2:00 AM Encounters. What's Up With That ?

[Branco]

2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

Branco, if there's something to your theory, it might be a good strategy to have an audio recorder play an hour, or so, of recorded snoring to lure them in.

You are right. One night about three years ago a "Footing friend" and I  were camped in a south AR BF area. I slept in the cab of my truck about 20 yards from his camper. Light rain was predicted for that night, so I water-proofed the microphone and amplifier and listened. (I had two plastic ice chests in the bed of my truck.) A light rain started about 11 PM and he went to sleep snoring loudly. About one thirty I heard a dead limb crunch a few yards away. A few minutes later something pushed through the ring of brush surrounding the small camp site and walked to the back of the truck, and picked up one of the ice boxes. Apparently the weigh of the box and contents, plus the rain coated handle caused the BF to lose his grip and the box fell back into the truck bed. Of course, I had turned my head and was looking through the back window. I was seeing just a large black animal froze for a few seconds. But the noise awakened my Bud in the camper. When his snoring stopped, the BF wheeled, made a long leap to the edge of the brush and crashed through the thick woods and out of hearing. My friend called me on his two-way radio and asked me, "What made all the noise?" I just asked him to guess. The Booger's foot print impressions from the point where he had jumped and several yards into the woods were still visible at daylight. (Leaving some cheap steaks or pork chops on a secondary second grill while you are "snoring" in BF country will bring them in, unless there is a game camera in their view.) Of course that practice is frowned upon by some, and illegal in some places. 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Branco

[BobbyO]

Great thread, great input too from the usual suspects, thank you.

 

It also, I’m sure, shows a lot of people the difference between perception and reality that can occur within this subject.

 

What’s with the 23:00 > 00:00 drop offs anyway ? They’re huge.

 

Caenus you’re spot on with a lot of what you wrote here imo.

 

Situation/Circumstance is something I’ve tried to look heavily in to over the past few years with these numbers and in some cases, believe to have had success.

 

Situation/Circumstance is for sure key though in any dataset, and Sasquatch reports are no different.

 

There are many many factors to consider when looking for any form of accuracy in data sets and again, our subject is no different.

 

The initial split of environments within the PNW States in the database shows that we were thinking about this from the very offset and we will continue to progressively develop and grow in this kind of way as we go along.

 

I’ll just add again however and I know I’ve said this many times, but we are at the absolute mercy of a report and the details in it of which so often, there just isn’t everything we wish for.

 

On 05/08/2018 at 8:40 AM, Caenus said:

The charts would have to be modified to only include sightings with infants. Then we would have to have an approximation of growth rates, which we would have to infer is similar to humans or perhaps great apes...neither of which would necessarily be accurate.  

 

Without dusting off my statistics of biological systems text, I’d say;

 

Vast increase of sightings in spring through fall.  Most humans are out recreating in bf habitat = more opportunities of an encounter by any specific individual? Or does it?

 

If we can separate drivers from those that are camping (or headed to camp/hike) that will likely give a more consistent number of sightings by season...but that doesn’t matter too much since the ratio of sightings by season and time seem to be similar.  

 

If there is a difference then we can infer that bf is sensitive to cold if they are not as active in winter months based solely on sightings...but even that would be skewed if we assume humans do not venture as deep into their habitat in the winter months. 

 

Conversely, far less humans tend to be awake and alert at night.  The high number of sightings at night therefore again confirms a tendency towards a nocturnal bf as it is less likely a human will be awake/alert or have sufficient sensory capabilities to detect one at night. 

 

The charts can can tell us just what they do.  Likely mostly nocturnal. We can use what we have, which is knowledge of human behavior to confirm that. 

 

What would require more data for analysis but would be useful?

1. Situation/circumstance. If day sightings were a result of humans disturbing snoozing bf and bf investigates human activity disturbing them or simply tries to avoid humans and is observed. 

2. The approximate decline of # of humans in bf habitat during winter months vs # of bf sightings during day/night in winter months. Would it suggest bf is more active during the day in colder months?

3. Is bf less “on guard” in winter months due to the decline in human presence making chance sightings more likely and their diligence diminished to some degree?

 

Data on those factors COULD (but not necessarily) suggest that statistically a person could have a higher likelihood of seeing bf during the day during winter months than between 8p and 2a in summer months. 

 

 

 

 

[David NC]

MIB hit a good point. It takes a human and a sasquatch for a sighting. The graphs reflect more to human times of activity thru the seasons and our patterns of activity during the hours of the day.  You would have to have some mechanical device to count sasquatch movement during the hours to rule out the patterning of human activity.

