hiflier

[hiflier]

When looking at data there often seems to be a blind spot where some kind of outside reference is needed. And that is the case here too. The issue is the two columns labeled "County/Province" and "Nearest town" and this is a good example where time is needed in the analysis of data. Sure, calling up a map of Washington counties is easy. Calling up a map of Oregon counties is just as easy. What takes time is having to go to each map to see which counties in Washington are adjacent to Oregon. Same for counties in Idaho that are adjacent to both Washington as well as Oregon. Now one needs three maps to refer to.

 

This is about following the chronology of sightings among a close group of states. States are large areas and so the county locations are important for research. It's great that counties are recorded but for someone not familiar with the area the county names just float around as data unless there are reference materials used to give the data meaning. As an example anyone living in the Blue Mountains region in Southeast WA/Northeast OR the data for the counties in the region would have meaning in their research. So local data miners would be extremely beneficial to researching the chronology of sighting reports for that region.

 

I know the SSR has been looking at a regional reference system of some kind which would be helpful but only so far as it contains the counties too? Probably over thinking things here some but when sorting for counties for a given state they become alphabetized and so are no longer in a sort of map order. The chronology is there for each county but the research into regions becomes tedious. There's probably no good way to settle this without some painstaking map use during data mining in order to have a visual? Overlaying the Google Earth maps is good but they are still dots on a map and so will need the hard data to get the full picture for analysis. Hope I didn't lose anyone with this. 

[hiflier]

This one is pretty good for some quick county referencing:

 

[BigTreeWalker]

The SSR can be used to search counties. But I have to ask why is that important to someone on the east coast when we are talking about finding dead sasquatch? If you're on the west coast and doing field research, which is the only way you would find bones, bodies, or whatnot, then you know which counties you're working in. You will also know the terrain features and vegetation which is necessary for this type of search. 

 

A little tip on finding bones. Look in the early spring right after snow melt. Everything is flattened down and the vegetation has yet to start growing. They are definitely easier to spot then. But what you find will probably be the most numerous of animals, which are ungulates (deer or elk). 

[hiflier]

5 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

But I have to ask why is that important to someone on the east coast when we are talking about finding dead sasquatch? If you're on the west coast and doing field research, which is the only way you would find bones, bodies, or whatnot, then you know which counties you're working in.

 

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 11:11 AM, hiflier said:

As an example anyone living in the Blue Mountains region in Southeast WA/Northeast OR the data for the counties in the region would have meaning in their research. So local data miners would be extremely beneficial to researching the chronology of sighting reports for that region.

 

I'm interested because there are at leas t5-7 members here that are in the field in the PacNW. But there are interested researchers in different places in North America who are unfamiliar with where counties are whether the counties are in Illinois, Michigan, or Florida- or any otner state for that matter. Those researchers also then do not know which state counties lie next to adjacent counties in a neighboring state. So me, in Maine, who is data mining fo say the area of Eastern Ohio/ Western Pennsylvania reads reports but the incident locations for each state are in different counties. If running down a chronology during a pattern recognition exercise one needs to know where those counties are and their relationship to other counties, even the ones across state lines.

 

Like I said, some who lives in a given region of interest doesn't require that kind of knowledge out of a data base but someone outside of the region does. So there needs to be maps available when doing data mining for unfamiliar areas. And since most of the early sighting =s that may result in dead creatures were in the PacNW that's where the focus is. I'm really not being nosy, I'm trying to be helpful- especially to those researchers who are not familiar with the county locations in the three most like states. British Columbia doesn't have counties so isn't included at this time. Northern California/ Oregon/Nevada might be the next grouping?   . 

[JKH]

^I may be way off what you're asking for, but the BFRO db has geographical information in the form of heat maps of each state. When you search their site, looking for reports by region, clicking on a state gives the data by county. Then scrolling down shows a state map with counties indicated, as well as adjacent states' counties. For instance, looking at Ohio shows parts of MI, IN, KY, WV, and PA, as well.

[hiflier]

Thank you for the input JKH, and no, you are not way off by any stretch  You are correct of course there is a feature on the BFRO that shows regions but the problem is two fold there. One is when clicking on a county in the region, one ends up in the same format as if one only chose a state and then picked a county.The second problem is that the reports are not in chronological order and one still only gets to read those reports one at a time. Any data then must either be remembered or written before going to the next report to determine if there is even just a tiny pattern.

 

One never gets the entire database to sort in whatever fashion they wish in order to do research. It's like the BFRO doesn't want the general public to see anything unless they PAY for it and even then I doubt if all the data would be available. Researching data is difficult enough without having that data held hostage. What's the point of that? Connect this post with my two previous two posts and the picture of proprietary information hording becomes ugly as well the reasons for doing so becoming highly suspect . At least to me. The members here who have been working so hard for the last 5+ years to get the information out in an organized searchable format shouldn't have had to do so.

