On Bigfoot and Beyond, Cliff and Bobo recently talked to the woman who runs the Bigfoot Data Project.  She is apparently looking at as much data on claimed Bigfoot encounters as she can from a very stringent scientific viewpoint.  So when evaluating height, she had her minions (or minion) do research on how fear or apprehension affects the estimation of height - no surprise, the more afraid you are the bigger something looks.   I'm not going to try to recap what she said beyond that, but it was a good episode, probably within the last 50 or so. 

If I had a dollar for every person that said that black tailed deer stood about five feet tall and weighed three-fifty or that a coyote was about four feet tall and about seventy pounds, I would be rich. Deer and coyotes are not as high  nor weigh as much, as people imagine them to be. The same could happen in the opposite. People under estimating them. People are surprised to find out a wild turkey can weigh as much as 30 pounds or that a golden eagle weighs as little 6 to 15 pounds. informed, experienced perception is important.

I just came across this BFRO report: https://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=79845   Short story shorter: 3 witnesses reported seeing a Bigfoot in Oklahoma walking off a powerline easement from more than 1,500 feet away.    I'm not a field researcher but 1,500 feet away, across a river, windy conditions, late afternoon, and down a powerline cut area do not seem like good conditions for clear observation. Any researchers on here who are comfortable with BFRO referring to this as a "Triple A" sighting? If so, why?   I'm not challenging what the witnesses reported seeing. I just think from an evidence perspective that a Class A designation is a bit ambitious.

I explored the science behind height estimates a while back. Basically there are 3 factors that affect accuracy :  1) The actual height of the target (in this case, a Bigfoot).  2) The height of the witness. This is referred to as the own-anchor effect, where the witness may use their own height as an anchor or benchmark from which to form a judgement on the target’s height. 3) The witness’s knowledge of, or expectations about, the average height of the target’s population.   Much of this science comes from research into eye witness testimony, so it's questionable whether we can apply it to Bigfoot reports. The consensus among eye witness researchers seems to be that witnesses typically under-estimate the target's height. I think for Bigfoot reports, #3 above is most critical. The statement "it was 7-8 ft." is so common in reports it's like one of the given letters from Wheel of Future before the contestant even picks their own letters.    @Doug touches on what could be a fourth factor specific to Bigfoot height estimates -- the witness's knowledge of and experience with other large animals in the forest.    Here's my post on Substack for those interested in a deeper review of the science.  

I'm kinda guessing that the creature whose tracks were at the river mud flat may have belonged to the same one peeking in my car windows. The foot and hand prints seem to be of similar sizes. I just can't figure out how it got a print on the top of my windshield without apparently leaving any other marks on the vehicle. It was not parked under big enough trees to allow it to dangle, from above. I don't understand. Another mystery!