socialBigfoot Posted May 16 Posted May 16 I recently explored BFRO report data and found this trend (chart below) in Class A (good evidence) and Class B (questionable evidence) reports interesting, particularly the primacy of Class B reports after around 2005. I'm curious about the forums' thoughts regarding factors driving this pattern. Was it: - change in the types of witnesses reporting encounters (probably due to greater access to Bigfoot information via the web) - change in BFRO investigators -- i.e., more critical investigators reviewing reports - change in BFRO protocols for classifying reports -- i.e., more stringent criteria for Class A - something else? Any other observations worth more attention? The decline in Class A & B reports after 2005 to levels last recorded in the 80s is intriguing, too. I would have thought the running of Finding Bigfoot (2011-2018) and then Expedition Bigfoot (2019- ) would correlate with more frequent reports rather than fewer. NOTES: Data pulled from Kaggle: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/mexwell/bigfoot-sightings/data Report data available through February 2023, hence the low rates that year. 1
Huntster Posted May 16 Posted May 16 Excellent find. 1 hour ago, socialBigfoot said: ........Was it: - change in the types of witnesses reporting encounters (probably due to greater access to Bigfoot information via the web) - change in BFRO investigators -- i.e., more critical investigators reviewing reports - change in BFRO protocols for classifying reports -- i.e., more stringent criteria for Class A......... None of these seem likely because the A & B types paralleled each other. Quote ........something else? How about: - A rise and fall in the total number of BFRO reports published, independent of how many reports they've received? _ A natural biological fluctuation in Bigfoot population densities? - Are they nearing extinction? Quote .........Any other observations worth more attention? The decline in Class A & B reports after 2005 to levels last recorded in the 80s is intriguing, too. I would have thought the running of Finding Bigfoot (2011-2018) and then Expedition Bigfoot (2019- ) would correlate with more frequent reports rather than fewer. Excellent observation. Increased media exposure should increase reports. Glickman discussed this: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm
georgerm Posted May 20 Posted May 20 It is well known that bigfoots do not like to be observed by humans, and if too many humans are present in the forest then bigfoot prefers to do food foraging during the night times. From 1970 to 2000 bigfoot sightings stayed low and less than 100 per year. Class B sightings were always less than class A sightings. Then around 2005 the sightings went up past 100, and then there was a decline in sightings past 2020. Why? During this time national forest trails have gradually increased so hikers could penetrate bigfoot's territory with less effort and better equipment to enable comfort while camping in the forest. This fact caused bigfoot to become more nocturnal and only glimpses of bigfoot are observed. Then class A sightings fell below class B since bigfoot has become more nocturnal and clear views of bigfoot became more rare. "Yes, evidence suggests that Sasquatch (Bigfoot) may be more active at nightSightings, particularly in less-populated areas, are reported to be more common during the night, even though nighttime conditions make observation more difficult. This suggests a potential evolutionary advantage for nocturnal activity, possibly due to factors like reduced competition with humans for resources or superior night vision," Google
NorCalWitness Posted May 30 Posted May 30 I asked ChatGPT to evaluate the BFRO sightings database. Here is what I learned: 📍 Geographic Hotspots 1. Washington State Leads in Sightings: Washington has the highest number of reported sightings, with 726 entries, accounting for approximately 12% of all reports in the BFRO database. Peregrine Chai 2. Other Notable States: California: 463 reports Florida: 344 reports Ohio: 327 reports Illinois: 304 reports Oregon: 261 reports Texas: 259 reports Michigan: 226 reports Pennsylvania: 130 reports Colorado: 131 reports New York: 121 reports Georgia: 145 reports 3. Regional Patterns: The Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Northern California) is a significant hotspot, likely due to its dense forests and mountainous terrain. The Great Lakes region (Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio) shows a higher percentage of visual sightings, with creatures seen in 38% of reports compared to the national average of 