Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MikeZimmer

Implications of Apparent Consistency of Evidence

Recommended Posts

MikeZimmer
2 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

There are definitely some statistical red flags that suggest hoaxes - for example, multiple encounters in an area that is significantly smaller than the more common square mileage needed to generate the same (or more often fewer) number of encounters. When I originally started my database, I didn't include hoaxes because they're not sightings or encounters by definition.  Then I realized that by including known hoaxes and hoaxers, you can spot problems with other reports. 

 

While there are not enough known hoaxes to generate detailed patterns, there are other "tells" that should raise concerns.  However, almost every time that someone has raised a question concerning biological aspects of encounters (height, weight, track length), I run the numbers and get a bell curve of results.  I believe the SSI does the same.  I have a very difficult time believing that a series of unconnected, uncoordinated hoaxers or fabricators would generate these results in fabricated stories - if you want a big scary monster, you don't fabricate reports about 6' to 6 & 1/2' tall creatures; everything is 7', 8', 9' high and rising.  

 

Similarly, when Bobby O or Redbone posts sighting data from the SSI (mostly focused for now on encounters outside of the northeastern US), I can run similar searches and come up with similar distributions for northeastern encounters.  Again, I'm not sure how a series of uncoordinated hoaxes (or a deliberate campaign of fakery) could pre-plan their hoaxes/fake reports to generate this kind of result. 

 

 

What sort of distribution, mean, mode, whatever would you expect from hoaxed sightings? Why would you have one expectation over another?  Farenbach used a similar sort of argument, and I could not completely follow it. I am not saying it was wrong, just that I could not quite get his logic. I would expect hoaxed numbers to have a bell sort of distribution, if the were independently generated. I am not sure that I am right, but if there is another sort of distribution, why would that be the case? Similarly, why would the average size be a higher number? You could be right, but I would like to hear the arguments.

SSR folks, have there been analyses of rainfall versus sightings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
7 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

What sort of distribution, mean, mode, whatever would you expect from hoaxed sightings?........

 

First and foremost, I cannot believe that hoaxes can occur at high densities in a huge geographic region and over the complete period of recorded human history in North America. Misidentification with black bears can possibly explain an association of sasquatch reports with areas of high black bear density, but hoaxes cannot explain that association over the period of 1800 to today. It is completely unreasonable. 

 

Moreover, Glickman didn't factor the variation of report densities based upon geographic habitat. He only factored human population densities to sasquatch report densities. Even more critical biologically is the consideration of the extreme difference in reports in Washington and, say, Iowa. As a somewhat humorous thought, we have quite a witty and funny forum friend here (Incorrigible1) who lives in Iowa and demonstrates that Iowans are much like people everywhere (because, believe it or not, I know such fun and witty people in Alaska), but Iowa must have an aversion to bigfoot hoaxing compared to people in the Pacific northwest from San Francisco Bay to Bristol Bay in Alaska. Again, that is simple unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NCBFr
BFF Donor
12 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I had not seen this before.  Many thanks Huntster. 

 

The PGF analysis is spectacular.  Here are a few of the most interesting excerpts to me:

  • "Because the total size of the dataset is nearly 30 billion bytes (GB) of data, it was impractical in 1994 to keep all of the frames on rotating magnetic storage (hard disk). Instead, each group of twenty frames was written to a recordable CD-ROM. The full dataset is comprised of 48 CD-ROM’s which provide near-line, random access to the dataset."
  • "Thus, the computed height of the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin film is 7’ 3 1/2”. An error analysis has not yet been undertaken, but in other similar forensic situations is typically ±1”

 

This is pretty close to my analysis depending on the angle Patty was walking relative to the camera.  I would love to get that exact angle if someone can get me a link to a good site analysis.  I know it exists but could not find it this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Foot
10 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I think it does, and I believe that the rainfall is above 50 inches per year, and the higher the precipitation, the greater the densities of sasquatch reports as well as the greater the density of black bears, too. One of my favorite sasquatch academics, Roger Knights, theorized that the best sasquatch habitat dumped upwards of 100" of rain per year, was the highest black bear habitat on the continent, and probably boasted 1 sasquatch per 200 black bears.

 

We average about 45 to 48 inches per year in our area of Texas, but black bears and bigfoot reports are pretty rare.  Personally, I think it has more to do with population density than rain.  Yes, abundant rain provides more food sources, but the amount of wilderness available has more to do with the number of bigfoots in an area, in my humble opinion.

 

If there is no such thing as bigfoot, where did Ketchum get the DNA that is registered with ZooBank.org as homo sapiens cognatus?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
23 hours ago, norseman said:

I think the only consistency that can be used to prove the creature as real?

