gigantor

Tech
  • Content count

    4,849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gigantor

  1. Yeah, right. You have not just one, but a bunch of them tracked down and could get a type specimen any time you wanted, you just love them too much... That's the weakest excuse there is.
  2. and where can we see these?
  3. If it has bats in them, no (in MD, VA and WV). But even if they could, the owners have been informed and don't want to hurt the bats, why would they? The NSS does in fact have caves that you can access without bats, in other states... and those are mapped with Lidar. Every square inch is being mapped and there ain't no BF in them.
  4. All I know for sure is that in MD, VA and WV you go to jail for entering a cave without permission from the proper authorities, and they ain't handing those out easily. It's that simple.
  5. I have to say these are very, very interesting. The above explanation won't fly in this case. Thanks to Paul Graves for documenting everything so well, it really lends credibility to the find. Great job!
  6. I'm curious to see what members think about the status of BF as a species. Please do explain why you voted the way you did.
  7. Oh, that's just an artifact of the auto scaling of the x-axis in the plotting routine... the chart is only so wide and the plot lines don't always divide evenly, so the software overlaps some. But your reasoning of a BF family cycle is interesting. Think of the what the cycle is like: 1) Big Daddy finds a mate and knocks her up. 2) Party is over, time to lay low and take care of baby 3) The juvi grows up and Big Daddy kicks him out 4) Teen goes wild, Big Daddy gets busy again, lots of activity 5) Teen finds mate and settles down. Big Daddy knocks her up again. The question is how long is that cycle?
  8. Is this what you mean? But 3 years is not enough for a juvi to be kicked out, maybe its a 6 or 8 year cycle... shoot, it could be a 12 year cycle!
  9. Now that you mention it... those mini-bubbles do look cyclical. But what could it be? I know, El Nino warm years!
  10. There are 23 reports with a score of 7+ in Florida: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=22156 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=29529 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=36112
  11. Class B reports are non-visual. Here is the scoring criteria: BobbyO, the report is based on the sighting dates, you must tick the date box and select a beginning and end. You can certainly come up with an objective score like we did. Not perfect, but it does a good job weeding out hoaxes, misids, etc. I'm sure that if I gave you any report with a high score, you could read it and agree that its one of the better ones. And viceversa, if I gave you a report with a low score, you'd agree that its not a very good one, hoax or misid. We've tested this thoroughly and it works. Criteria #4, #5 and #6 really seem to do the job. Name a State and I will give you links to 3 reports with a high score so you can check for yourself.
  12. Well, it shows a decrease in the number of people reporting a BF sighting. Whether that's population dynamics or not is debatable. It does show that the number of high confidence reports (i.e. plausible) is exceedingly small.
  13. It's even less than you suspect Norse. The SSR has a score value, it's a 1 - 10 scale with 10 having the most confidence. The reports are scored manually based on an objective, consistent set of criteria. If we plot the sightings filtering for only reports with a score of 5 or higher, we get the following (2019 reports): and the same chart for a score of 7+ (362 reports!) Reports prior to the BFRO are dated and score badly because of the amount of time that has elapsed, rightly so. I don't even bother reading reports with a score below 5.
  14. I was jesting... put a big grin and everything. We'll see, even if the number of reports goes back down to 1990's level, it shows a stable number of ... of.... hoaxers at work, very dedicated folks. /sarcasm Yup, it's implemented in the SSR.
  15. I cleaned it up a little bit... and replotted from 1970 to 2016. The data supports my hypothesis, BF is gone/going extinct. The decrease could be the breakup of the BFRO in the late 2000's. They lost a lot of high quality researchers and maybe they just don't process as many reports anymore. Also, I've noticed there is a delay between the sighting date and when the witness reports it. Most are not reported until a few years later. I think that's PTSD or something similar. Interesting to see a small bubble from 1973 to 1981... old timers may be able to explain it (Swamp Thing, Chewbacca?)
  16. This poll inspired me to add a new chart to the SSR, a simple timeline of the number of sightings per month.... I'm still playing with it to make it more presentable.... below is the plot for Washington State from 1980 to 2016. and below is every State from 1980 to 2016 (5490 sightings)
  17. BigTreeWalker: Exactly! Even though wolverines are endangered and very, very rare, we still have sign of them. We have tracks, video, dead bodies, etc. If you are correct and wolverines are even more rare than BF, and we have conclusive proof that wolverines are extant, how come we do not have proof of BF even though it is a much, much bigger animal? We do not have that kind of evidence for BF; hence, it cannot be that common. (i.e. very low numbers, extinct or non-existent)
  18. That tracker is pretty knowledgable, wonder if he's a BFF member?
  19. So we don't know anything about them, but we know they are doing very well?
  20. I'm surprised by the results so far. 41℅ think BF is doing great, yet we have no proof. Wishful thinking I guess. I'm with Norse on this one, BF is atleast very endangered.
  21. I think that part of the problem is the presentation of the evidence. People put out pics/video with no context or details about how, where, when and by whom it was obtained. When that happens, red flags fly and everyone thinks its just another possible hoax. If a pic/video were backed by the witness, in context with location etc. it would be received much better.
  22. ^^ I kinda take it back, the answer is yes, by a little bit I see what you guys are saying now.
  23. To BobbyO: ^^ that depends on the question you are asking. So if you ask: Are there more sightings when the moon provides natural light? the answer is yes.