Where Are The Dead Sasquatch?

[BigTreeWalker]

All the tooth impression research we have done is right around the edge of the blast zone. So as far as I'm concerned they are still there. We've been guesstimating bigfoot's home range in another thread. If it's around two hundred square miles the blast zone covered a lot of area but it was only 250 square miles. And a portion of that is covered by Spirit Lake. Pumice and ashfall covered a lot more than that but the forests and the animals survived and are still in those areas. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest covers three sides of the mountain. Some areas are gated in the winter but there is access to areas near the blast zone the rest of the year. There's also a lot of blast area east of the mountain (not easy to access) that wasn't included in the monument, but is in the GPNF. 

[MIB]

Monument ... National Monument?    Which agency administers it, BLM, USFS, National Park Service, or other?   

 

If you really want to go investigate, don't take rumor or threatening signs as final word.   Go to the managing office and talk to the supervisor.   Tell them where you want to go, give them a reasonable reason, and ask if there's a legal way to get there.   They have their own regulations from above they have to follow.   If you're reasonable in your dealings with them, they'll usually help rather than hinder so long as they can do it without violating rules and putting their own jobs at risk.   You have to figure out THEIR big picture, not just your own.    They don't bite.  

 

I've done this with USFS and BLM here.   I've had pretty positive responses from National Park Service as well.

 

MIB

Edited April 4, 2017 by MIB

[Guest Starling]

On 01/04/2017 at 5:22 PM, MIB said:

Remember that your options are not mutually exclusive.   From your list, I'll take 1 and 7 with some confidence and a probability of 2, 4, and 9 contributing as well.  Plus, of course, 10. 

 

Editorial comment: insistence that all occurrences of an observed result must come from one cause is the territory of fools ... and of scoftics trying to set up a straw-man to knock down.  It has nothing to do with the reality of our physical world.

 

MIB

 

Granted. My original premise was badly worded. I was merely trying to compile a comprehensive list of possible reasons for there being no known bodies, at least officially accepted ones, in the public arena. Unknown factors, rather like the off limits areas described by previous poster, covers quite a lot of territory. 

[Guest DWA]

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 4:55 AM, Starling said:

Pondering this subject, it occurred to me that there are only so many possibilities that may answer the title question and a comprehensive list must be easily compiled. Forgive me if this has been covered before.

This is the easiest way for me to address it.  Read on.

 

 Assuming that Sasquatch are indeed large, unclassified hominids that are real, biological creatures subject to the usual natural physical laws the answer has to be one of the following:

 

1) They go to extreme measures to dispose of their dead, measures that go beyond the bounds of anything that might include cannibalism but would also include deliberate ritual burial and/or actions taken for the specific purpose of concealment. 

 

2) They exist in such low numbers and are so elusive, the possibility of finding a carcass is astronomical.

Addressing both of these:  a healthy population could exist and we'd still find nothing, for reasons best discussed under below items.  I rarely find dead deer and the landscape is close to coated with them. Then you add, finding a carcass...and keeping it to yourself because you really don't need this headache in your life, and besides, now you know which is all that matters to you.  Count me in that category should I find anything. 

Personally, I think that the volume and consistency of reports seem to argue against either extremely low numbers or exceptional evasiveness. I think reports are a fragment of actual encounters, and that would be logical if these were real. There are many reasons not to report a sighting or finding of evidence.

 

3) There is some aspect of Bigfoot biology that is unique to the species and this affects the manner/timeframe in which remains decompose.

Don't think you'd really need this.  1) and 3) could both be factors; but I really think the overall societal denial of the possibility is a bigger issue. It tends to suppress people's willingness to report what happens to them and what they encounter.

 

4) Bodies have been recovered but the findings are suppressed.

Couldn't swear this isn't happening.  I think that if these are real the government knows about it, but I don't think there is a concerted cover-up.  It's more like: we have enough headaches without adding to them.  We don't need to be fueling this fire. That's what private and academe are for.  Everybody is dealing with budget cuts as it is.  We don't have budget for this.  Really.  I worked in government for 36 years. This would be the rationale.

 

5) No bodies to find.

It's hard for me to reconcile the volume, consistency and types of evidence - practically everything that happens with species we know about has been reported for this one - with nonexistence, if that's what 5) implies, which I am presuming.  This is precisely what the pattern of evidence looks like for species science has confirmed. They just won't touch this topic.

 

6) Creatures did exist but are now extinct.

To me, the continuing sightings, trackway finds and other evidence, reflecting, with all expected shades of nuance, close consistency with everything reported previously, argue against this.

 

7) Remains encountered but mistaken for more conventional fauna.

Not impossible.  For me it's the hunter who runs into a bear defending a carcass.  And won't for good reason get closer to find out what the carcass is.  Or seeing what looks like a big carcass at a distance, being concerned about a bear or about the carcass maybe not being in fact dead, and not looking closer.

 

9) Physical evidence recovered but findings in dispute.

One could say this about many trackways.

 

10) Unknown factors.

I could add (I think these are different):

11) Guy finds something; girlfriend or others accompanying say THAT IS NOT COMING IN THIS TRUCK.  Guy leaves it.

