Estimation: The Total # Of Credible Sightings, Reported, And Un-Reported

[VAfooter]

WAG = Wild A_ _ Guess?

Correct.

The BFRO has around 3500 public reports on the database. If one supposes that the 3500 only represent about half of the reports they consider to be legit (the rest being areas actively investigated or the witness did not want it published), that comes out to be about 7000 reports, or 17.5% of the 40000 or so reports they have on record. Using the 1 in 10 gets reported rule of thumb, that comes out to be 70000 reports. Obviously, other guesses gives different numbers, 1 in 5 equals 35000, and 1 in 20 equals 140000. And remember that the bulk of the BFRO reports start in the 50/60s. As settlers moved away from the towns and cities in the 1700's out into the rural areas, there is no reason to think that they did not come across BF on occasion. Thing is, they had nowhere to report it and were too busy with day to day survival to do much investigation. I figure there are tons of incidents 1700-1899 that occurred, but never mentioned to anyone but perhaps close family or a friend or two. Back then, I think they still faced scorn and ridicule like we do today. A few newspaper reports survive, but I wonder how many reports the editor decided not to publish?

Edited July 1, 2012 by VAfooter

[Guest SquatchinNY]

I have been studying John Green's database; over 50 years of collecting data on sightings, etc.

of sasquatch. As of now I have 3485 records for the USA and 502 for Canada.

Does anyone know if BFRO has any/many from Canada? Or any other group, Canadian or otherwise?

I think I can get down to a sort by visual/non-visual based on detail in the record.

I do not find it significant that he never personally had a sighting

(that we know of). He was always getting to the fire after the lightning started it.

BFRO has 275 for Canada, as of June 12, 2012

What is John Green's database?

Edited July 1, 2012 by SquatchinNY

[bipedalist]

http://bigfootforums...post__p__578094

You know John Green, one of the four horsemen of Bigfootery, just had an 80th birthday or so? Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us author, a classic read BTW. Researched for decades with sightings placed on index cards and then transcribed to an ms-dos database online.

Edited July 1, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest SquatchinNY]

Never mind

Edited July 1, 2012 by SquatchinNY

[Guest]

I know of at least 3 sightings in eastern Washington that have never been reported. I think there is a bigger population over here on the dry side of the state then what is reported.

[Guest COGrizzly]

6 people have told their stories to me. 3 of them were very credible and the other 3 were decent. I believe they saw something they could not identify. 2 were scared.

None of the 6 had heard of the BFRO, the PGF or the BFF.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I think the number of sighting reports is the "tip of the iceberg" of total sightings. Many sightings aren't even recognized as BF. Some witnesses try to squeeze what they perceived into a preexisting species, like on hunting forums when a hunter might describe watching a "bear" come and carry off his deer kill with his front paws... walking away on two legs.... ??? Or the hiker posting a trip report on a hiking web site and describing a massive bear standing on two feet on the trail, freaking out his companions, and stalking them on the way back down the trail...

These people obviously didn't have "bigfoot on the mind" or probably didn't even think about it as a possibility, so the mind simply connects the dots to the easiest possible explanation.... "... it had to be a bear, right!?"

Today, with bigfoot all over television, there is a greater chance that these sort of misperceptions will be reduced. When bigfoot is recognized as a species I'm sure that media coverage will increase, and that will also help bring some of these people back to their own memories and will help new witnesses to clearly see what they are looking at without trying to bend their perception to make it fit "bear" or "cow" or something else.

[Guest UPs]

Chelefoot....yes, that's what I meant.

Also, the fear of being ridiculed has to have an affect on the number of witnesses that have come forward to document their sightings. Those who perpetuate this type of behavior are doing nothing but slowing the process of discovery, IMO. I think we all have read and heard the snide remarks from those who should know better or are just ignorant of the subject and if that type of response becomes less acceptable, the number of reports may increase proportionately. Notice on other forums that discuss fishing and hunting, most people tip-toe around the subject. UPs

[Guest UPs]

There is a link (media section) to an older book called 'Bigfoot on the East Coast' by author Rick Berry. The copyright was 1993.

The author lists all of the reports he was able to find in the 15 eastern states and breaks them down state by state. The total number of sightings is 1050, but he only described 914 of these in this book because of space requirements. The most interesting thing to me in addition to the sheer number of reports was the number within a few specific states. Florida had 144, Maryland had 232, Vermont had 99, and Pennsylvania had 350. So just along the east coast, up until 1993, there were a total of over 1000 sightings. When I get some time, I will take a few of these and compare them to the BFRO database and see if they have been included. UPs

[Guest]

Here is an example of a John Green Record.

Compare it to a BFRO Record see if you agree - we should have records like this in our own BFF SSR database.

And to honor the content of this thread - the breakout of John Green database by State and Province.

John Green Record.rtf

JG_State_Province.rtf

[Guest BFSleuth]

rhellis, have you reviewed the work gigantor and the others are doing with our BFF database?

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/31463-ssrdb-introduction-video/

You will notice if you looking at the Sighting Reports forum that many of the older BFRO sighting reports have coding going on right now, entering the BFRO database into ours. We will also be incorporating many other databases and sighting reports from forum members in our Sightings forums. I think when this is completed this will become a very valuable tool for any researcher, to have a searchable database with links back to original witness reports.

We are encouraging forum members to post their own sighting reports here. One really cool thing about this is that we have a chance to ask questions and have conversations with witnesses to learn more about their experiences.

[Guest]

BFS - I have been involved in the SSR database project since its inception; classifying BFRO reports, doing file cleanup and statistics

for the project - See Prem Section; Statistics

What I am trying to do now, since JG let his database go to any and all, is redefine and reformat his records so the entire 4000 records can be assimilated into the SSR database.

IMO, what JG tried to do is a better effort than BFRO has tried to do, both in terms of descriptive detail and comprehensiveness. Ignoring the

unlogged reports and the unreleased ones, I think we are on the verge a database that can be used to address questions of population concentrations, movements and general sasquatch history. It should be a great ride.

Thanks for your work as mod and for sharing you extensive knowledeg of the sasquatch field.

[Guest BFSleuth]

rhellis, a very hearty thanks and appreciation for ALL involved in the work on our database!

I agree that as this project moves forward it would be good to modify the fields of the database to be able to fully incorporate what JG has done.

Thanks for your work as mod and for sharing you extensive knowledeg of the sasquatch field.

I'll gladly accept thanks as a Mod. However, I'll defer my "extensive knowledge" claim to those that are much more personally involved with field research. I've learned a lot since joining this forum, in open discussion and PM communication with witnesses and researchers. Without adequate time and resources to conduct my own field research as I would like, I instead rely on trying to pull together witnesses and researchers that have like knowledge to help boost their efforts.

[salubrious]

100,000 credible sighting and not one shread of evidence.

There's plenty of *evidence*. But a skeptic is essentially, IMO, unwilling to accept evidence other than a body that they can touch and feel. I suspect many would still then deny the reality of it.

Also, the fear of being ridiculed has to have an affect on the number of witnesses that have come forward to document their sightings.

That stopped me for nearly 20 years. I only started telling people that I knew fairly well in the last 3-4 years...

[Guest]

There's plenty of *evidence*. But a skeptic is essentially, IMO, unwilling to accept evidence other than a body that they can touch and feel. I suspect many would still then deny the reality of it.

I'm not sure why, but I have seen this repeated many times here at the BFF. Are you suggesting that once a body is brought in, poked and prodded and dissected, with a million tests done by the 1000s of scientists that would jump at the opportunity to do so...That even then, after it was declared to be a yet to be discovered hominid, skeptics would declare this to not be true?