Bigfoot range and population speculation thread.

[SWWASAS]

If a bear or BF is down on all 4s then it could be difficult to differentiate the two with visual restrictions or seeing either from the rear.  Most sighting reports go as MIB mentions.      The observer sees something,  assumes it is a bear, until the bear gets up and strides off like a human on two legs and unlike a bear.    Human recognition is pretty well researched.     We see an animal, our brains flip through all of our mental images of what we have seen in life and in pictures, comparing the image of what we are seeing with our eyes with our mental experience and memories, then pick the most likely thing we are seeing from our memory banks.     It is the the human fight or flight mental process at work.   Most North Americans have either seen a bear someplace or at least seen pictures of bears.  When the bear does something very non-bear like,   our brains are initially confused, then reevaluate what we are likely seeing.   Some of us might see Patty,  and the skeptics among us would see a dude in a costume until something clues them that could not be a costume.   A 9 foot male BF would be one such a clue.    .  

[Trogluddite]

12 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

.... Anyone who has spent a modicum of time in the woods would never misidentify a black bear for a sasquatch. .....

 

As some encounters are described by the witness, it is impossible for the encounter to be a bad ID.  If a critter it 10 feet from you in broad daylight and you're an experienced hunter (unfortunately hunting quail at the time), you're not mistaking a bear for a sasquatch.  Thus the only two credible options are: a) a complete fabrication, or b) the person encountered a sasquatch.  

 

11 hours ago, Explorer said:

Nonetheless, GIGO is true in all database analysis regardless on whether the database include true BF reports because we want to ensure quality and reliability of the data.

 

Garbage in is the bane of doing analytical research - and for any faults the organization may have, the BFRO's reports consistently have the most detail as reported, first hand, by the witness.   Few books or other groups come anywhere close.

[MIB]

It's not as bad as GIGO.   Unless you're targeted by a single individual or group deliberately presenting a specific kind of consistent inaccuracy in large quantities, it is not difficult to "scrub" the data, remove the gross outliers, and wind up with something that may not be absolutely perfect but is good enough to provide accurate answers anyway.   People insisting on pristine and perfect miss an important point: nature itself is neither pristine nor perfect.   As long as you've got a bell curve and data enough for statistical significance you're in the sweet spot.

 

MIB

 

[wiiawiwb]

23 hours ago, Explorer said:

 

wiiawiwb, you must be referring to the authors of the paper and not to me, since I disagreed with their suggestion that black bears were misidentified as BF per my comment below.

 

"It is the easy and non-controversial answer when crunching numbers from a database that is de-linked from the human stories and details that would have rejected the black bear."

 

Nonetheless, GIGO is true in all database analysis regardless on whether the database include true BF reports because we want to ensure quality and reliability of the data.

 

Explorer, the flavor I got from your post was that you agreed with it. My apology if that was not your conclusion. 

 

I hear this black bear misidentification thrown out there and in my opinion it is only possible if we're dealing in a very limited area visited largely by city dwellers.  Those who consider a park off an interstate to be the wilderness.

[Twist]

Got to second what SWWASAS stated, I could see a BF mistook for a bear in cases where it is on all 4, seen from behind, or seen through brush etc.   Its a pretty silly notion that mis-identifications can only come from city dwellers.

[wiiawiwb]

Reports of a sasquatch on all fours is such a tiny fraction of all sightings as to be not worth mentioning. My assertion doesn't change. I would never be fooled by a bear standing up and can't fathom anyone who considers himself, or herself, to be experienced in the woods to be fooled either. 

[Twist]

6 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Reports of a sasquatch on all fours is such a tiny fraction of all sightings as to be not worth mentioning.  My assertion doesn't change. I would never be fooled by a bear standing up and can't fathom anyone who considers himself, or herself, to be experienced in the woods to be fooled either. 

 

Its your prerogative to ignore BF on all fours, I've probably come across as many reports of a BF on all 4's as I have of them doing other actions that in general people accept, such as actually being viewed using a "club" to wood knock.  Just saying.......

 

My advice, never say never lol   I consider myself rather experienced in the woods and would never be arrogant enough to say I couldn't be fooled, I'd just be fooling myself.  