(In Raincoast Sasquatch, Alley speculates that this might have happened to the very same single piece of evidence, apparently a mummified hand in SE Alaska, twice.)
 

12) Evidence not recognized as sign of an undocumented species. 

(In Raincoast Sasquatch, Alley speaks of dead trees inverted in muskeg, spoken of by Indian elders as territorial markers...and subsequently actually found by others.  In other words, the elders weren't explaining a find; they were saying watch for this...and people later found it.  I've seen the phenomenon in MD; it appears to have occurred at least in WA as well. One really needs to read the relevant passages in Raincoast Sasquatch to get full context. There's no conventional phenomenon recognized by science that provides an easy explanation.)

 

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Sasquatch, if they exist, would probably have rudimentary funeral practices.

Probably would involve concealing the corpse so as not to attract predators and so to visit to maintain a symbolic link to a revered ancestor.

Caves and rock fissures would be a likely location as would the last place old Sasquatch go to die, perhaps where living is easy for an old one.

Maybe the real question is where are the Sasquatch graveyards?

[Guest Starling]

On 05/04/2017 at 2:05 AM, DWA said:

 

Personally, I think that the volume and consistency of reports seem to argue against either extremely low numbers or exceptional evasiveness. I think reports are a fragment of actual encounters, and that would be logical if these were real. There are many reasons not to report a sighting or finding of evidence.

 

But if you're speculating on a species that exists in reasonably high breeding numbers and isn't exceptionally elusive, based on the frequency of reports, then, statistically, special factors or behaviours outwith known species must be involved. You say you rarely find dead deer which is to say that you do find them from time to time...and given the proliferation of phone cameras it's hard to conceive of any individual who's out in the wilderness without the ability to document any unusual carcass. Such evidence needn't be restricted by any concerns about ridicule as it could be placed in the public domain anonymously, although admittedly, this would place it's provenance in question.

 

I have seen one or two photo examples purporting to be remains but none that seemed to carry much verisimilitude. I'd be interested to know if there were examples I could be linked to that are at least in debate.

 

In the meantime burial or concealment it is. I must confess I'd never really considered the possibility of designated graveyards but it's an intriguing notion. As experience and technology improves I know natural history filmmakers are documenting an increasing number of previously unheard of behaviours in the animal kingdom. Elephants openly grieving for their dead in quite sophisticated ways and such like. 

[Guest DWA]

Well, one has to take the picture and then get the picture to someone who can follow up technically. (And will; and that is very unlikely unless one knows the key players.)  If one hasn't been thoroughly exposed to this subject, one might consider both things either impossible or extremely difficult.  I don't believe it pays to underrate the shock experienced by an encounter with something one absolutely knew wasn't real; people have failed to remember cameras literally sitting in their laps, among other things.  Not to mention that the vast majority of encounters I have read would almost certainly not have allowed a decent photo, even if the witness had a camera more or less ready (and for almost everyone that's more "less" than "more;") and dead ones are almost certainly almost never going to be seen compared to deer, from the likely population figures alone.  I don't think the most robust viable population would consist of more individuals over a given area of optimum range than we find with mountain lions or grizzlies, just from what evidence leads me to believe about ecological role, diet and habits. And for all intents and purposes, we *don't* find those animals dead in the wild; almost everyone who does is studying them; and of course anyone finding one knows that the society accepts them as real and won't be ridiculed for reporting them.

 

In general, the way I prefer to look at this appears different from the way most do.  My approach is:  what kind of world would have to exist for all of this to be a false positive?  In my lifetime, the only things that have the pattern of evidence we have for sasquatch and yeti are animals we've confirmed as real.  With these exceptions.  I ask:  why the exceptions?  I've never seen an answer that scans logically.

 

So my question would be:  why don't we know about this animal?  And there are all kinds of totally reasonable explanations.  Most especially for why we don't - and again that is only *that we know of*, and people have reported it - find dead ones.

Edited April 7, 2017 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 5:58 PM, JustAGuy said:

I thought this was interesting, and although it doesn't directly add to our knowledge of what BF might do with their dead, it was still impressive and informative. If a badger can bury a cow this well, I imagine one or more BF could bury another BF pretty darn effectively if it/they needed to. Linked article includes timelapse video of a badger burying a cow:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/31/can-you-dig-it-badger-captured-on-camera-burying-cow

And THIS is why I will never understand all the assumptions people make about topics like sasquatch.  What we don't know is what we don't know YET.  How many centuries have we had people and badgers and cattle in the American West.  And here it was 2017 and we didn't know this.

 

Yet.

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 4:26 PM, SWWASAS said:

The blast zone has very draconian rules about where you can hike.     Off trail gets you a $500 fine in the monument in an area they designate.   That would be where I would look if you could legally.      They pretty well left everything alone in that zone just to see what it did on its own.   .   Beyond that to the North is Weyerhaeuser  private forest, and down timber there was salvaged, replanted, and it this point in time getting pretty tall.    You can bet the lumber company did not find anything that might stop its timber harvesting in the future.   One of these days I would like to get  Weyerhaueser guy in a bar, buy him some drinks and see what he has seen in their private forests.  