[BobbyO]

If that were completely true then the majority of reports would NOT be from hours of darkness, but they are.

 

In general however i do agree that there is a certain amount of weight can be placed on human behavior within a lot of these numbers though, yes.

[gigantor]

9 hours ago, David NC said:

MIB hit a good point. It takes a human and a sasquatch for a sighting...

 

I think everyone agrees with the following:

 

a.  There are many more people active during daytime hours

b.  It takes a human and a sasquatch for a sighting

c.  Some human activities occur more often at certain times of the day

d.  The charts for hiking, hunting, at-home and bigfooting can be explained by a, b and c above.

 

The following charts however, cannot be explained by a, b and c above:

 

1) Camping: People on a camping trip remain in the area during the day and are more active than at night (per a above).

 

 

2) Driving: People drive more during the daytime (per c above).

 

 

3) Fishing: More people fish during the day than at night (per c above).

 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, David NC said:

You would have to have some mechanical device to count sasquatch movement during the hours to rule out the patterning of human activity.

 

Not so. The charts above rule out the human patterns per a, b and c above

 

-----

Note: the charts above are the same ones used earlier in this thread, I simply linked to them.

 

[wiiawiwb]

Great gumshoeing Gigantor.

 

People who are camping, and I've been that person many times, sit around the camp fire, and eventually get weary. They'll head to the tent to for the night. I can understand the sightings up through 10pm but after that I suspect most campers are in their tents and getting ready for bed or already sleeping.

 

What that tells me is there must be some noise made by a sasquatch in the campsite area from 11pm - 3am in order for the sightings to occur. Otherwise, the campers would keep snoring all night unaware there's  sasquatch in their midst. I like the idea of using a recorded snoring sound and  playing it to lure in a sasquatch who would otherwise think everyone is asleep.

[BobbyO]

On 8/14/2018 at 0:43 AM, wiiawiwb said:

Great gumshoeing Gigantor.

 

People who are camping, and I've been that person many times, sit around the camp fire, and eventually get weary. They'll head to the tent to for the night. I can understand the sightings up through 10pm but after that I suspect most campers are in their tents and getting ready for bed or already sleeping.

 

What that tells me is there must be some noise made by a sasquatch in the campsite area from 11pm - 3am in order for the sightings to occur. Otherwise, the campers would keep snoring all night unaware there's  sasquatch in their midst. I like the idea of using a recorded snoring sound and  playing it to lure in a sasquatch who would otherwise think everyone is asleep.

 

Well the sightings don't occur where camping reports are concerned, that's the thing.

 

It's by and large mainly non visual reports anyway where camping reports are concerned.

 

Actual visual reports would make up less than 10% of all camping reports across the main States like WA, OR, IL, NY, CA, out of the hundreds and hundreds of camping reports.

 

---

 

#Sasquatch #Squatchermetrics 

There are some things in life that you can do to increase your chances of seeing a Sasquatch, and then there's others that won't, such as when you're camping in the Pacific Northwest in Spring and Summer.

The following numbers are based on over 120 Reports from the turn of the century that fall within these specific search parameters.

94% of all Reports from Campers in the PNW States/Provinces of BC, WA, OR, CA, MT and ID in Spring are Non Visual Reports.

93% of all Reports from Campers in the PNW States of WA, OR, CA, MT and ID in Summer are Non Visual Reports.

 

---

 

#Sasquatch #Squatchermetrics  

Camping, a past time that many of us think/thought would give us a great chance to actually see one of the most elusive animals on the planet with our own eyes.

How incredibly wrong we were.

Do these numbers however, possibly give us an insight in to the inquisitive yet incredibly shy nature of our subject ?

Or are we looking at possible geographical trends with some pockets of populations in different areas, that are more conscious to "stay hidden" than others ?

Number of Non Visual Reports > Total Reports from Witnesses Camping :

WA - 231/243 (95%)
OR - 114/119 (96%)
CA - 145/187 (78%)
MO - 66/74 (89%)
IL - 131/136 (96%)
NY - 66/67(99%)

2,619 Actual Visual Sighting Reports in Total > 173 (7%) Reports from Witnesses Camping.

2,524 Non Visual Reports in Total > 535 (21%) Reports from Witnesses Camping.

[Caenus]

So when camping, you pretty much have an established presence. That means anything that doesn’t want to have contact, won’t. Hiking, driving, etc people are moving and increases the chance of a contact by movement event. Am I following the idea?

 

I used to camp, explore and see what is interested in me. Now I’ve been taking more of a “movement to contact” approach. Basically I will drive around in the Jeep, stop from time to time to investigate interesting things I can see that is obviously heavily used by game. Lots of old CCC camps. I stick to fire roads, rarely used trails, etc. 

 

I rarely, in fact cannot remember in the last two years, see other vehicle tracks or people on these trails. I have seen thousands of deer, elk and a handful of bear. 

 

If I come across a good overlook I’ll stop and glass an area from the Jeep so I am not leaving my scent all over. If I ever get a deer or elk tag, I will be VERY successful. Lol. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Caenus

[gigantor]

16 hours ago, BobbyO said:

Actual visual reports would make up less than 10% of all camping reports across the main States like WA, OR, IL, NY, CA, out of the hundreds and hundreds of camping reports.

 

 

Are you saying Class B reports don't count?  I disagree, but it doesn't matter. Below is the Class A (visual) Reports for CA,OR and WA for Camping. The pattern remains.

 

 

Also, driving are almost all visual reports.

[joebeelart]

Good discussion; but the reality is in BobbyO and earlier posts to it.   My apologies if I am not interpreting these numbers correctly.

 

Number of Non Visual Reports > Total Reports from Witnesses Camping :
WA - 231/243 (95%)
OR - 114/119 (96%)
CA - 145/187 (78%)
MO - 66/74 (89%)
IL - 131/136 (96%)
NY - 66/67(99%)

 

What these numbers of about 93% of non-visual reports tell us are three:  {1} People are in cocoons more commonly known as tents when Our Barefoot Friends come around.  Yet, many are alert enough, or have enough experience in the woods to say their night intruder was not a bear, dear, elk, cougar, etc.  {2}  What should be done, and what we encourage people to do is to sleep under a lean-to, in the back of an open truck bed, or if weather permits, in the open in the center of an easily observable area.  I have already been out 16 nights  this year with about a total of 75-80 people in group camps.  Besides me, I only know of five who have slept under the stars in a non-group setting.  All five reported "something unusual."  But of course, all is unusual when you normally sleep in a group camp in a cocoon and can't experience the clarity of owl calls, deer coughs & stamping, etc.   {3} As noted earlier in reference to the bio. stat book, statistically, about 93% is considered a very valid survey in basic wildlife statistics.  However, due to the "cocoon issue," the only conclusion is that "something unusual" was beyond the rain fly covered cocoon. 
 

[joebeelart]

Thanks for the note:   Let's say about 75 people out for about 3 nights each for a total of about 225 nights with about 5 nights or about 2% slept in the open all below the south slope of Mt. Hood. 

[wiiawiwb]

Maybe where you do your sasquatch researching you can cowboy camp. Where I go, you'd be evacuated by helicopter from blood loss due to mosquitoes.  Some areas of the country it's possible and would be the way I would definitely choose to camp/backpack. For others, it is not even an option until cool months arrive and insects are gone. 

 

You allude to a group setting. How do you define that... more than one?

[BobbyO]

On 17/08/2018 at 10:54 PM, gigantor said:

 

Are you saying Class B reports don't count?  I disagree, but it doesn't matter. Below is the Class A (visual) Reports for CA,OR and WA for Camping. The pattern remains.

 

 

G do I strike you as the kind of person that see’s numbers like these with such weight, in their hundreds, and thinks they “don’t count” ?

 

What i'm seeing is that there is a trend of campers NOT seeing these animals and rather perceiving to hear them (as per the reports), these animals seem to be generally staying out of sight (as per the reports).

 

If we are to agree that witnesses "camping" spend more time outside of their tent than in it (only sleeping) when actually “camping” then imo it could give an insight in to the more inquisitive and shy nature of our subject.

 

Big numbers imo this camping visual/non visual and given that they weigh so heavily to non visuals, I personally think we are getting a behavioural insight here.

Edited August 19, 2018 by BobbyO

[wiiawiwb]

If these reports provide a behavioral insight of sasquatches, then it seems an opportunity to be taken advantage of. I just got a thermal and when ready to retire for the night, I plan to have face it toward an direction outside camp I suspect a sasquatch would enter.  maybe catch one sneaking around.

 

To address the group camp thing, I go out alone or with one or two other. On rare occasion, four of us.

Edited August 19, 2018 by wiiawiwb

[BobbyO]

They’ve been caught on camera before observing camp out of sight also don’t forget, Bart’s (Cutino) footage for example in the Sierra’s.

Here it is -