 

Again, what's the point? Why make everyone jump through hoops and work so hard at something that should have been available in the first place. Unless there's something to be gained by keeping people in the dark. Very suspicious indeed. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by hiflier

[guyzonthropus]

So, hiflier, what you're talking about is sort of a "free-floating" system that follows your search, kinda like those house-finding sites where you can move from city to city without having to go back and do a search for each city, only in this case it would move through counties and across state lines, showing reports from each as you move around, dependent, of course, on how wide an area you choose look over, areas would "drop off" as you move away towards other regions. Naturally, it would be helpful should the counties be labelled, and state lines clearly designated, but the idea is to let the researcher have access to the desired region's reports unimpeded by state and county lines, all the while permitting the researcher an overall overview over a specified area. is that kind of what you're talking about?

[Gotta Know]

Randy, you wrote, "The tree that served as a marker for the location had moved, and the bank of the cliff right above where the cairn was had collapsed." Moved how? Uprooted and replanted, or simply the appearance of it having moved due to the collapse of the bank you mention? If the former, what would be quite noteworthy. Either way, your whole description of the well-ordered cairn is noteworthy. And yes, I would imagine you were under surveillance for sure. Great stuff.

[hiflier]

Hi GZ, thanks for the thought you've put into this. Yeah that would be nice to have but may not be necessary. One of the things that I've noticed regarding Google Earth is that county names only appear when at a certain "altitude" above whatever area. By the time one zooms in to get the county names to display, the area in view is too small for researching something like wide movement possibilities. Zoom out to see more area and one loses the county names. That's why I posted the three-state map with the county names on it. It makes it easier then to do territorial or migration studies by having a chronologically ordered database sorted for say three states and then using the map coupled with the database's timeline for patterns of movement either in a given season or across seasons- even across several years. Several years of sightings could show that generations of Sasquatch remain in roughly the same area.

 

Of course creature descriptions such as height, color, and gender, would pay a large roll but one could only make perhaps an educated guess about such things. If a seven foot tall male with red/brown hair was sighted in such and such a county and two years later an eight foot tall red/brown Sasquatch was sighted two counties over it might not be the same creature but if the population is small then it could very well BE the same guy with two years of growth. An eight foot tall red/brown three counties on the opposite side of the first sighting with silver tipped hair could be the same one but who is starting to turn grey and elderly. If it looks like (or even assumed) that it's the same one and the data shows a territorial habit then in fifteen or twenty years it may be old enough to die.

 

This is what I was thinking when I posted the female Sasquatch file. So much needs to be studied about what the data might already be telling us but just staring at the database without using a map that shows counties, which are named in the database, won't cut it. And Sasquatch cross not only county lines but state lines as well- country lines too. So the map has to show adjacent states and their counties in order to not have the reseach stunted with a view that is too local and narrow. Deer, Elk, and bear cross those lines so when looking at Sasquatch data a map of several states with their counties is a must.    

Edited December 23, 2016 by hiflier

[guyzonthropus]

So something of a roaming flow, where the farther out one zooms(or de-zooms) the .more concentrated any given group of reports would appear, yet still .maintaining landmark/boundary designations. Then by expanding the timeframe (with each division designated perhaps by colour or shape) one might well pursue population shifts by season or year over any given territory. Of course, I realize that's probably what some    for years...so it's such a new idea by any means....

[hiflier]

gigantor and BobbyO have both generated great maps just like you are describing that adjust sighting points through the seasons but the areas shown are without state/county info. The points of each sighting do have a year or actual date attributed to them which is great. Having a database with both state and county fields allows so much more in the way of detail though whether it be the SSR or something else. Maps are terrific, and databases are too, but there's nothing like looking at both for a given area simultaneously. It's all good. However it does take some getting used to because cross-referencing data with a map does take time. Just looking at a map and then the data for a while before actually setting aside time and digging in is a good way to get a general take on a region. Some things just cannot be rushed. And after 60 years no one should be getting hasty with whatever information is in front of them.

 

This is all about either being in an area before the creatures arrive of going into an area once they are there. Studying the data for patterns of movement (or non-movement) is an important focus. Working with the details in a database while using a map for getting the visual layout of the locations recorded in that database seems to be the best approach. At least for me. For me, studying a database without orienting myself to the area being studied just doesn't result much in the way of understanding what the data is showing. I need the visuals a map provides as a backdrop for the information contained in a database.

Edited December 23, 2016 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

As I mentioned previously, the SSR does allow you to search counties only. But BobbyO also set it up to search regions, southern Cascades in Washington for example. This allows to search multiple counties. The locations of the sightings can be displayed on Google Earth, if you want to just see all the sightings in an area. Or as they have shown us before seasonal movements in those same areas. It is really quite a tool. 

 

One note of caution though is that, at least in Washington, if you are data mining, some of the counties the sightings are said to be in are not the correct counties. They may actually be in an adjacent county. This is not the fault of the SSR but rather the BFRO where the reports originally came from. It makes me wonder if they have done the same elsewhere in the US. So if you are looking at the number of sightings in a specific county, that count could very well be higher or lower than shown.