Leaderboard

Looks pretty cool and seems like it would scrape reports up to the current date. The python coding is beyond my capabilities, sadly. Other datasets I've reviewed all include the BFRO data but not all the variables and not reports from the last couple years. The most comprehensive is the SSR dataset with the BFRO reports, John Green reports, and reports from various regional Bigfoot research groups. One question I had of the BFRO data was about the types of interactions witnesses were reporting. David Daegling in his book Bigfoot Exposed argued that most Bigfoot encounters are "mundane" -- the witness sees a Bigfoot, there's a brief period of mutual recognition, and then the Bigfoot just walks away. This certainly wasn't my impression. To get a sense of what witnesses are reporting, I pulled a random sample of BFRO reports of encounters that happened between 2010 and 2022 and then read and coded the witness descriptions (this is the "observed" variable in the BFRO dataset). I created the following coding scheme: Level-0: These are asynchronous encounters. That is, there’s evidence that a Bigfoot might have been in the witness’s current location, as shown by foot tracks, scat, stray hairs, tree breaks, etc. [this would map to the BFRO Class C] Level-1: This and the remaining levels are synchronous encounters. In Level-1 there is evidence of Bigfoot currently in the witness’s proximity, as demonstrated by loud calls, tree knocks, stone throws, strong odors, bi-pedal footsteps, etc. Bigfoot is believed to be nearby but there is no visual confirmation. [this would map to BFRO Class B] Level-2: This adds visual confirmation but the sighting is one-directional. There is no indication from the witness that the Bigfoot was aware of the witness’s presence. [this gets into BFRO Class A but depends on observability] Level-3: This introduces mutual recognition between the witness and the Bigfoot. The Bigfoot simply acknowledges the witness and then casually turns away and disappears into the forest. "Mundane". [this seemed to be what Daegling wrote about; the P-G encounter would fit here] Level-4: These are aggressive interactions with Bigfoot, as demonstrated by Bigfoot bearing teeth, chest pounding, yelling or roaring, charging, or similar behaviors targeted at the witness. Level-4 is often characterized by competition between the witness and Bigfoot, whether for home territory, hunting grounds, or specific prey animals. [I would put Mike Wooley's encounter and Wes Germer's encounter here, as examples] Turns out most encounter reports fall into Level 1 and Level 2... and most of these cases are susceptible to alternative explanations and readily dismissed by debunkers. I suspect few even consider filing a report for Level-0, though cases like Cripple Foot and the Skookum Cast fit here. Level-3 cases were infrequent (~10% of cases) and Level 4 non-existent. Here's how my sample of 102 cases breaks down: overall (top chart) and by BFRO's Class A and Class B.