Leaderboard

This springs to mind. Squatchermetrics Published by Squatchermetrics Like This Page · 20 February 2018 · #Sasquatch - Let's talk Arizona. 85 Total Reports, with 11/15 Counties responsible for those Reports. What month is most common for Total AZ Reports ? August What AZ County has the most days of precipitation in August ? Coconino (5) What AZ County receives the most annual precipitation ? Coconino (The Northern portion of the Kaibab National Forest receives more than 20 Inches annually, on par with San Francisco) What AZ County makes up 80% of all Summer Reports (20/25) from the turn of the century ? Coconino What AZ County makes up 100% of Non Visual Reports from August in the last 12 years ? Coconino What AZ County makes up 100% of Actual Visual Reports from August in the last 12 Years ? Coconino Where do you think we should go on vacation this Summer ?

I'm completely comfortable with the drop-off in the number of BF sightings reported over the decades. I think it is explained by the fact that there was a tremendous number of unreported encounters at the BFRO database was initiated. The decrease in reports is probably only the result of working through that backlog to bring them more current. The consistency, or congruency in the BF descriptions is made all the more compelling when you realize that the behaviors observed are typical not only of Sasquatch, but also for a myriad of other wild creatures It is a database full of descriptions of an animal doing things that known animals do as well. Manufacturing this degree of biological congruency would be absurdly difficult to hoax.

I'm sorry, but that just struck me as extremely funny. Carry on.........

Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; work is crushing me. First, there are relatively few confirmed hoaxes, so you are right, it is more difficult (if not impossible) to discern patterns in hoaxes or suspected hoaxers and people who appear to chronically label every item they encounter in the woods as "Bigfoot!" (tm). Bigfoot encounters are very rare when distributed over time (e.g., the entire northeast) and space (e.g., the last 100, 200, or more years). Even when there are websites that report hundreds of encounters in a state (for example, the PA Bigfoot Society or PA Research Organization), those encounters are very infrequent and very scattered - it takes time to generate the data to be able to identify clusters in time and space, particularly since most organizations sub-divide based on county which is likely wholly unimportant to bigfoot. So when you look at the data you find that encounters that are clustered - using that term very loosely - are usually 4-5 encounters spread out over 10-15 years and about 400 square miles, usually in certain terrain types in the northeast. So if an investigator is suddenly reporting 10 encounters in one year in a 30-square-mile area of open flat farmland w/no significant woods or swamps and that investigator (or an immediate family member) is the only person having encounters - at their houses, which are miles apart - and no one in the intervening area is having encounters, yes, I am more likely to conclude those are not valid encounters. I'm not going to specifically state that "x person is a hoaxer" as I realize that mere statistical analysis can't rule in or rule out Bigfoot. There could be other explanations, which I am not inclined to debate. But for my purposes, certain clusters are red lined and ignored as probable hoaxes and/or probable miss-identifications. My brother, some sort of PhD or some such, has provided me a few scholarly articles on "tells" identified by academic studies of people who lie in written in oral communication. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to read (and digest) them all, and request that he provide some additional cited studies. Then, frankly, I don't know what to do w/them - pointing out that you can see the zipper in a hoaxer's suit doesn't necessarily stop hoaxes, it just leads to new hoaxers trying to improve on the old hoax.

http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf

So far as consistency, I come at this from a biology background. I would look for averages, standard deviations, and large enough sample size for the data to be repeatable. If the data is too divergent, I expect it comes from cries for attention, not actual observation. If it is too consistent, I suspect organized hoax. For me, the bigfoot data .. height, hair color distribution, track distribution, etc .. all point to a biological species, not hoax of either sort. Especially given the prolonged timeline. There are consistencies in behavior as well though those are harder to quantify. I really don't know why more biologists are not seeing this consistency and getting curious enough to take a second look. MIB

This isn't necessarily the best footprint but it's one that intrigues me because of three things shown in the track, plus a fourth interesting item shown in the picture. I've posted it before with a few more arrows, probably over a year or two ago; I think it's one of the BCM tracks that BH had posted on here in the past. 1. The yellow arrow and the blue line above the yellow arrow point to where the mid portion of the foot appears to slope very slightly downward, which makes the mid portion a little bit deeper than the rear portion. You can see this the picture. 2. You can see how the toes dug into the soil. It's the deepest portion of the track. 3. Right behind the toes, the dirt has been pushed up. I don't remember the length of the track. To me, the track had to have been made by a flexible foot. Now, as far as the track being made by a human foot; this is where the 4th item comes in. The white arrows point to a human boot print only about a foot away that barely made an impression, while the track above the tape measure dug much deeper into the soil. The only thing about the human boot print that made an impression was the tread of the boot sole. The impression is flat. I'm not sure if that is a bootprint at the bottom right corner.

I guess it's time for me to go then. There will be nothing more for me here. Everyone enjoy your bubble.

I don't know where you were, MIB, but by the description that sounds like some of the wild hogs we see around these parts. There are many varieties of hogs in this area, some look like pictures of the razorback you see in Arkansas, some are much bigger with a mix, and some are a few generations away from the domesticated ones that escaped long ago. They can be in excess of 800 pounds, but most of the fully grown ones are in the 200 to 300 range.

We have discussed this before and I agree that taking an individual is the best way of closing the door but I don't think I am the guy to do it. I do have to disagree that we can't acknowledge the species without the body, I think an entire gene sequence, good video and the replication of our methods by others will get enough academic interest. We have cataloged other branches of hominids off of a sequence and bone fragments ( nearly indistinguishable from neanderthal remains ) so I think the there is still room here.

I agree but a simple yes or no would do nicely without having to posture or jump through some kind of acceptable social hoop. I can't help but think of NAWAC in this regard. 10 or 12 YEARS they have given up their summers and invested so much time and money, not to mention physical and social hardships when the money, time and effort might have been better spent getting the truth out of the Oklahoma resources/wildlife departments? This is why this thread exists. Its reason for being. But I don't think or know if anyone is taking what I'm doing as a good strong method to get at the truth. What is really astounding is how arriving at the truth through official channels seems to be such a stone wall. Can ANYONE tell me why that is? Because IMHO it should be easy to just get the truth regarding existence from someone in authority. I mean what is the point of playing around if an agency knows the real story? That's what I don't understand. What is the benefit of that? If an agency KNOWS the creatures don't exist then it shouldn't be hard to get them to just say so. Or am I just way off here? Because they don't have to? Well, let me tell you something folks, anyone looking at the time and expense people go through looking for this animal tells me that YES, they have to. As an agency responsible to is citizens they have to.