True and false sounds

A good case has been made by linquist Scott Nelson that Sasquatch
has a language. And I have recorded some that sounds like that.
But there is another type of vocalization needed by them.

When roaming through the woods in search of food, the only efficient way
to do it is to spread out to cover a wider area. This method requires a way
for members of a group to constantly know where the other members are
without alerting potential enemies. This can be achieved by low toned vocal
sounds. I believe I've captured those sounds several times.
In the audio "Locating calls" I have posted one example. The first call is at
some distance, the reply is closer.
The audio "whoop" is also an example of this.

I think the calls of Owls fool a lot of people and cause a lot of wasted time.
Although I do think that Sasquatch does sometimes imitate an owl, the vast
majority of such sounds are really Owls.
In the audio "fake owl", the first hoot sounds real, but the second one does
not. In the audio "scream and monkey sound by owls", there is a good
example of the so called "Peacock scream" and "Monkey sound" which are
made by the Barred Owls, but hundreds of times are attributed to Sasquatch.

Night Sounds

I am posting some more night sounds which could be from our hairy people.
The first one, "Howls" is of a pack of Coyotes who howl
regularly almost every night, but this time they were joined by something
sounding very un-Coyote like, which sounds closer to the recorder.

Another sound is of a light whoop, which by itself might go unnoticed, but the
responding call is remarkable.

Lastly, I know an older couple who live in a cabin in the Wayne National
Forest. Having heard some strange sounds there, I decided to put out the
overnight recorder.
They have two small dogs which often have to be let out during the night. In
this recording, which was at 4:30 AM, distinct wood knocks are recorded as
the lady opens the door to call the dogs back. Obviously warning knocks which
are answered by some slightly more distant knocks. This exact scenario was
repeated a few minutes later since the dogs were not ready to come in the first
time. I'm only posting the one event.

Ohio Hair

I don't like to be repetitive, but I need to more fully describe one of the hairs
I found in order to convince a lab to do a dna test. I reported on this hair before
as "Unknown Hair".

There's no positive way to tell what a hair is until a dna test is done on it. But
the researcher has to have some target idea of what he/she is looking for. The
target in this case was the hairs described in several books as follows:

" Half dozen light colored hairs found by government game guide Wayne Twitchell,
and examined by 36 year police lab veteran Ray Pinker.

1..both animal and human characteristics.
2..resembled animal in showing variation in color and thickness from root to tip,
whereas human is uniform in color and thickness.
3..the scale pattern is similar to human.
4..there was no continuous medulla as would be with almost all animals.
5..there were both coarse outer hairs and fine hairs from an undercoat.
6..He could find no matches amoung known animals."

7.. And an additional characteristic quoted by Dr Henner Fahrenbach:
"Color of suspected sasquatch hair, when viewed under the microscope,
always includes a red tinge plus a variable amount of very
fine pigmentation (melanin) granules. No matter whether the hair
looks black, brown or red to the naked eye, it shows the reddish
tinge under high magnification."

So after a couple of months of study and comparisons, I realized that this
hair does not seem to be a Bear hair as I first thought, but instead exactly
matches all of the criteria above, except 5, since it was found alone.

The first picture shows the root at the top, and representative sections
in order below:









The hair trap was placed 2 feet above the ground, which makes unlikely,
even before examination, of it coming from any of the smaller animals.
(and human arm hair).

Scratches and sounds

The scratch marks on this log look to me like fingernail marks rather than
Bear claw marks. They would be very strong nails, mine would bend and
break if trying this:





Also, Bears seldom use only one paw, and usually make much more mess,
such as this log:


Nearby was some older and very unusual scratch marks on a tree. Usual
animal scratching is vertical, but these are horizontal:



Another older nearby sign was this log pulled apart with no claw marks on it.
I had seen this before, but had not remarked on it as there was the possibility
of Bear work, but the finding of the fingernail marks reduces that possibility:

Hair analysis

In attempting to glean information on the study of hair via the internet, I have found that there
seems to be no standard method, and that different scholars go about it in different ways. And
there seems to be a lot of misinformation floating around. For instance, I have seen several
comments that if you get a cast showing the cuticle scale pattern of the hair, you can then
determine the species. But I've found that it isn't that simple.

