How to mathematically separate the wheat from the chaff

[SWWASAS]

On 12/30/2016 at 3:17 PM, BigTreeWalker said:

In the lower 48, unless you're in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming (especially Yellowstone) your chances of seeing a grizzly (brown bear) are probably lower than seeing an actual sasquatch elsewhere, according to sighting reports.

That is a very good thing.    Grizzly have a nasty demeanor.    When experienced rangers get killed in Montana you are messing with a very dangerous creature. 

[BobbyO]

Looking forward to reading this soon, thank you for sharing Mendoza.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by BobbyO

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 1/3/2017 at 2:04 PM, SWWASAS said:

That is a very good thing.    Grizzly have a nasty demeanor.    When experienced rangers get killed in Montana you are messing with a very dangerous creature. 

I lived in Yellowstone for a summer. You made a prayer to the bears when you went on a hike, nowhere to hide.

It's eerie when coming on your back trail and a fresh print is over yours and fine sand is running down the sides and the locusts making a great noise suddenly go quiet. You start to wonder...

Saw two young moose in the middle of a small pond up to their heads in water to stay out of the kill zone. Thought I was hiking away from the hot spot but found out I was in the bulls eye.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Mendoza]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 2:00 PM, Explorer said:

Mendoza,

 

Thanks for your efforts and applying statistical analysis to Green’s database.

 

Below are some general observations/comments.

 

I don’t quite follow the premises assumed for your conclusions:

 

1)      That correlation to population is suggestive of fabricated reports.

 

2)      That correlation to population density is consistent with the model of receiving a report of an animal.

 

3)      That correlation between black bear population density and report frequency is the expected result if misidentification of black bears is a significant contributor to the Bigfoot phenomenon.

 

 

 

On premise #1, I would imagine that states with higher human population will yield higher number of hoaxes (there is always a % of those).  But, I would also imagine that if BF was a real creature, that states (that contain BF habitat) with higher human populations will also yield higher number of reports.  Thus, I would expect some correlation between frequency of BF reports and human population, and this would not necessarily imply hoax.

 

On premise #2, I also agree with BigTreeWalker, in that human population density should be more granular (maybe by county instead of state) in order to reflect the true low population density of those places in Northern CA, OR, and WA that have higher BF frequency counts.   I am curious if you find the opposite results (once adjusting for human population by county) whereas there is a negative correlation between BF report frequency and high human population density.  That is what I would expect.  For example, I would expect that Del Norte County and Tuolumne County in California will have more BF reports than West Contra Costa County, despite WCC County having higher human population density.

 

On premise #3, I always thought that BF sighting reports will be positively correlated with Black Bear population density because they share the same habitat.  My rule of thumb has been: if there is bear and deer population present, then there is a higher probability of finding BF present.  Thus, a positive correlation between frequency BF sighting reports and black bear density does not suggest or imply misidentification of BF as black bear.

 

I will love to see your work applied to PNW states by county and see what you find.  Instead of differentiating (testing the different hypotheses) by states, you differentiate by counties.  We can still learn much from this effort.  Also, you might be able to check if any BF reports are present in counties that have zero black bear populations (if they exist, I have not checked).  In my mind, if there is no bear habitat present, then the report is more likely to be a hoax. 

 

 

1.  Humans are the only species known to produce hoaxes, and the more humans there are, the more fabricated reports one can expect.  It is not necessary for the human to be any particular place at any particular time in order to fabricate a report; you can submit a fabricated Bigfoot report from the 30th floor of an urban high-rise--and so can the next door neighbor.  The submission of a fabricated report requires only that a human exist to produce the fabrication.  Therefore fabricated reports are expected to be directly proportional to human population.

 

The correlation expected for authentic reports of an animal sighting is a correlation to population density.  Basically, having a sighting requires two things:  a human in the right place at the right time to see the animal, and an animal in the right place at the right time to be seen.  This corresponds to human population density and animal population density, respectively.  The more humans are concentrated in a particular area, the more likely they are to run across the various animals with which they are sharing that area.  For example, suppose you have a 20 square mile area with one deer, and there is only one person in the area.  That person is unlikely to see the deer.  But, suppose you have 20 people in that area.  Spread evenly, that's one person every square mile, and at least one of them is much more likely to see the deer.

