Leaderboard

I think you have to ask some followup questions. 1) WHEN did the encounter occur, because I think media attention has changed the answer over time, at least in terms of averages. 2) WHO are you? Because I think different demographics have different propensities to report. I take a LOT of local reports via word of mouth that are never formally submitted .. truly, I've heard many accounts even from BFRO and Olympic Project members around the campfire that I do not think are part of any public database. I think we have to be very careful, in the context of your question, about assuming any uniformity of answer. Then there's the question of what constitutes a report? Formal submission? Sharing with other bigfooters informally? Sharing with family .. who may not be proponents? Those will vary for each of us depending on something which may vary from trust of those we're sharing with to deliberately, abrasively jamming it down their throats and daring them to voice doubt.

I was visiting my cousin (who grew up and currently lives on the northern coast of Oregon) 2 years ago and she revealed to me that she had a sighting in her backyard in the 80's. She has known of my interest in squatching for the last 15 years, but never said a thing. She finally opened up and told everyone after 40 years.

^^^ Absolutely. That's one reason why old reports may be less reliable. Numerous (probably most) encounter reports give only the year, then at best the month and date. However, the inability to remember a date doesn't necessarily taint a witness's report. I can recount in painful detail a jump I made somewhere between '85 and '86 (maybe '87) where the 'chute wrapped around my leg. The fact that I don't remember the date without pulling out my (very short) jump log book doesn't make my recollection of the events any less credible.

I think the best circumstantial evidence was obtained by the Olympic Project.

Take care / stay safe!!

We are on the Kaiser Canyon Fire. Doing reclaim. We came across the Keller Ferry. Staging at Keller Wa.

Beyond this, i've found some some truly amazing things where the larger, three year data set is concerned, AND i'm still looking to get a fourth consecutive year cleaned up and analysed this year/next year. I'll of course share it when applicable, right here on the forums first..;)

^Those behaviors are commonly reported. Random find, interesting full report. https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=414

Yep. A "side consideration" in this regard is that the chances that the date of the 'claimed encounter' is misremembered/misreported the more time passes between event and report submission. My own report to BFRO, for instance, was submitted nearly 30 years after the actual event so the best I could do was try to back in to the date based on events and seasons surrounding it, I didn't have a specific record of the date.

^^^ Date of occurrence, to the degree of detail actually reported. Not all websites post date of reporting. A lot of reports from the 50s, 60s, and 70s are reported years or decades after the claimed encounter. For the 2000s, 36% were reported within 30 days of the claimed encounter. After 30 days, but within one year, 18%; after one year, 41%. 4% of the reports didn't provide enough information to draw a conclusion. Overall for 1340 reports, the numbers are 32% (w/in 30 days); 16% (> 30 days to 1 year); 46% (> 1 year); 4% (unknown).

Hello, my interest in bigfoot started years ago as a kid. It went away until I decided to embrace it for real a couple of years ago! I went on a BFRO expedition in New Mexico, and might possibly have had an experience... not exactly sure, but have some great pics. Now I'm in Florida and would love to get in with folks and learn all that I can.

Koko and her sign language is actually quite remarkable. She not only used words in proper context, indicating conceptual understanding, she also would combine two words to express something she didn't already have a word/sign for. She acquired a very substantial vocabulary/lexicon of signs, and could express herself with pretty amazing clarity, especially in her later years. She also taught her offspring. What this says to me is that the cognitive basis for language exists before the physical processes develop. Unless, of course, it was our evolution of grunts and simple name gestures within our social context combined with our ever more upright stance and neck configuration which allowed us more refined control of the sounds we make, leading to defined verbal language, vocabulary and syntax which overshadowed any gesturing except during hunting when silence was needed. Only later would a more comprehensive gestural language be developed. And in this paradigm we humans imparted language to primates long before they had symbolic gestural communications, and that it required us and our pathway to be able to introduce verbal language of any form to them. And in doing so we effectively "violated the prime directive" by altering the course of their natural development. I guess the next stage of the experiment, were it not for contagions, would be to release signing great apes back into wild populations to see if this spread through different groups, and if they would find it an adaptation that betters their chances of survival or expands their capacity for abstraction. It is of interest to note that not only gorillas have learned this, but also chimps and orangutans, so there's some underlying predisposition for language amongst all of us.

In. Terms of objective cognition, the mirror test presents a basic dividing line, finding the spot on your forehead, fine. But realizing you're the one leaving those prints, not to mention even noticing them is a different (higher) level of cognitive awareness. Then there's the awareness you're being tracked/hunted, which is something all sorts of animals display. They know when something's after them if not simply taken by surprise in a direct assault. I would doubt, however, that most realize their tracks contribute to their trail. But those that do make that connection are acting on a higher level. And to actively hide their tracks higher still. However, its akin to a quantum leap of intelligence/cognition to use ones tracks to manipulate your persuer's perception by means of strategic misdirection. That's some crafty forest ninja level of avoidance behavior. That's a being capable of envisioning its hunters mindset and setting "traps" based on what it perceives as your expectational/interpretational set. And THAT is pretty dang clever! Almost frighteningly so.....

This is a great point - Bigfoot probably do leave signs, but ... 1) If they live in very remote areas, few people will go there to find those signs. 2) If they dine and dash (graze on plants or pick off animals and then move on), then the evidence won't accumulate in one neat pile. 3) As a large animal, they probably have a large home range, so the bread crumbs are scattered over a very wide area. 4) The largest (credible) group of Bigfoot I've seen reported is 4 at one time, two adults and two juvenile-sized Bigfoot. If they do congregate somewhere, its very far from where humans go. Not arguing with any of the points you made - just want to start fleshing out some common sense (I hope) explanations for when skofftics show up and start saying, "where's the poop, where's the bone piles?"

A BF-related report of such a "find" of bones outside a cave was distributed by Ray Crowe ("keep your skepticals on"). report cited by Oregon Bigfoot. The actual location was clarified to me by Autumn Williams -- it is a few miles from Hemlock Lake. I suppose she either contacted the witness or got more information from Ray. I looked for the site but the mountain is very steep with slowly accumulating rubble below from cliffs / bluffs crumbling above such that the cave must have been covered over. There are other caves in the mountain but, looking uphill above them up the "slide chutes", I think it would be risky crossing to access them with the possibility of having a major rock fall occur while exposed on a very uneven surface with nowhere to take cover.