28%. Mid-Atlantic states (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland) have a higher incidence of auditory reports, with creature sounds appearing in 31% of reports versus the national average of 23%. Peregrine Chai+1Axios+1 🕒 Temporal Trends 1. Seasonal Distribution: Summer accounts for approximately 34% of sightings, making it the peak season. Fall follows with around 27% of sightings. Winter and spring have fewer reports, possibly due to reduced human outdoor activity. Reddit 2. Yearly Trends: 2012 recorded the highest number of sightings, with 191 reports. There is an observable upward trend in reported sightings over the years, which could be attributed to increased public interest and awareness. Reddit 🌕 Lunar Cycle Correlation Reports decrease significantly during the full moon and new moon phases. Environmental noises (e.g., wood knocking, rock clacking) peak around the waxing gibbous phase, just before the full moon. Reports where a creature is both seen and heard peak just after the full moon during the waning gibbous phase. Peregrine Chai+1BFRO+1 🧍♂️ Witness Demographics and Activities Many sightings involve individuals engaged in outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, or hiking. Reports often come from individuals familiar with local wildlife, enhancing the credibility of their accounts. Encounters frequently occur in remote or less-traveled areas, reducing the likelihood of misidentifying known animals. 🐾 Behavioral Patterns and Physical Descriptions 1. Common Behaviors: Vocalizations: Screams, whoops, and howls are frequently reported, especially in the Mid-Atlantic region. Wood knocking and rock clacking are noted as possible forms of communication or territorial displays. Rock throwing and tree shaking are sometimes reported as intimidation behaviors. Nocturnal activity is common, with many encounters occurring at night.Peregrine Chai 2. Physical Descriptions: Height estimates range from 6 to 10 feet, with some reports noting creatures approximately 2.5 times the height of a deer. Descriptions often include a gorilla-like appearance, dark or reddish-brown fur, and a strong, muscular build. Movement is typically bipedal, with a swift and agile gait.New York PostThe Sun+2Axios+2Midland Daily News+2 🗺️ Environmental and Geographic Correlates Sightings are frequently associated with areas abundant in deer and elk populations, suggesting a potential food source. Remote, forested regions with ample cover and proximity to water sources are common locations for reports. Geographic features such as swamps, caves, and mountainous terrain are often present in sighting locations. AxiosOregon Bigfoot 🔍 Recent Notable Sightings 1. Michigan (May 2025): A father and son reported encountering a 6-foot-tall, ape-like creature near Plum Creek in Monroe County while bow fishing. The creature was described as having dark fur and was seen leaping from a tree before fleeing. BFRO investigator Matthew Moneymaker deemed the witnesses credible. Midland Daily News+1The Sun+1Midland Daily News+2The Sun+2New York Post+2 2. Connecticut (October 2023): A resident in Fairfield County reported hearing long-duration whooping sounds matching previous Sasquatch recordings. The incident occurred near Monroe in a forested area, with the sounds lasting up to 10 minutes. BFRO classified the report as credible and a Class B sighting. BFRO+7New York Post+7BFRO+7 These patterns and trends provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics and distribution of Bigfoot sightings across North America, as documented by the BFRO. I found the lunar correlation very interesting. seems like Sasquatch like dark nights. never heard of this relationship before. 1
socialBigfoot Posted May 31 Author Posted May 31 5 hours ago, NorCalWitness said: 2. Yearly Trends: 2012 recorded the highest number of sightings, with 191 reports. There is an observable upward trend in reported sightings over the years, which could be attributed to increased public interest and awareness. Reddit This caught my attention, since my topic post w/ graph showed an observable downward trend. Looking back on my data, code, and graph, I discovered I had mistook the date field as the submission date, when in fact what the Kaggle author called 'timestamp' is actually the reported sighting date. I should have caught this. The submission date is not available in the dataset I had used. The trends that AI pulled from Reddit are based on what the Redditor called an updated dataset relative to the one I used. This updated version has a submission date and a messy sighting year field (e.g., 2022, 2014-ish, 2001-2002, 1987 and 1994, 2011, etc.). The