I have little doubt that one could get more than one very interesting story from miners or loggers on private land.  Or from people who found "cow bones" or "upright bears" on construction sites and were told, if you stay employed here it's because you didn't give those to anybody.

Edited April 7, 2017 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

While finding some known animal bodies is relatively rare,   never the less they are found.    The lack of bodies found with BF is indicative of how rare they are and possibly another factor.    Wolverines are certainly rare and that would explain lack of their bodies found.     But looking at other factors, humans are very common, die in the woods all the time, and  but I or others rarely stumble on a human body in the woods.      Why is that?    Because humans look for missing humans,  rescue live ones, or cart off their bodies for human burial when they are found dead.      Could it be that lack of bodies found, means BF does the same thing?      Given their sentient behavior, some indication of family groups,  I think that highly likely.     Given the recent wind storm in the PNW,   as I write this there might be some BF bodies pinned under trees.    We had hurricane force winds through much of the region.   

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

12 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

While finding some known animal bodies is relatively rare,

Oddly every species of animal is found, eventually, as road kill.

Isn't it odd that a Bigfoot has not been struck and killed by a car?

Even people are frequently struck and killed by cars.

So is it that they are supernaturally smart and superhuman abilities defy the human world?...

 

[BobbyO]

5 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

 

Isn't it odd that a Bigfoot has not been struck and killed by a car?

 

 

 

It would be if it was true, but I highly doubt it is.

 

Theres no way for me that this hasn't happened already.

 

Why it then therefore hasn't reached the public domain is a different subject altogether.

 

My belief is that this is the way the "mystery" will be solved and soon with the relative ease across the board to pictures/video now from smartphone technology that increases by the day.

 

However, I will say and I will go to the grave on this, seeing one of these things is one thing, but hitting one on a road and having it spread across the road in front of you, having to immediately accept its existence and then letting the fact that you've just killed one sink in, I highly doubt that your smartphone is going to be one of your top priorities even though you may like to think it would be.

[SWWASAS]

12 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Oddly every species of animal is found, eventually, as road kill.

Isn't it odd that a Bigfoot has not been struck and killed by a car?

Even people are frequently struck and killed by cars.

So is it that they are supernaturally smart and superhuman abilities defy the human world?...

 

Before you make a statement like that you need to do a little research.    With a quick search I found several cases where people had hit BF, some killing it.       In several cases the cars were totaled.    Authorities were called.    One involved a police officer.    One stepped in front of a logging truck.   One the car was damaged and the BF ran off limping.    The same night a policeman shot a BF in the area and it ran off at 20 MPH.      I found no less than 9 cases of cars hitting BF.     It is not my job to familiarize you with the literature.   

Humans get hit if they ignore or trust the drivers of cars.     The present human thing is to have your nose in your smart phone, be drunk or on drugs and step in front of a car .    BF has none of those issues.  

 

I also found several cases where humans were injured by BF reaching into cars.    I did not remember that but apparently you are not safe in your cars.  

Edited April 9, 2017 by SWWASAS

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

22 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Before you make a statement like that you need to do a little research.    With a quick search I found several cases where people had hit BF, some killing it.       In several cases the cars were totaled.    Authorities were called.    One involved a police officer.    One stepped in front of a logging truck.   One the car was damaged and the BF ran off limping.    The same night a policeman shot a BF in the area and it ran off at 20 MPH.      I found no less than 9 cases of cars hitting BF.     It is not my job to familiarize you with the literature.   

Humans get hit if they ignore or trust the drivers of cars.     The present human thing is to have your nose in your smart phone, be drunk or on drugs and step in front of a car .    BF has none of those issues.  

 

I also found several cases where humans were injured by BF reaching into cars.    I did not remember that but apparently you are not safe in your cars.  

So you missed my point entirely.

Dead Bigfoot hit by a car would be picked up and in a science lab.

If not it's the usual woo woo.

The one in front of the logging truck would be a prime example, must have been plenty of hair and tissue on the truck, what, no samples?

Of course in the Bigfoot alternate universe you are supposed to believe that all 9 collisions resulted in 0 specimens.

All other large land mammals in north America have left many thousands and thousands of carcasses for each species.

Available to be picked up by who ever, and what? no Bigfoot?

Your answer did not address that but sought to be argumentative and ad hominem, sorry you feel that way, but not really my problem.

[NCBFr]

has anyone run across the remains of a dead bob cat or mountain lion?  

 

[MIB]

18 minutes ago, NCBFr said:

has anyone run across the remains of a dead bob cat or mountain lion?  

 

 

Yes, half dozen or more cougars, 2 dozen or more bobcats, yet I lived in a bear preserve with many more bear than either kind of cat and never found a dead bear without a bullet hole in it.    Conclusion: it is important to consider the behavior of each species as they near natural death.   Some are reclusive hiding in the deepest thickets for what they perceive as security, some find elevated places with a view around them since that caters to THEIR sense of security.  

 

It should be fairly obvious that bigfoot, if they are not deliberately burying their dead, behave more like a bear than a cat when old or terminally ill finding inaccessible, private places to die rather than out in the open.

 

MIB