For my purpose of determining if a hair is probably from a Sasquatch, a scale pattern is just
one step. Hominid scale patterns are always described as imbricate (wavy overlapping scales).
But I have found that the imbricate pattern often starts out from the root as a mosaic pattern,
then changing to imbricate as it progresses toward the tip. This may all be in the eye of the
beholder, so this photo will clarify my opinion:



But that is only one step of the process, because that only reduces the number of possibilities.
Other animals that have the same mosaic/imbricate pattern includes Black Bear, Raccoon,
Domestic Cattle, and Horse. If the fine underfur can be obtained, it can be better for determination, but I am only discussing the guard hair.

Another step is then to determine the medulla type.(the center core of the hair). In Humans
(including Sasquatch) this can vary from none, to a relatively thin (less than 1/3 of hair diameter).
If it's wider than that you can eliminate it.
(Note that this description is based on my samples of presumed Sasquatch hair, and
descriptions by other researchers and scientists who have made their finds known. I cannot
say that this is the only type there is, but is the only type that is being shared with the public).

I believe that the final and best diagnostic step of the microscopic exam is the determination
of the distribution of the pigmentation of the hair. Human hair (including SQ) that is shades of
black or brown should have the pigmentation concentrated toward the outside of the hair. If it
is a shade of red then the pigmentation may be evenly distributed.
Other types of animals have the pigmentation concentated toward the center of the hair.

Of course, due to the similarity of presumed Sasquatch hair and modern Human hair, some
good reason should exist to believe the hair in question is from a Sasquatch, and unlikely to
be from a modern Human. The hairs below were all found with supporting circumstancial
evidence.

Sasquatch Fur

Does Bigfoot/Sasquatch have fur? Most articles on the subject say that the
higher primates have hair, and no furry undercoat as do other animals. Even
scientists state this opinion. I have found only one example of a report of an
undercoat:
"Ray Pinker- Instructor of Police Science at CSA - examined suspect hairs from central Idaho, determined the hair samples matched no known sequences of known animals, but showed characteriscs common to humans and primates. The hairs showed variation in color and thickness, unlike human hair however. The sample lacked a medullary core, which is commonly associated with possible BF hair samples. Guard hairs, and fine underhairs were found, which is common in primates."

Otherwise I would think it impossible for such a Creature to exist in winter temps of minus 30-40 deg F, which is common in the areas they are reported.

Now I have caught a hair on one of my hair traps that had adherring to it
a single strand of fur. The hair and fur both have "human" characteristics.
The hair is less than 1/4 inch long, and brown. It is what I would expect to
see growing on the fingers of a Sasquatch. The strand of fur is longer and
clear. The hair trap was suspended 26 inches above the ground.





I am including a microphoto of the fur of other animals which would be tall
enough to have left hair on the trap. It can be seen that none of them are
similar to the "unknown" fur.
I checked other smaller animals fur and found no matches.





I believe that if the DNA in these hairs gave a reading of Human, that it
would prove beyond doubt that it is Sasquatch. Simply because we do
not have any fur. A reading of "Unknown Primate" would be OK too.

They have roots and follicles, the main hurdle is finding someone to test
them. I cannot get an answer back from the hair samples I've already
sent to the NYU lab in June.