updated version also cuts off at 2021. There are other differences between the datasets, but here's what I found in terms of AI's response: Yes, there was a spike in 2012, though these were largely Class B sightings. My guess is that this comes from heightened awareness from Finding Bigfoot, which premiered in 2011. The downward trend resumed its course after the spike in 2012. Yes, there was an upward trend but it reversed around 2005. Here's my updated graph with correct labeling (LEFT) and a graph I created from the 'updated' data linked by the Redditor (RIGHT). Note that i had fewer records to graph (on the left), as I removed any records missing a date/year value (due to the witness unable to recall the encounter date). The graph on the right, since it's using the actual submission date (rather than the encounter date), had far fewer missing values (roughly 1000 more records to graph). BFRO launched in mid-late 1990s, and this is reflected in the near-zero submissions prior to then (righthand graph). 1 1
Trogluddite Posted May 31 Posted May 31 14 hours ago, NorCalWitness said: I asked ChatGPT to evaluate the BFRO sightings database. Here is what I learned: These patterns and trends provide a comprehensive overview of the characteristics and distribution of Bigfoot sightings across North America, as documented by the BFRO. I found the lunar correlation very interesting. seems like Sasquatch like dark nights. never heard of this relationship before. I love to see how my (admittedly very incomplete) data for just over 1200 reported encounters in the mid-Atlantic to northeastern United States and eastern Canada lines up with other data. I have more reports for this area than the than the BFRO because I've included historical encounters, encounters reported in books, and encounters from numerous other websites which are not (publicly) reflected in the BFRO website. I don't know if they privately incorporate these reports, but if they are a data-based research organization, it would make sense to use all the data available. 2. Other Notable States: * Pennsylvania 130 reports (BFRO) 368 reports (Trogluddite's data) * New York: 121 reports (BFRO) 262 reports * Maine: Not in Top 10 92 reports Temporal Trends 1. Seasonal Distribution: Summer accounts for approximately 34% of sightings, making it the peak season. I have 30% of sightings in the summer Fall follows with around 27% of sightings. And 30% of sightings in the fall Winter and spring have fewer reports, possibly due to reduced human outdoor activity. Winter has 17% and spring has 14% of all encounters. I would say that its likely that both Bigfoot and humans reduce their outdoor activity in the winter. That spring is the lowest % of sightings surprises me given that humans likely want to get outside again. However, Bigfoot may be even more secretive than usual IF that's when their offspring are born. The missing 9% of encounters are due to the fact that many so-called research groups and/or online reports lack basic facts. 2. Yearly Trends: TrogGPT is much less smarter than ChatGPT, so I'll just note some highlights * One can find 86 descriptions of what could be encounters with Bigfoot before 1900 in the limited geographical area I focus on * Not unexpectedly, there are less than 100 reports of "escaped gorillas" or wild men from 1900 to 1950 * The decade with the most reported encounters (not necessarily reported contemporaneously with the encounter) was the 2000s with 344 Lunar Cycle Correlation I find this data very difficult to trust. For example, some data sets use a default date, such as the first of the month, if no specific date is given. In other cases, witnesses have forgotten when exactly an encounter occurred; while some can describe the situation accurately, many can't. Additionally, weather conditions, terrain, and the local environment all help determine actual moonlight one can see, so a witness's statement that "there was very little moonlight" doesn't necessarily tell us what the lunar cycle information accurately. Out of just over 1200 reports, a concrete date was only reported in (or could be extracted from) 328 reports and of these only 183 occurred between dusk and dawn. (There is a reason I include lunar cycle data for daytime encounters if a concrete date is available.) * 41% of nighttime encounters occur when lunar illumination is less than 25% (i.e., first and last six days of a lunar cycle) * 23% of nighttime encounters occur during the peak of lunar illumination (i.e., before and after the full moon) I won't keep going. What I find interesting is that different datasets relying on different encounter reports still produce relatively consistent results. NorCal, I salute you for finding an innovative way to crack data - it would be interesting if this could be applied to the SSR. I also curse you (jokingly) for reminding us that computers are on their way to making us all a Captain Dunsel. 1 1