[ShadowBorn]

I sure cannot ignore the fact that these creatures can be on all fours. Since I have personally found evidence of them doing so on some of my trips out to the woods. I have seen it on ridges where the creature would be hiding down low on a bottle neck where the deer would be moving through to their bedding. The creature in question would ambush the deer on all fours down the ridge which was only twenty yards from the deer. The evidence I found was the fist and feet in the ground as it moved down the hill as it dispatch the deer. Now I am only assuming this since I was not there during the event. I was there after the event and found evidence of where the creature hid and how the creature might have dispatch the deer. But from the position of the creature it surely had the upper hand and was in a position to ambush.  I have often wondered if I would be able to hide in this exact spot with my bow and dispatch a deer but have not yet attempted this idea. But I have also found other areas of where they have been on all fours and not just their two legs.

 

To tell you the truth I was on the idea that they never go down on all fours. But now it makes sense to me as well as them being in trees. Which does not make sense since they are so heavy but yet they seem to move faster in trees and leave less tracks on the ground. Talk about being invisible. Right, but when you see one and you turn your back and look back and they are gone start to look up. Smart creatures.  

[MIB]

3 hours ago, Twist said:

Got to second what SWWASAS stated, I could see a BF mistook for a bear in cases where it is on all 4, seen from behind, or seen through brush etc.   Its a pretty silly notion that mis-identifications can only come from city dwellers.

 

I would not label something a bigfoot unless I was sure it was.   If there was room for a mistake, I would state that there was room for a mistake.  I would give you a certainty figure.  I would explain where the uncertainty came from.   I have done that.   Remember?  

 

Stop dismissing others who have experience you lack.   It just makes you look insecure.  

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

There are numerous reports of BF going into a crouch on all 4s.     My first encounter the BF went down on all fours with such force I heard and felt a huge thud through my boots.     Examining the area afterwards that was the only way the BF could achieve cover.    The trees were young,  slender and brushy being a mix of mostly alder and a few young Doug Fir.  and not large enough to hide behind if it remained on two feet.   Looking just now at the pictures I took,   most trees in the area were less than 6 inches in diameter.    Not big enough to hide behind.      But the ground was covered with sword ferns that were about 3 to 4 feet tall in a fairly large area.       By going into a crotch, behind the ferns,   the adult BF was able to get to cover.    Staying on two feet it would have been observable out for over 20 yards after I moved around some brush towards it.   When I moved towards the thud was when the juvenile popped up to look at me over the ferns.  It had been in a low crouch too.   I would guess that the crouch is used as much as hiding behind large trees especially when large trees are not present or there is a lot of down wood in an area.    Both conditions were in play at that location.       Years later,  the day I got my dose of infra-sound,    the only place the BF could have been near me on the trail,  was a depression in the surface vegetation I found behind a down log.   That BF had to have been in crouch or even flat on the ground,   not to have been seen above the log.    It was basically trapped and could not withdraw without standing up and totally exposing itself to me.      I guess it figured zapping me was a better choice than doing that.   At this point in time I don't blame it.   I really did not like it at the time.  

[Twist]

I think it makes sense that BF would utilize movement on all 4’s for stealth and stalking.  A lot of animals stalk as near to the ground as possible. Got to do as much as possible to conceal a 7’+ frame.  

[wiiawiwb]

Does anyone here have a handle on the percent of total sightings reported that report a sasquatch on all fours? One percent, two percent, one-tenth of one percent? I'd welcome the truth, whatever it may be, but I just can't imagine the total number of reports of a sasquatch on all fours being anything more than the quickest of blips on a screen.

 

Has anyone done this analysis that can provide some verifiable information?

13 hours ago, Twist said:

 

Its your prerogative to ignore BF on all fours, I've probably come across as many reports of a BF on all 4's as I have of them doing other actions that in general people accept, such as actually being viewed using a "club" to wood knock.  Just saying.......

 

My advice, never say never lol   I consider myself rather experienced in the woods and would never be arrogant enough to say I couldn't be fooled, I'd just be fooling myself.  

 

Let's define the parameters of this discussion. If the question is if I could be confused whether it was a bear on two feet or a sasquatch on two feet, what time frame are we talking about? If it is an "event" we're talking about where I observed this "thing" moving about, then it is absolutely zero chance of mischaracterizing.  If it is a millisecond, the most fleeting of glimpses, then the answer changes. In that case, the "event" is not what I would classify as an encounter. It's a didn't-see-squat-and can't-call-it-a-thing happening.