Tree Breaks

Out of the thousands of natural tree breaks I see, there is occasionally one that
shows evidence of a woodland drama between Predator and Prey. This tree
shows the scratch marks of a Raccoon climbing, to escape something, since
it is not a food bearing tree:



It probably did not save him, because the tree was broken down by the pursuer.
This was a strong healthy tree, and my weight would not bend it, it took a powerful
pull to break it. There were no claw marks of Bear or cougar:



Here is an example of a tree climbed by a Bear, showing the claw marks, and
probably for the same purpose. It was in West Virginia:





The large stone that I think was used as a hunting weapon has now disappeared,
as did the smaller round one earlier. While other similar stones were not taken.
Someone has at least two favorite stones.

Tracks in leaves

Tracks in the leaf mulch seldom tell you anything, except that a Biped, possibly
modern Human, has walked there. The leaves usually spring back up, leaving no
sign, but if made when it's raining they may remain imprinted.
But sometimes I take a closer look, and this time I did because it was far off
the trail where no recent Mod Human sign was seen. There was a series of four
imprints in the leaves, then disappearing as it walked along a log, then another
imprint as it stepped off the log. After that, Turkey scratchings wiped out further
tracks.

In one of the tracks I noticed that the toe line was more deeply imprinted than
the rest of the foot, showing that this Biped was not wearing shoes. And also
the track was the same size as one of the supposed Sasquatch tracks I saw
last year, and wider than the normal Mod Human.

The trouble with photos is that there is no depth perception, and the toe line
is not noticeable from the photo, and the track itself is hard to see without an
outline:



So next day I returned with casting material and made a cast. I didn't bring
quite enough and had to leave out part of the heel.
(note to self, next time take more plaster):

Research Tips

Number one:
One of the most valuable items a Sasquatch researcher could find would be
a skeleton. The next best thing would be hair containing DNA. Now the hair
will be a much better item once the science of DNA analysis becomes more
readily available. So any likely hair found should be held onto until the science
does become available to everyone.

One thing most researchers have not been paying attention to is scat droppings
of scavengers, Coyotes, Wolves, Bears, and other smaller animals. These
scavengers eat carcasses of dead animals, including the hair, and their scat
often consists of several clumps of hair of the animals they have consumed. If
it's been there a long while, only the hair will remain.

Now if you found a clump of this containing what appears to be Human hair,
it would be hard for a skeptic to claim it was Homo Sapiens. The DNA in hair
is very durable, and if not exposed too long to the elements, may still contain
usable DNA. If not, it can still be microscopically analized.
Not only this, but it would mean that somewhere in that scavenger's territory
there would be the skeletal remains of the Sasquatch. Maybe hidden or buried,
but there none the less.




Number two:
If you are concentrating on an area, you can monitor bipedal activity by the
means of fine brown thread placed at likely spots. Place it where small twigs
camoflage it, and about five feet above the ground. Tie one end and wrap the
other end so it will pull loose. This can let you know if a biped has passed
through, but of course not the exact species. But if nothing is passing through,
that is worth knowing too. This is useful where the ground does not show tracks.

Number three:
To try to capture hair, smear a little mouse trap glue on the tips of flexible
twigs where your subject may brush against it. This can grab loose hair. In
summer this may grab a lot of insects also, which is bothersome. Double
sided clear tape can also be wrapped around twigs. I would place these hair
grabbers lower, about three feet high, to prevent people from noticing. But try
to put these where there is little human activity.
You may get other animals hair, but that is interesting too.

Curiosities

I saw a very interesting thing a few days ago. The round stone that I reported
before that appeared to have hit a Squirrel, and then disappeared, was again
laying on the trail.
The possible implications of this are that the user had success with it before,
so decides to use it again. His favorite rock. But no hair on it this time:



Another curious thing was a stick that looked as though it had been used to
probe into a Crawfish hole, then left sticking in the mud. This reminded me of
the times, as a kid, I was fishing in a creek and occasionally would pull out a
Crawfish that was not hooked, but was just holding on with it's claw. It was not
possible to identify the "Crawfish hunter" by tracks, since the muddy ground
was completely chopped up by hundreds of Deer tracks:



The Deer tracks: