Analytical Research - Sightings Database

[hiflier]

That's the way to think about things, GZ. It's all about the details. I could generate a file that shows whistles. I wouldn't think all Sasquatches naturally whistle. Even with Humans whistling is taught to the young. Makes me wonder how many Humans wouldn'y even think of whistling unless they either saw/heard someone do it or were taught by their parents or friends at some point. A sasquatch group that never heard or were taught to whistle may not develop the ability even with all the birds present in their habitat.

[BigTreeWalker]

We had an interesting experience with whistling in the area we research. My research partner was in the area one evening and heard whistling. Recorded it as well. It sounded very human but there wasn't any tune to it. He verified that no one else was in the area at the time. The interesting thing is we went into the area a couple months later and we heard whistling, tuneless but almost identical to before. We knew that someone was in there then because their car was parked near ours. The interesting thing is we passed a woman on her way out and she was whistling very tunless. I mentioned to Chris who had heard and recorded the previous whistling that we should have asked her if she goes in there often and if she gets any answers to her whistling. I kick myself that we didn't ask. Anyway this goes along with the thought of learned behavior. Because it sure sounded like whatever was whistling was mimicking what the woman was doing. 

[guyzonthropus]

Wasn't it in one of the Christopher Noel books where the one lady and then her neighbours heard one whistling that one whistled tune from one of the Kill Bill movies, as it had apparently heard her do, then imitated her? it's that kinda thing I'd love to experience and engage in! Amongst other stuff these guys do....

[JDL]

I think that the urban reports, if credible, are likely transient exploratory activity.  Fact is that most urban waterways have sufficient cover for one of them to move about along the waterway in the dark.  These waterways likely also have any number of places that they can hole up during the day, from dry culverts to a bank of brush.  They are also below road level, offering an encroaching bigfoot plenty of cover from passersby.

[MIB]

Right!    The way it's been stated, the assumption is that a valid report requires a population to live right there where the report came from.   Faulty logic.   Doesn't apply to us, doesn't apply to them.   For travel, viable long term habitat is not needed, cover is enough, and sometimes they choose to bypass even that.

 

MIB

Edited December 23, 2016 by MIB

[Mendoza]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 9:31 PM, hiflier said:

In a lot of cases there is a seeming lack of the kind of details that were present in earlier reports. Also earlier reports were less likely to come in as "anonymous. The UFO crowd is rife with that sort of thing. Something is going on and I'll be danged if I can figure it out other than my gut says a lot of it simply is fabricated. By whom and for what purpose is unknown to me beyond maintaining a platform for bringing in money. I try not to become jaded over the matter and whil I think there are truthful reports of both aerial phenomenon and Bigfoot the high number of reports of each I find quite suspect. IDK, maybe I am jaded but IMHO there's just too much coming in on both fronts.

 

It is curious that there is an almost identical pattern that is being used by both paranormal groups that not only contain a lot of anonymous report sources but also a level of proprietary ownership of that data wuich shuts out the public beyond reading one report at a time. The public never gets to see everything but instead are kept in the dark as "carrots" are carefully dispersed that show little or nothing in the way of truth. And I do not see any changes in the future on these practices. Its the practices themselves that keep everyone on the hook so to speak. And those manipulations have meant billions to the two collective paranormal subjects. The old reports that I do trust because there are real  names at the source however are getting further back in years. Soon there will be no vetting possible at all.

 

I could sit at my computer and through proxy servers generate one Bigfoot repoty after another that was nothing but an utter lie, send them off as anonymous with a few blurry videos and they would go viral with no one the wiser until too late. And then there are those within our ranks that people have looked up to that have lied and gotten caught at it.There has to be a better way to gain a foothold on at least the Sasquatch stuff. Perhaps an all out search for a dead one by everyone who give a **** this coming Spring? The data for that is slowly getting organized and even though that data isn't geographically point specific it's better than nothing. Just my two rock lobbed into the camp here. Something has got to start making some sense real soon.  

 

This is the elephant in the room that makes analysis of Bigfoot sighting report databases so challenging.  You can never be certain which reports were honestly submitted and which are deliberate fabrications.  If some of the reports you're working with are fabricated, a pattern you see in the data may be due entirely to those fabrications, and may not actually exist in reality.  Simplistic analysis strategies such as plotting all of the reports from a database on a map, or finding out when the most sightings are reported, will produce doubtful results for this reason alone.  Similarly, I am inclined to discount observations to the effect of, "There are many reports of characteristic X" or "Lots of reports of behavior Y."  What if the "many reports" being cited in such cases are fabrications?

 

Attempts to filter out individual hoaxes, report by report, depend almost inevitably on recognized or unrecognized assumptions made by the researcher.  You have just as much chance of introducing systematic errors due to your assumptions as you have of actually filtering out any hoaxes.

 

So we are left with major limitations on what we can actually learn from the data.  Essentially, our problem is this:  Find real patterns, trends, and correlations in a large dataset that is polluted to an unknown degree by false data, without being able to actually identify and filter out any false data.  The bottom line requirement is that the analysis produce valid results regardless of the accuracy of the data used in the analysis.

 

Clearly researchers need to start getting creative with analysis methodologies.  I suggest that Glickman's analysis of an earlier publication of the Green database was a good first step and an example of what can really be inferred from the data.