 

13 hours ago, Twist said:

My advice, never say never lol   I consider myself rather experienced in the woods and would never be arrogant enough to say I couldn't be fooled, I'd just be fooling myself.  

 

For what it is worth (or isn't worth), I've also spent a fair amount of time in the woods and don't consider the ability to differentiate a sasquatch from a bear as arrogant. I call it being observant. YMMV.

Edited January 14, 2018 by wiiawiwb

[Twist]

20 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Does anyone here have a handle on the percent of total sightings reported that report a sasquatch on all fours? One percent, two percent, one-tenth of one percent? I'd welcome the truth, whatever it may be, but I just can't imagine the total number of reports of a sasquatch on all fours being anything more than the quickest of blips on a screen.

 

Has anyone done this analysis that can provide some verifiable information?

 

Nope, no handle on numbers, just my own memory of reports I've read.  There were definitely a number of them that reported them on all 4's.  Enough that I recall it happening and would call it a possible action they would take. IMO of course.  

 

25 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

13 hours ago, Twist said:

 

Its your prerogative to ignore BF on all fours, I've probably come across as many reports of a BF on all 4's as I have of them doing other actions that in general people accept, such as actually being viewed using a "club" to wood knock.  Just saying.......

 

My advice, never say never lol   I consider myself rather experienced in the woods and would never be arrogant enough to say I couldn't be fooled, I'd just be fooling myself.  

 

Let's define the parameters of this discussion. If the question is if I could be confused whether it was a bear on two feet or a sasquatch on two feet, what time frame are we talking about? If it is an "event" we're talking about where I observed this "thing" moving about, then it is absolutely zero chance of mischaracterizing.  If it is a millisecond, the most fleeting of glimpses, then the answer changes. In that case, the "event" is not what I would classify as an encounter. It's a didn't-see-squat-and can't-call-it-a-thing happening.

 

13 hours ago, Twist said:

My advice, never say never lol   I consider myself rather experienced in the woods and would never be arrogant enough to say I couldn't be fooled, I'd just be fooling myself.  

 

For what it is worth (or isn't worth), I've also spent a fair amount of time in the woods and don't consider the ability to differentiate a sasquatch from a bear as arrogant. I call it being observant. YMMV.

 

You have declared yourself infallible when it comes to identifying sasquatch vs. bear.  I will not further discuss this line of questioning with a person that has already made it clear they believe themselves incapable of making a mistake.   No offense but where would this discussion take us other than dispute?   

[SWWASAS]

I recall listening to a first person account of a night sighting on the shore of an Oregon lake or reservoir.   I do not think this report made the BFRO data bases.   It was in a town hall setting when I heard it.       People docked boats on the lake near the campground.  I cannot recall the location but someplace on the West side of the cascades in Central Oregon.     In the night,one camper heard noise coming from a where his boat was tied up.   Concerned about some human messing with his boat he went down to the lake front to where his boat was tied up just below a high embankment.    He peered down over the embankment with a flashlight and ended up face to face with a BF who stood up in the boat.   It had been rummaging around the area where he stored food for lunch when fishing.   He had left some food there that day.    The BF took off on all 4s, never stood completely up as long as it was illuminated by the flashlight and disappeared behind some trees along the lake shore.     The witness said he was amazed at how fast it ran on all 4's.      The next morning he and his son,   followed tracks along the lake shore to where it disappeared behind the trees.      Human like footprints but he was less than 10 or 15 feet when he was face to face with it in the boat knows it was not human and that no human could run like that with arms and legs.    From his description sounded like some fairly mature juvenile.     This report pretty much validates my theory that BF with total lack of cover will drop to all 4's.   Perhaps juveniles are more likely than adults to exhibit that behavior.   Juveniles seem to be involved in up in tree sighting reports.    Like humans,   their juveniles may be involved some activities that adults normally are not.  

[wiiawiwb]

12 hours ago, Twist said:

 I will not further discuss this line of questioning with a person that has already made it clear they believe themselves incapable of making a mistake.   No offense but where would this discussion take us other than dispute?   

 

Language is important and what you said in this statement above is totally false. I said that if it was an event I was witnessing, rather than a fleeting glimpse, I would never make that mistake. I find it rather curious you left that qualification out.