Trogluddite Posted May 31 Posted May 31 ^^^ Just a quick addendum on why relying on only one database may be a drawback. I'm doing some much needed updating of my data and one of the encounters I was checking was a 1988 BFRO report were a couple driving home late at night had a Bigfoot leap over a barbed wire fence and run through the field. The driver (husband) very clearly states that only he saw the leap and the passenger (his wife) very clearly states that she did not see the Bigfoot leap the fence, but she watched the Bigfoot running through the field. (Which since neither mention a bright moon, how? Her husband was so frightened he didn't even slow down.) Anyway, John Green also had this incident in his database - except that it supposedly happened in a different month and in 1989. And both witnesses said that they saw Bigfoot leap over the barbed wire. And Paul Bartholomew received a letter from this couple and included the encounter in his book, describing it as based on that letter. Again, both witnesses stated that they saw Bigfoot leap over the barbed wire fence - only this letter was from 1984, four years before the claimed encounter as reported to the BFRO.
Silverback Sax Posted Thursday at 01:02 AM Posted Thursday at 01:02 AM Is it possible that the change is related to a shift/evolution in mindset within the organization? As I understand it, all reports are "vetted" by a member then "authorized" before a report gets posted. People can have a huge impact in statistical results.
Trogluddite Posted Thursday at 01:31 AM Posted Thursday at 01:31 AM ^^^ That's a good point. For example, the BFRO used to have a report for Canada (Prince Edward Island) that it listed as likely false (not quite the exact wording, but they clearly indicated that they thought it was not credible). It is no longer among their published reports. We only know about because a former member, Hiflier, contacted John Green and obtained a copy of his database, which included the BFRO report, including a report #.
Doodler Posted Saturday at 08:59 AM Posted Saturday at 08:59 AM Stumbled into this GitHub reference this morning. https://github.com/timothyrenner/bfro_sightings_data Finding it interesting but haven't run the code yet. And interested to know if this would scrape SSR database, though surely it would require refactoring.
socialBigfoot Posted 5 hours ago Author Posted 5 hours ago On 6/28/2025 at 3:59 AM, Doodler said: Stumbled into this GitHub reference this morning. https://github.com/timothyrenner/bfro_sightings_data Finding it interesting but haven't run the code yet. And interested to know if this would scrape SSR database, though surely it would require refactoring. 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. 1
Trogluddite Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago On 5/15/2025 at 10:12 PM, socialBigfoot said: I recently explored BFRO report data and found this trend (chart below) in Class A (good evidence) and Class B (questionable evidence) reports interesting, particularly the primacy of Class B reports after around 2005. Any other observations worth more attention? The decline in Class A & B reports after 2005 to levels last recorded in the 80s is intriguing, too. I would have thought the running of Finding Bigfoot (2011-2018) and then Expedition Bigfoot (2019- ) would correlate with more frequent reports rather than fewer. Emphasis added above. The primacy of Class B (non-sightings, as I understand it) reports may be due to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet reporting every freaking sound, falling branch, and dropping acorn to the BFRO. Thus, the input was deluged with sounds and smells, rather than sightings. It may also be that as Finding Bigfoot progressed over time, they did more harm than good. I.e., people didn't want to report a possible sighting to a group which (unfairly or not) was tarred as seeing a horse in a thermal and saying it might be Bigfoot. Yes, I know that fell on the producers trying to make a buck, but not everyone came to the Bigfoot Forums and learned about how the show's producers were fighting a war with the Bigfoot researchers. 1 hour ago, socialBigfoot said: Looks pretty cool and seems like it would scrape reports up to the current date. The python coding is beyond my capabilities ... 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.... 