 

So, as I said, we can expect a correlation with human population density for authentic animal sighting reports.  This is not the same as the correlation with population for one reason--population density is population divided by area, and the area of each state is different, producing a population density figure that is not necessarily proportional to population alone.  Therefore the correlation we're looking for in order to detect authentic animal encounters is the correlation with human population density, not human population itself.

 

2.  I do intend (eventually) to apply this same method on the county level, which will provide better "resolution.". I do not expect, if Bigfoot reports are the actual product of authentic sightings of animal, that there would be a negative correlation with human population density at the county level any more than at the state level.  The reason is that you still need to have a person in the right place at the right time to see an animal in order for a sighting to occur.  The fewer people concentrated in a particular area, the less chance one of those people will run across the animal.

 

3.  Bigfoot sharing the same habitat as black bears is an assumption I'm not willing to make at this time.  As I mentioned in a previous post, in my analysis I purposely make as few assumptions about the nature and habits of Bigfoot as possible.  Bigfoot might have the same habitat requirements as black bears, but we simply don't know that (or at least I don't know that).

 

To explain why I find misidentification to be the reason for the correlation between Bigfoot sighting reports and black bear population density in Group A, notice that this correlation is not observed in Group A'.  If this was simply a matter of shared habitat, then I would expect to find the same correlation in Group A', as there's no reason Bigfoot and black bears would share habitat in some states and not others.  In fact, it appears that there is little association between the two in the Group A' states, where the correlation with human population density nonetheless implies that there is some animal responsible for the Bigfoot sightings there.  Evidently Bigfoot habitat is just as likely to not overlap with black bear habitat as they are to overlap.  I know this goes against "conventional Bigfoot wisdom" for some researchers, but I submit that this particular bit of conventional wisdom is and always has been little more than an assumption.  Treated as a hypothesis, it can, and in my opinion has, been proven mostly incorrect.

 

Getting back to the main train of thought, if there is no more habitat sharing going on in Group A than there appears to be in Group A', then it follows that the correlation between Bigfoot sighting reports and black bear population density in Group A must have some other cause, and the simplest explanation is that people in these states are frequently misidentifying black bears as Bigfoot and reporting them as such.

[WV FOOTER]

Bigfoots do share the same Habitat as Black Bears.

 

[gigantor]

27 minutes ago, Mendoza said:

 

1.  Humans are the only species known to produce hoaxes, and the more humans there are, the more fabricated reports one can expect.  It is not necessary for the human to be any particular place at any particular time in order to fabricate a report; you can submit a fabricated Bigfoot report from the 30th floor of an urban high-rise--and so can the next door neighbor.

 

This is why the SSR vets reports based on whether the researcher contacted the witness, visited the sighting location, the amount of time passed between the sighting and the report being submitted, the number of witnesses, etc.

 

[TritonTr196]

I can also attest that Bigfoot and black bears share the same areas. Sometimes very closely in some places.

[BigTreeWalker]

I agree with WV FOOTER, bears and bigfoot require the same habitat. It's not faulty or wrong to assume that. Bigfoot have to eat, there are reports of what they eat and it's not wrong to assume they are omnivores just as bears are. So looking at it logically and from a wildlife biology standpoint, bears and bigfoot would have the same habitat requirements. That definitely is the case in the state of Washington. But I guess that supports the argument that all bigfoot are misidentified black bears.

 

As to the affect of population densities by county, I'm sure you will see a difference in the conclusions. For example, King County in WA has a density of 913 people /sq mi., Skamania County has a density of 7/sq mi. According to the SSR, King County has 40 sightings and Skamania 39. In other words almost identical amount of sightings. That will definitely affect the outcome of the calculations. 

 

One other point is in your example of the deer in 20 sq mi. You would get the same results if you had one person and 20 deer. So without knowing bigfoot population densities there is really no way to correctly estimate the frequency of sightings in any given area. Regardless of knowing our population densities. The sightings in counties with lower human population densities would actually support the argument for higher bigfoot densities. Or more hoaxers in those counties, which I think is the opposite of what your numbers are showing. 

