Leaderboard

Agreed! We should probably note that the scoftic would say we're omitting the simplest explanation by considering bigfoot to be anything but myth. In other words, even in agreeing that simplest is first consideration for being correct, there is great disagreement over which of the many explanations is simplest. Patience or stubbornness, whichever it truly is, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing 'til I think it has been given at least a fair chance to succeed by someone truly competent to give it that chance ... me! Along the way, I may well find some unexpected way to succeed. I often lean more towards pessimism ("there are 2 kinds of people in this world, optimists and realists" :)) but I simply can't manage pessimism when I'm in the woods. It's not in me. MIB

Here's where you lost me. You're basically saying that all reports in Minnesota and Iowa are hoaxes because they fall into group B. I disagree. (I don't care as much but the logic also applies to Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin) While the methods you used might be sound, the data really needs to be adjusted. Here a few reasons I think the conclusions are off. 1. There are many encounters in Iowa that remain out of the public BFRO data base because they'd give up expedition locations. You'll see some of them when Finding Bigfoot Iowa gets aired. I can think of 7 or 8 encounters that happened while I was present, that would all be good enough to make it into the database (knocks, whoops with audio, and class B sightings which as shown in your report cannot really be attributed to black bear). In Minnesota, the BFRO presence has dropped off to form other groups that are taking reports and holding expeditions (one of which I am a part of). Reports that they receive don't make it into the BFRO database. When Finding Bigfoot rolled into Minnesota they looked to at least one of these other groups for potential locations and witnesses. 2. If your conclusions are somehow based on population, it needs some tweaking. The residents of Des Moines and Minneapolis/St Paul make up a large population percentage of both states, but the sightings are (generally) far away from those big cities. If you want to conclude that Des Moines and Minneapolis suburban sightings are hoaxes I can live with that. Take away those big cities and your population density for the rest of the state falls off greatly I'd suspect, and mostly likely changes the conclusions. (same argument for Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin) 3. I think you somehow need to account for percentage of forest each state has. Iowa has more forest than you'd suspect, but I'd guess it's a pretty low percentage of total area compared to come other states. I'd like to know how the sightings per square mile of forest works out for all the states. (I may look into that actually) That might work in Iowa's favor but hurt Minnesota. 4. South Dakota as an A' while Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin are all 'probable hoaxes' is a huge red flag. Sioux Falls must not be large enough. There's probably more and I don't have the know-how to figure out exactly how this all fits in. I just know the initial conclusions don't fit my view of reality. Edit: I left off rain totals, which I'm pretty certain matter greatly...

Attached is the promised paper detailing the updated statistical analysis I mentioned in my previous post in this thread. bigfootupdatedanalysispaper.pdf

FarArcher, my Dad always said you could used to anything except a gravel in your shoe.

I guess he means the cast and crew for the movie they are making from his book. It sounds like its gonna be a pretty interesting affair...

Yeah, you do progress. Or at least I did. After my first encounter I couldn't accept any other possibility than that it was some sort of freakish man. The second convinced me that it had to be something other than a man, though I had no evidence that there was more than one of them. Upon my third encounter I realized that she was one of "them", though I still had no idea what "they" were. It allowed me the opportunity to observe and attempt to communicate. The fact that she was female and pregnant held all sorts of implications, mainly that they were a species, and breeding. Being stalked by three others immediately after that cemented the realization that they had their own community and worked cooperatively. I imagine that someone else might progress through escalating stages of fear and anxiety (as opposed to cautious engagement) if the circumstances were different.

I've been gone and missed some really good replies here. You make a good point about moving day and night - but if humans present - altering primarily to night time. After reading and pulling nuggets out of - countless narratives, it becomes clear that they definitely do move during daylight. Somehow, my gut tells me that there may be a bit of a division of labor - in that maybe there is more juvenile and female movement in the daylight than large adult males. Then when it gets dark, the large males (this is generally speaking - there are always exceptions to everything) - get together to drive and ambush deer and such. I know that adult males could and probably do wander, feed, and range during daylight hours, but it seems there is more "coordinated" effort reported at night - especially when it comes to game. Someone shoot this down if you can - seriously - but I think this is to take advantage of the vastly superior night vision compared to their day vision. I never hear of anyone putting the sneak on one during dark hours, but I do note some "surprise" meeting engagements during daylight hours.