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] Regardless of the type of interaction between the Bigfoot and the human observer, the question is how credible are the encounters. Most of your Level 0 and Level 1 encounters are insufficient to conclude that a Bigfoot was encountered because the animal making the calls or tree knocks, or throwing stones, or stinking up the forest, or tromping through the forest was not seen, so the possibility exists that there was a bird calling (and the witness is unfamiliar with bird calls and songs), there was a really annoying woodpecker nearby, there were acorns falling and hitting stones, making it look like stones were thrown, or the witness was mishearing what they thought were bipedal footprints. All of that is in addition to witnesses with Bigfoot on the Brain, i.e., every sound in the forest is Bigfoot. If a witness actually saw a Bigfoot (regardless of whether Bigfoot saw the witness) and provides details consistent with the exterior factors of the sightings, then there is a reasonable probability that the witness saw a Bigfoot. As an example of inconsistent details, a witness who was in a fast-moving vehicle on a busy road claimed to see a "Bigfoot" for 5-10 seconds and roughly 100 yards away in a field where the crop created at least some lack of clarity. The witness proudly proclaimed that because she was "interested in Bigfoot" she went into observation mode - in essence, admitting a predisposition to see Bigfoot. Then she provided details that are inconsistent with seeing something 100 yards away (go to your local football field with a friend and stand at either end to see what you can see with a clear line of view and spending minutes, not seconds, of observation. You should include a "Level 0," for hoaxes and probable hoaxes. They are out there. 1 hour ago, socialBigfoot said: 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. I have 183 BFRO reports that I have independently evaluated based on what they put on their website. Of these, I've concluded that 4 are outright hoaxes 33 provide insufficient details to conclude that an encounter actually occurred 21 provide enough details to conclude that the witness may have seen a Bigfoot 4 are more likely than not to have been a Bigfoot encounter Yes, that means that I have to go back and analyze 121 more reports. For any faults they have, at least the BFRO puts in enough details to allow an independent review or analysis of a claimed encounter and for everyone to make their own assessment. Other groups fall far worse in my database. (One group has 6 hoaxes and only 3 encounters where a witness may have seen a Bigfoot out of 30 reports; the vast majority so far fall into the "cool story, bro" category.
socialBigfoot Posted 2 hours ago Author Posted 2 hours ago 56 minutes ago, Trogluddite said: You should include a "Level 0," for hoaxes and probable hoaxes. They are out there. I would create a separate variable to code a report as either a likely hoax or not, so that I could see at what level hoaxes are happening most frequently. There are at least 2 possible forms of hoaxing when it comes to witness reports. One is the witness as the perpetrator of the hoax and the other is the witness as the victim of a hoaxer. For example, did the witness create the fake print, or is the witness playing into the hand of a hoaxer? I suspect this latter scenario is very difficult to confirm. I suppose there's also the "accidental hoaxer" -- that Bigfoot researcher banging on trees, making Bigfoot calls, and scaring the hell out of nearby campers who subsequently submit a report to the BFRO!
Trogluddite Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago ^^ Yeah, I view cases where the witness is the victim as a hoax or an accidental hoaxer as insufficient evidence. It's not the witness's fault (assuming they're not part of the hoax) for reporting something they see. Take the Prince Edward Island video or some 20-inch tracks that occurred in Harrisburg, PA (I think, I'm not looking that up right now) which were an admitted hoax. If an innocent witness stumbled across the filming or the tracks and honestly thought that they had witnessed something bigfoot related, it's not their fault they were hoaxed. I think that research groups undervalue identification of hoaxes (or they do it behind the scenes and don't let on that they do it). When looking at reported encounters in the northeast, you can find patterns in the relationships between probable bona fide encounters. And the relationships between encounters that are likely hoaxed bear indicia of hoaxing, making their patterns distinct from the other patterns.
Recommended Posts