Leaderboard

I'd agree with that. A detailed analysis of the dates of filing vs date of event would be telling. There may be no change in actual contacts, only a change in knowledge of how and where to report brought about by TV shows and social media. A constant stream of "encounters" might show up on a graph of activity over time as low prior to knowledge of where to report, a substantial spike or bulge in the graph as the backlog of old events that were not previously reported got reported, then a reduction to some roughly steady value, though higher than the original was, as a greater percentage of that same steady "event rate" gets reported over time because people know where / how to report. In a way, with a real species, that's what you should expect .. the report numbers changing should reflect changes in our behavior, not necessarily changes in the bigfoots' behaviors. We've said "search for bigfoot, find yourself" .. this may just be another aspect of the mirror. MIB

I don't think it is possible to deduce anything based on report numbers. There are simply too many moving parts. Social media has fostered the formation of MANY small, local groups and individuals so you don't have to go to the big names that publish reports anymore to talk to someone and you don't have to face the interrogation that was characteristic of BFRO when I made my report. It is more socially acceptable now, too, to talk about bigfoot so there are likely fewer people who report just to have a sanity check. Moreover ... go to BFRO's site and look at the recently published reports list, look at the dates. Now, think about that chart previously shown. It simply takes some amount of time for reports to be investigated and published, so the recent gap may show nothing about reports, only about investigation and publication. We have to wait 10 years to see what has been published about now to know about the number of reports now. May not be what you want to hear, but it is truth. Deal with truth or deal with wishful thinking. It's up to you. MIB

BFRO received reports in 2020. Of course they have to be both sifted through then investigated and if deemed good enough, then get uploaded. That takes time. They're average adding around 12 per month right now. Week 1 - 10 Week 2 - 17 Week 3 - 6 Week 4 - 8 Week 5 - 25 Week 6 - 12 Week 7 - 17 Week 8 - 11 Week 9 - 21 Week 10 - 19 Week 11 - 14 Week 12 - 15 Week 13 - 17 Week 14 - 15 Week 15 - 25 Week 16 - 19 Week 17 - 19 Week 18 - 18 Week 19 - 16 Week 20 -15 Week 21 -18 Week 22 - 18 Absolutely spot on.

It was a fine interview, bigfootsociety, you did a great job on your end. Thank you!

Thanks for sharing this! Shane was amazing to interview during this episode and such a humble guy. Loved being able to hear him talk about the new nest finds which is extremely exciting. I also talked to him about the Devil’s Creek property in this episode but unfortunately the property had been sold and is no longer available for researchers to utilize. Sad news there.

When I look at the BFRO reports in the Washington county in which my research area was located (this morning), I see only two reports after my two submitted BFRO reports 10 years ago. The data base has one in 2003 and one in 2018. Neither of my reports are in the published data base. My first was a footprint find and the second was the encounter I have related on the forum. When I made the BFRO reports, I assumed that the BFRO actually had a data base and I wanted to contribute to that. If my reports were discarded or not investigated then it is likely many others have had the same fate. Because of lack of investigation on the part of the BFRO for my first two reports, I never made another. Excuses are usually that there is a backlog or no investigators in this area. 10 years is a hell of a backlog. If there are no investigators, anoint some. Then again since membership seems to be bought by attending expeditions, maybe there is no one in the county that has paid enough. Because of that I would not base any estimate of BF population or activity on BFRO data.

^^^^^ Interesting that post got a down vote despite being accurate. The BFRO database is a critical database, but it by no means is scientifically based, complete, or can make any claims of accuracy. It is just one of the best available. Even the FBI crime statistics are faulty, and are condemned on a regular basis, and that database is compiled as completely as possible, well funded, and participated in with near complete law enforcement agency participation nation wide. Until government begins compiling a database under similar terms as all its other databases, we're stuck with private efforts, which are private. The owners build them, maintain them, provide access to them, etc under their own terms.

From Igor Burtsev on Facebook. ( I found no other sources yet to confirm)