[hiflier]

Yes, researchers do need to do that and it happens when details are studied along with incident reports that come from direct interviews or where there is a name, contact information and corroborating witnesses. Too many reports have little or none of that and when anonymous sources are stated then IMHO it only muddies the waters. cutting out anonymous sources entirely will of course cut down on the number of reports but what is left after the culling could result in the clearest picture we could have.

[BobbyO]

On 12/22/2016 at 9:39 PM, guyzonthropus said:

Hey Bobby O, are there any regional patterns to pebble/rock tossing to be found in the database?

 

Another path of inquiry revolves around regional diversity or specificity of vocalizations. Are there any data trends that might indicate linguistic groups or populations existing that are distinct from their "neighbours"?

 

I realize such might be due merely to variances of what's been heard or reported within a given area rather than the result of what's actually occurring or differentiation of populations, but it might prove interesting should a pattern be discovered. Maybe only one form utilizes the samurai chatter, and by charting the reported instances of it, it's distribution and range might be better discerned.  Just a thought...Thanks!

 

Nothing that jumps off the map Guy where the "throwing of objects" is concerned.

 

Moon Phases are spread, Day/Night split by % 35/65, geography spread..

 

With regards to the vocalizations, maybe you could look up a guy called David Ellis, with The Olympic Project, he may be able to help you out there and goes under the name of "Galahad" on here i believe although i'm not sure if he really checks in that much here any more.

 

 

On 12/23/2016 at 9:38 PM, hiflier said:

Yes, researchers do need to do that and it happens when details are studied along with incident reports that come from direct interviews or where there is a name, contact information and corroborating witnesses. Too many reports have little or none of that and when anonymous sources are stated then IMHO it only muddies the waters. cutting out anonymous sources entirely will of course cut down on the number of reports but what is left after the culling could result in the clearest picture we could have.

 

That's what we do with ours huh, we "aren't allowed" to add reports that come in to us first hand without being investigated or vetted in some way and we don't.

 

Whether i/you/anyone agree with the BFRO and what they do or not, those reports that make it in that database at least have a form of vetting which is consistent and consists of various "finding hoaxers" systems, even if only the basics.

 

We have to assume that other sources where we obtain reports from too have their own vetting process also, although of course we have no control over that.. 

 

This is an incredibly tough subject where data submission and analysis is concerned as we know NOTHING about the habits, whereabouts or anything regarding the subject.

 

Heck let's be real, this subject doesn't even exist in the minds of 99.9999% of people.

 

 

[hiflier]

Yes, it certainly IS tough. Vetting isn't something I could even begin to perform.

 

37 minutes ago, BobbyO said:

Heck let's be real, this subject doesn't even exist in the minds of 99.9999% of people.

 

 

Heh, ain't it the truth.

[hiflier]

GZ, it's like some of the things I've been asking myself about as well. I've had threads on nose shape. face shape, whistling, and other what I thought might be distinguishing characteristics. Nothing really jumped out except for one thing way back when I was researching nose shape. While different noses seemed to be non-geographical I did see a preliminary thing where groups that were witnessed and nose shape was indicated there didn't appear to be a mix of nose shapes in a group. I found that curious. It almost says that different nose shapes don't intermingle but there simply wasn't enough in the data to truly make that call.

 

I also thought that Human or small noses might be more of a female attribute in spite of that hottie,  Patty. I was not seemingly correct in that assumption. Female in the data has the greater percentage of large flat noses with males reported with the greater percentage of small or Human-like noses. Go figure..

Edited January 4, 2017 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

Arizona 92 Reports so far.

72% of all Reports from the hours of darkness.
71% of all Reports from the hours of darkness on nights when the moon isn't visible.
79% of all Summer reports from the turn of the century have been from Coconino County, prior to that it was 25%.

In the month of August in each and every one of the last 10 years, all 9 reports from the state of #Arizona have come from Coconino County.

 

From the 42 Reports we have from Missouri in the last 10 years, 43% (18) have been in the Fall, with 92% coming in the hours of darkness and 83% of those night reports coming at times of the night when the Moon isn't visible.

 

 

[hiflier]

Interesting BobbyO. Question then, other than artificial lighting can there be a breakdown on the night time sightings where there is a Class A vs. a Class B event? I'm curious since our own night vision isn't that good and with little or no moonlight a Class A report is a bit of a curiosity of sorts..

Edited January 4, 2017 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

Artificial lighting would play a huge part in this though aye where the Class A's were concerned, Cars, and we already know that reports when the witnesses are driving are crazy high.

 

 

 

For example, i just looked at 6 reports from MO, in hours of darkness, with no moon.

 

All six were from witnesses driving.

[hiflier]

Now that makes sense. You and other members know as well as I do that these questions, even though not fully formed in our minds, are the sources of the flags that go up when we look at gross amounts of data. I still think a team of people doing nothing but analyzing what we have would go far in fine tuning a general picture we already pretty much know. The smoking gun would be the discovery of a body of course but the next best smoking gun is in the data. That is where I think the answer to finding that body lies. A team of detail analysts might be the next step that is at least within our power to have.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

I 100% agree at least to the extent that like so many of the objectives where data analysis is concerned, it would at least give us a better chance.