Best Circumstantial Evidence

[Backdoc]

23 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

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?"

 

I agree with you on this. 
 

To me Bigfoot is near extinction which explains a lot.  

[Trogluddite]

^^^

Well, that made me curious. While statistics often don't tell the whole picture, here's some data for the northeast US and eastern Canada (generally east of the St. Lawrence).

 

* The number of possible encounters reported before the P-G film is likely low due to both a lack of human witnesses and a lack of places where a report could be made without the human being locked up as a lunatic.

 

* The higher levels in the 70s, 80s, and 90s would have been driven primarily by "big" encounter reports (the P-G film, Fouke monster, etc.).

 

* The really big spike in the 2000s is due to?  Not 

 

[MIB]

Can you dig into the 2000s more specifically?     I'm curious whether the increase came before or after Mysterious Encounters.   It may have prompted an increase in reporting / knowledge of where to report in a manner similar to Finding Bigfoot.