 

Find the seasonality presence of a given area. And get ahead of the beast and ambush it.

 

If Bigfoot sightings happen every year at location X,Y or Z beginning in June? Go get set up in May and be waiting.

 

 I and several others are already doing this, it just costs money to do it.   

 

 We have collected and plotted the data, we know when and where to be on site so at this point we just need the time and more equipment. 

 

Edited by NathanFooter
extra words removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
5 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 I and several others are already doing this, it just costs money to do it.   

 

 We have collected and plotted the data, we know when and where to be on site so at this point we just need the time and more equipment. 

 

 

Are you guys looking to shoot one or get other evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
14 hours ago, norseman said:

There is no arguing the fact that there is a consistency with Human reporting ape men in forests and mountains. There are a few exceptions in the midwest. But the vast vast majority of sightings stay in that topography.

 

You would think if people were experiencing a mass delusion? It would be much more evenly distributed across the US.

  

 You nailed it, if Sasquatch is born entirely of human psychology we should see more Sasquatch in areas near Detroit, Seattle, Chicago and LA but the data shows otherwise.   

 

 If fictitious data is introduced then it does not fall into a pattern let alone at certain times of the year.

5 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

 

Are you guys looking to shoot one or get other evidence?

 

 We are working on collecting thermal footage in direct conjunction with DNA evidence. 

 

 I am not looking to harm any of these creatures, we are simply trying to understand their biology, their place in the environment and the social structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
50 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

if Sasquatch is born entirely of human psychology we should see more Sasquatch in areas near Detroit, Seattle, Chicago and LA but the data shows otherwise.

 

BY-DECADE.gif

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
22 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

BY-DECADE.gif

 

 I just need to get my membership already, LOL. 

 

 Can I get your breakdown on this map gif ?  I see an assortment of color that I assume are different report grades.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
4 hours ago, Little Foot said:

We average about 45 to 48 inches per year in our area of Texas, but black bears and bigfoot reports are pretty rare.  Personally, I think it has more to do with population density than rain.........

 

Perhaps, but temperate rain forest areas of North America (especially those with the greatest precipitation along the Pacific Northwest) boast the highest densities of black bears, and they also appear to generate the highest number of sasquatch reports, even in the outskirts of such high human densities as the Portland and Seattle. 

 

 

Quote

...........If there is no such thing as bigfoot, where did Ketchum get the DNA that is registered with ZooBank.org as 

homo sapiens cognatus?

 

 

My understanding of ZooBank is that it's more like a domain name registery or ISBN registry. Neither of those registries regulate what your name can be or the subject matter or accuracy of your book. They just register an identification so that there is no duplication or copyright violation dating dispute.

Edited by Huntster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
47 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

BY-DECADE.gif

 

Wow! Report numbers have crashed from 2010-2018, but the general areas of reports have remained the same, and human population nationally has increased by 5.6% (17,598,000 people, not counting illegals!........nearly equivalent to todays population of the state of New York!!!)

Edited by Huntster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
39 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

I see an assortment of color that I assume are different report grades.  

 

Yes, that particular gif has the "Score Color Scale", but you can choose a different color coding.

 

 

firefox_2019-02-20_15-52-46.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
1 minute ago, gigantor said:

 

Yes, that particular gif has the "Report Score", but you can choose a different color coding.

 

 

firefox_2019-02-20_15-52-46.png

 Very neat, can you put one up for WA state ?  It would be very interesting to see a map of state population against the reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 I and several others are already doing this, it just costs money to do it.   

 

 We have collected and plotted the data, we know when and where to be on site so at this point we just need the time and more equipment. 

 

 

No offense Nathan..... you just need one well placed round. Depending on your flavor from about .50 cents to $4.00.

 

Im glad you guys are figuring it out and getting ahead of them! But more video and hair samples is NOT the answer to solve the mystery.

 

Your gonna need a body. Its a sad truth.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

I'm completely comfortable with the drop-off in the number of BF sightings reported over the decades.  I think it is explained by the fact that there was a tremendous number of unreported encounters at the BFRO database was initiated. The decrease in reports is probably only the result of working through that backlog to bring them more current.

 

The consistency, or congruency in the BF descriptions is made all the more compelling when you realize that the behaviors observed are typical not only of Sasquatch, but also for a myriad of other wild creatures  It is a database full of descriptions of an animal doing things that known animals do as well.  Manufacturing this degree of biological congruency would be absurdly difficult to hoax.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×