[MIB]

Quote

Therefore fabricated reports are expected to be directly proportional to human population.

 

Arguably proportional to the total human population I suppose, but inferring concentrations of hoaxes based on concentration of human population requires an illogical, invalid leap.   Your hypothetical hoaxer on the 30th floor can, with equal ease, fabricate a report from a Chicago suburb, a Florida swamp, or the mountains of Idaho.   All the hoaxer needs is to be well read regarding bigfoot and familiar with the location, possibly via some past vacation they too, but possibly even just via maps and photographs.   

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

8 hours ago, TritonTr196 said:

I can also attest that Bigfoot and black bears share the same areas. Sometimes very closely in some places.

While I would agree as a generality, when my first research area was active, and when I started seeing frequent BF footprints, I stopped finding bear footprints.   Could have been a coincidence but just guessing I think BF scares black bear out of an area.  Makes me wonder if black bear are BF prey too.   

[BigTreeWalker]

I have found evidence of both bears and bigfoot in all the areas I have been doing research in. Can't say that's how it is everywhere, but that's how it is in Washington. Also, I can't say how well they coexist but they do use the same habitat. 

[norseman]

10 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

While I would agree as a generality, when my first research area was active, and when I started seeing frequent BF footprints, I stopped finding bear footprints.   Could have been a coincidence but just guessing I think BF scares black bear out of an area.  Makes me wonder if black bear are BF prey too.   

 

Not occupying the same space at the same time is not the same thing as not sharing the same habitat. 

 

They both seek out wet, lush, canopy forests to varying degrees. And I would argue that this is true every where and not just states A vs states b.

[Mendoza]

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 11:14 PM, norseman said:

 

Idaho, Alberta, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Ontario, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota, Saskatchewan, Missouri, and Arizona are very interesting.  Hoaxing here is only present at the same rate as in the remainder of North America.  Misidentification of black bears does not contribute significantly to Bigfoot sighting reports in these states.  Nearly all non-hoaxed reports here are likely due to an uncataloged species.

---------------------------------

 

Why does Mis ID of black bears not contribute greatly in Idaho or Colorado vs. Washington or Montana?

 

That does not make any sense.

 

Good question.

 

My best guess at the moment:  Maybe it's something to do with the expectation of seeing Bigfoot in some states but not so much in others.  It's been broadcast in various media for a few decades now that Bigfoot's range is concentrated in the Pacific Northwest.  So that's where people who haven't delved deeply into the subject (i.e., most people) would most expect to see Bigfoot.  Perhaps a person catching a glimpse of a large, hairy, and (at least momentarily) bipedal creature--a description that fits the black bear as well as Bigfoot--is more likely to believe that what they saw was Bigfoot and not merely a bear when the location is in one of the Pacific Northwest states, as opposed to the Group A' states where perhaps it's less likely that this notion would occur to them.

 

This would involve some function of the term p_e in Glickman's equation.  It's one of the less well-understood terms in the equation.  I may be able to look into this term more in the future, which would help me to test the hypothesis that expectation of seeing Bigfoot in certain states makes black bear misidentification more likely in those states.

[TritonTr196]

I'm specifically speaking of Tennessee and Georgia Bigfoot and bears. I seriously doubt geography matters when Bigfoot overlaps territories with bears of any type.

[JustCurious]

I don't think comparing population density to bigfoot sightings can really be a solid measure.  You have too many sightings by people who are not local to a geographic area (tourists, hunters, etc.) and unless you know the identity of the sightee, you could have one person with multiple reports skewing results at the county level.  Consider  Wyoming - the state population is about 584,000, but Yellowstone gets 4 million visitors a year.  Other examples are Wisconsin Dells, which has a native population of about 5000, but gets 4 million visitors a year.  How do you factor in those influxes?

 

In my opinion, you have to pick something more static to make comparisons.  Land area to sightings reports would be static, but doesn't take into account whether there are witnesses present to make a sighting.  A tough one with no solid answer.