WSA Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Andy: Here you go. Find the counties you're interested in on a map of WA and have at it. Let us know what your conclusions are: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=wa
dmaker Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Dmaker: You've got to go a little deeper than an MSNBC research intern is able to go, and I'm likewise not willing to waste time doing that for them or others. MSNBC doesn't treat this subject any more seriously than some, I will concede that. That is different than saying what they wrote was patently wrong, when it wasn't.
TD-40 Posted September 20, 2013 Author Posted September 20, 2013 By "verification" I mean that the BFRO telephones the reporter and tries to make an assessment to the validity of their claims. That's all you can really do and it's probably more than what other places might do.
BobbyO Posted September 20, 2013 SSR Team Posted September 20, 2013 There's nothing that has jumped out at me where the eruption was concerned with regards to sighting reports after it and I've done some pretty extensive research on sightings in WA including that specific area. However, there is plenty of other very interesting stuff that I'm still going through, including what I believe are patterns of movement or at least specific correlation in increases and decreases of sighting reports in specific core areas at specific times.
1980squatch Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Andy: Here you go. Find the counties you're interested in on a map of WA and have at it. Let us know what your conclusions are: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=wa One thing I want to point out is for many states, the county map displays are very out of date. But the links work properly- you can hit an empty county, and it will correctly pull in the reports when the link hits the database. I'm guessing some of the state maps were laid down about 10 years ago, I don't know about the PNW that is not my area... I asked them about this, they could always build something in Tableau Public Sever or something that would keep the map live all the time, but they have not got back to me on that... On BFRO vetting, from someone who has been through it, a hoaxer would have to be committed to lying over and over, and continue to make stuff up for follow up questions. They would have to identify themselves- real names and emails. So yes, one could get a bogus report up, but it would take some commitment.
JDL Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Beef? Doesn't seem to be any beef. Or even Soylent Green.
BobbyO Posted September 20, 2013 SSR Team Posted September 20, 2013 One thing I want to point out is for many states, the county map displays are very out of date. But the links work properly- you can hit an empty county, and it will correctly pull in the reports when the link hits the database. I'm guessing some of the state maps were laid down about 10 years ago, I don't know about the PNW that is not my area... I asked them about this, they could always build something in Tableau Public Sever or something that would keep the map live all the time, but they have not got back to me on that... On BFRO vetting, from someone who has been through it, a hoaxer would have to be committed to lying over and over, and continue to make stuff up for follow up questions. They would have to identify themselves- real names and emails. So yes, one could get a bogus report up, but it would take some commitment. Do you use tableau a lot 1980 ?
TD-40 Posted September 20, 2013 Author Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) Interesting that the map seems to correspond with the how the human population is disbursed. So I do not think this map is reliable as far as identifying sasquatch population because in those dark areas on the map where there are no confirmed sightings, some of those will be remote areas where a bigfoot family could easily exist but there are not enough people who venture in often enough to have a sighting. The denser the human population, the higher the probability of there being a sighting. The sparser the population the less probability, but perhaps a higher concentration of bigfoot population? Edited September 20, 2013 by TD-40
BobbyO Posted September 20, 2013 SSR Team Posted September 20, 2013 So I do not think this map is reliable as far as identifying sasquatch population because in those dark areas on the map where there are no confirmed sightings, some of those will be remote areas where a bigfoot family could easily exist but there are not enough people who venture in often enough to have a sighting. Yep, see Canada for proof of that..
Guest Rex Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) By "verification" I mean that the BFRO telephones the reporter and tries to make an assessment to the validity of their claims. That's all you can really do and it's probably more than what other places might do. That is common practice by most all report taking sites.. not specific to BFRO. If you go to the PA bigfoot society site for instance, recent sightings, you will see tha they also follow up on reports with investigations. That site is just for PA... there are many more. compare the report numbers to BFRO.. do the same for other states and regions. Other reporting sites research and verify what they can as well. that is not to say ALL do.. it is saying that it is not as uncommon as some would like to believe. Edited September 20, 2013 by Rex
VAfooter Posted September 20, 2013 Admin Posted September 20, 2013 I can think of at least three other sites that follow-up as well (or at least I think they do...).
Guest Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Interesting that the map seems to correspond with the how the human population is disbursed. So I do not think this map is reliable as far as identifying sasquatch population because in those dark areas on the map where there are no confirmed sightings, some of those will be remote areas where a bigfoot family could easily exist but there are not enough people who venture in often enough to have a sighting. The denser the human population, the higher the probability of there being a sighting. The sparser the population the less probability, but perhaps a higher concentration of bigfoot population? There is another map that addresses this issue at the site below. http://www.joshuastevens.net/visualization/squatch-watch-92-years-of-bigfoot-sightings-in-us-and-canada/ I thought the same as you did from looking at the first map, but then after seeing the other one I realized that population wasn't the only factor. However, the dark areas still do not have many sightings and I would agree that doesn't mean there aren't any bigfoot there.
1980squatch Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Do you use tableau a lot 1980 ? I have used it some and have the desktop install for development. You want a beta version of the SSR mapped out? Move this to PM?
Guest Cervelo Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 By "verification" I mean that the BFRO telephones the reporter and tries to make an assessment to the validity of their claims. That's all you can really do and it's probably more than what other places might do. Yep and it goes something like this "they sounded very sincere" okey dokey
HOLDMYBEER Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 How about the graph at the bottom? Whether you think the reports are legit or not, the numbers of reports seem to climb from 1974 to 1978, then decline to 1995, then skyrocket to 2005, then very sharp drop off to now. That doesn't strike me as an indicator of true interactions between populations. What accounts for the big swings in reporting? Media interest? development of the internet? advent of the BFRO? Why the big drop in reporting from 2005 to present?
Recommended Posts