Sunflower Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 My first encounter was in 1974 or 75, and I had NO CLUE that something big and hairy was in the woods across the road. Things seemed to peak in 1978 when my siblings were way more adventurous and they had a lot more time for such things. I was working, caring for my family and just worn out by the time midnight came.
hiflier Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 (edited) Hello All, Even though the spikes in sightings do not appear to be at regular intervals it could still be significant. One idea might revolve around generational migrations when juveniles mature enough to wander off to find their own territories in which to breed. One aspect that the map doesn't show is whether or not the spikes are regional which make be a stronger indication of young that have grown up and are leaving the nest. One wouldn't think that across the U.S. the BF generations are all on the same time frame unlike perhaps bears. Edited September 22, 2013 by hiflier
HOLDMYBEER Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 I think you are right in that they wouldn't be on the same generational wave. As a population that is alleged to have been in North America for thousands of years you'd think different families or clans would be at a variety of stages. It reminds me of the nuances in crime reporting across the US..... criminal behavior stays pretty consistent but a change in the mechanics of reporting or classification causes people to think things are different. Or...maybe its just a testament to media influence.
Guest Posted September 24, 2013 Posted September 24, 2013 (edited) Decent res version... http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/SquatchWatch92YearsofBigfootSightingsintheUSandCanada_523b7482cc497.png The Bigfoot or Big Population map is the MOST interesting, we've seen various bare sighting plots over the years. I'm seeming to see linear features on that, but I'm thinking they are ranges of hills or mountains. In fact it looks pretty much like the Sas don't like the flat stuff much. Edited September 24, 2013 by Flashman2.0
norseman Posted September 25, 2013 Admin Posted September 25, 2013 Yep and it goes something like this "they sounded very sincere" okey dokey Well, we could all start kicking into the kitty for a polygraph test? http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/08/justin-smejas-official-polygraph.html
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 So what is different about this map, and the maps the BFRO themselves have created from their data? All maps that contain the same data points look like this, more or less. Did this guy not realize that this has been done multiple times in the past? In fact, the BFRO have a very nifty map that places little sasquatch icons over a Google map, which can be switched between satellite view, regular map view, and terrain view, I think. It is quite useful.
Sunflower Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 But the new map is pretty in purple LOL..... Mangani had a very good map I seem to remember so does the new map have any better features???? When I clicked on the link on the previous page my Trend Micro blocked it as a "dangerous page" so I can't see it.
BobbyO Posted September 25, 2013 SSR Team Posted September 25, 2013 Mangani all day every day for me..
Trogluddite Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 Omnibus response .... I started focusing on BFRO reports because they are usually the most detailed. While there are many sights to glean data from (I've also mapped sightings reported on PaBS, Pa Research Organization, Bigfoot Encounters, and this sight), many of them are maddeningly vague as to details - e.g., while hiking north of State Game lands #217 by the red maple tree. It's difficult and time consuming to convert reports to a location on a map with that level of inexactitude. If these different groups have secret databases of lat/long/time/etc., they aren't sharing outside of their group. Interestingly, I've noticed that more recent BFRO reports include "location information withheld by request" and then their map overlay affirmatively misplaces the sighting location (having confirmed same w/a witness). Shameless self-promotion - if anyone in WVa, PA, or NY wants their sighting mapped, shoot me the details.
georgerm Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 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? Nice observation. Possible reasons: Bigfoot is being hunted more and remains hidden. Reporting standards have changed. So many 'Butchy Kid' type hoaxers on youtube have changed public perception of BF. Recession related and fewer people are going to parks and camping out. What do you think?
BobbyO Posted September 26, 2013 SSR Team Posted September 26, 2013 Interestingly, I've noticed that more recent BFRO reports include "location information withheld by request" and then their map overlay affirmatively misplaces the sighting location (having confirmed same w/a witness). You can't do anything about those Trog in truth. Where the long/lat is concerned however, it doesn't pay to be lazy. I've sometimes spent a long time on single reports looking for precise long/lat locations of a sightings before and have found them sometimes with the information provided. Other times I haven't and I believe if you're looking at long/lat as part of your research, you sometimes have to concede defeat and move on if you can't pinpoint somewhere within an approximate area that you're happy with. Adding incorrect long/lat info is worse than adding nothing at all in my opinion, again, especially if you're relying on long/lat info in whatever research you're doing.
Guest Cervelo Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 Well, we could all start kicking into the kitty for a polygraph test? http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/08/justin-smejas-official-polygraph.html Not me LOL feel free to waste your money however you see fit
Trogluddite Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 Where the long/lat is concerned however, it doesn't pay to be lazy. I've sometimes spent a long time on single reports looking for precise long/lat locations of a sightings before and have found them sometimes with the information provided. Other times I haven't and I believe if you're looking at long/lat as part of your research, you sometimes have to concede defeat and move on if you can't pinpoint somewhere within an approximate area that you're happy with. Adding incorrect long/lat info is worse than adding nothing at all in my opinion, again, especially if you're relying on long/lat info in whatever research you're doing. Well, you've seen (or have access to) some of the results. I agree w/your first point & do the same as far as parsing reports. With patience, the Google Earth search engine, the older Google Earth imagery, and attention to detail, I feel confident that I'm pinning many sighting reports as close as one can w/out having the witness take me there and using a plugger to get the lat/long. Since I am looking at sightings broadly (over decades/over an entire region) I'll use the county center-of-mass if it is absolutely the only way; to date, I'd say I've done that maybe a dozen times and almost always with historical (pre-1970s) reports. Thanks again w/your assist on the Mangini (sp?) maps - nothing greater to place my pin, then turn on his map and see that I've hit the same location dead on.
Recommended Posts