Forget about a body...what about one decent pic?

[guyzonthropus]

Cotter- sorry my spell checker renamed you as "coffee" in my previous post!

[Trogluddite]

22 hours ago, Martin said:

Maybe one of our SSR Project members could give us a breakdown of visual sightings by duration.

     This is easier said than done for a variety of reasons, one of which is that not all organizations are as good as the BFRO in eliciting and reporting factual data involved in an encounter.  Every state has a Uniform Traffic Accident Report used to record data about traffic accidents; none have a Uniform Bigfoot Encounter Report. 

 

     That being said, after a while and several refinements, I break out the duration of encounters into four categories:

1)  Less than 30 seconds

2)  30 seconds to 1 minute

3)  Greater than 1 minute

4)  Greater than 5 minutes

 

     Not everyone - make that almost no one - who reports an encounter says "I started my stopwatch when I saw the bigfoot, and stopped it when I no longer saw the bigfoot, and my encounter lasted X minutes, Y seconds."  So I make the best determination that I can based on the information available. 

 

      At this point in time, I have 1035 encounters, of which 777 involve actual sightings.

 

  95 (12.25%) lasted more than 5 minutes 

192 (25%) lasted between 1-5 minutes

312 (40%) lasted between 30 seconds and 1 minute

155 (20%) lasted less than 30 seconds

 

 

Edited to add:

Guyzonthropus - you mean I reread the whole thread twice trying to figure out how coffee would assist us in getting better pictures???

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Trogluddite

[Redbone]

18 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

So I just did a quick search of the SSR using the same criteria that I used to get overall numbers for the northeast from my proprietary database.  (It's really just a regular old, run-of-the-mill MS Access database, but it's kind of fun, in a warped way, to call it "proprietary...") 

 

Since 1 January 1977, Washington has 401 encounters. Oregon has 45 (I'm guessing this is due to lack of data input, not lack of encounters). British Colombia has 25 (again - sounds like lack of data).  So that's 471 encounters in 40 years over 170,000 square miles (more or less, and who knew that Oregon was bigger than Washington?) or 1/month in an area equal in size to the northeast US and less densely populated.  

Oregon by my last count was missing 164 BFRO entries.

BC is missing 86 (I think). I have no way at this point knowing how many of those were before or after 1977.

[Trogluddite]

^^

Wow, I would have thought it would have been a lot more.  That's putting the Pac Northwest behind the northeastern US.  Go figure. 

[Guest Starling]

8 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

^^

Wow, I would have thought it would have been a lot more.  That's putting the Pac Northwest behind the northeastern US.  Go figure. 

 

Yeah, I'm really surprised at this, too. I also thought the figure would be running into at least many thousands overall but I guess even going with 100 percent genuine encounters the number of sightings is still far too tiny to prove significant.

 

Quote

Ioyza:  I'd put a pretty huge majority of published reports as likely genuine (>95%), and even with that factor about as high as possible, the odds of any given sighting leading to a clear photo or video are still going to be vanishingly small.

 

Agreed. My overestimate of sightings has rather killed this duck in the water. Back to the drawing board then

 

 

 

Quote

Ohhh you wanted a clear dashcam video

 

I can't argue with some of tsighting stats laid down here but the whole point I was making is that the amount of unambiguous pics or footage to date stands at precisely 0%. The same figure that applies to actual bigfoot. And until either stat changes bigfoot is just fun folklore as far as I can see. And I have 20/20 vision - clear as crystal

 

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Starling

[wiiawiwb]

I think technology has worked against people getting a clear picture. Everyone I know who goes into the woods carries a smartphone. The latest and greatest. As was illuminated by Cotter, there are a significant number of steps to be taken before they can "get off a shot". Nobody I know has a continuously running camera. Even if they did the camera has no idea whether you are trying to get a clear picture of a Sasquatch peeking out from behind a tree, the tree 10' in front of it, or the branch hanging down 10' in front of the first tree.

 

Today's digital technology is such that very few people carry SLRs with a manual focus. The chance of their auto-focus camera zeroing in on a sasquatch, with layers of objects between the camera and it, is very slim.

[Twist]

As noted before, newer cell phones, such as my IPhone 6 lets me go to camera mode even with it locked with a slide of the finger and one button.  That being said anything say over 25 yards is likely to not be extremely  clear if the pic is taken in haste.  At least in my experience.

 

I'm still baffled though that we cannot get solid video or photographic evidence.  I have to believe that anyone out photographing nature, birds, landscape, etc would jump at the chance to snap a pic of BF.  This not happening as of yet is baffling.  I hope it does happen sooner than later.  It's not going to equate proof scientifically but a good pic will surely satisfy my personal curiosity.  

[ioyza]

I think it's really not surprising if you've spent any amount of time out in the woods with them surrounding and watching you - they simply are actually that good at not being seen. And there's always still Patty.

 

It will happen again, but it doesn't make sense to think about it in terms of odds. Patty, and whatever the "next Patty" will be, are Black Swans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

[Incorrigible1]

If a "researcher" fails to carry a simple dslr camera into the woods, that tells you they're not truly a "researcher."

[norseman]

Here is my camera......say cheese.

[hiflier]

I would no more say 'cheese' to that...........um, camera.............than a Sasquatch would LOL. But if it'll make you happy then....CHEEEEEZE!

Edited July 26, 2017 by hiflier

[ioyza]

Norse, you should spend a season without your "camera" and see if your luck encountering sasquatch activity improves. For science. Just for a season, just to see.

 

What would you conclude if your luck improved dramatically?

[norseman]

I lived in the forest as a child, mostly without a rifle until older.

 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/colville

[ioyza]

But what came first - your interest in bigfoot, or your interest in hunting? And besides, your childhood experiences weren't part of an experiment.

[hiflier]

I would have to say, if reports are to be thought valid, that there are many in which the witness was carrying a gun/rifle and actively hunting- even though not directly hunting a Sasquatch. One report has two young men being ushered/escorted/chased out of the woods who had guns. One of those young men even turned and fired on the creature but it kept up its pursuit. If guns have become the issue then disguise them though that methodology hasn't seemed to work on something as innocuous as a game cam?