Jump to content
MikeZimmer

Implications of Apparent Consistency of Evidence

Recommended Posts

NathanFooter
2 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 We have discussed this before and I agree that taking an individual is the best way of closing the door but I don't think I am the guy to do it. I do have to disagree that we can't acknowledge the species without the body, I think an entire gene sequence, good video and the replication of our methods by others will get enough academic interest. We have cataloged other branches of hominids off of a sequence and bone fragments ( nearly indistinguishable from neanderthal remains ) so I think the there is still room here.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

 

. 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.

 

OK, I like that line of argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
14 minutes ago, WSA said:

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.

 

 As a WA BFRO investigator I can say that you are correct.  We also have lost membership in recent years here in the Western US and so that has effected our volume output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite
15 hours ago, MikeZimmer said:

 

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?

 

Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; work is crushing me.  First, there are relatively few confirmed hoaxes, so you are right, it is more difficult (if not impossible) to discern patterns in hoaxes or suspected hoaxers and people who appear to chronically label every item they encounter in the woods as "Bigfoot!" (tm).  

 

Bigfoot encounters are very rare when distributed over time (e.g., the entire northeast) and space (e.g., the last 100, 200, or more years).  Even when there are websites that report hundreds of encounters in a state (for example, the PA Bigfoot Society or PA Research Organization), those encounters are very infrequent and very scattered - it takes time to generate the data to be able to identify clusters in time and space, particularly since most organizations sub-divide based on county which is likely wholly unimportant to bigfoot. 

 

So when you look at the data you find that encounters that are clustered - using that term very loosely - are usually 4-5 encounters spread out over 10-15 years and about 400 square miles, usually in certain terrain types in the northeast.  

 

So if an investigator is suddenly reporting 10 encounters  in one year in a 30-square-mile area of open flat farmland w/no significant woods or swamps and that investigator (or an immediate family member) is the only person having encounters - at their houses, which are miles apart - and no one in the intervening area is having encounters, yes, I am more likely to conclude those are not valid encounters.  

 

I'm not going to specifically state that "x person is a hoaxer" as I realize that mere statistical analysis can't rule in or rule out Bigfoot.  There could be other explanations, which I am not inclined to debate.  But for my purposes, certain clusters are red lined and ignored as probable hoaxes and/or probable miss-identifications. 

22 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

...

Could it be that a hoaxer thinks they have to stick to the norm, or close to it, in order to be believed? 

 

My brother, some sort of PhD or some such, has provided me a few scholarly articles on "tells" identified by academic studies of people who lie in written in oral communication.  Unfortunately, I have not had the time to read (and digest) them all, and request that he provide some additional cited studies.  Then, frankly, I don't know what to do w/them - pointing out that you can see the zipper in a hoaxer's suit doesn't necessarily stop hoaxes, it just leads to new hoaxers trying to improve on the old hoax. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
2 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 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.  

 

Interesting boom from 2000 to 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
2 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

can you put one up for WA state ?

 

Below is the same data with NASA's Night Lights layer. Please note that the night lights are from this decade, in the 70's and 80's urban sprawl was much less.

1970-2018-A-WA-NIGHT3.gif

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 We have discussed this before and I agree that taking an individual is the best way of closing the door but I don't think I am the guy to do it. I do have to disagree that we can't acknowledge the species without the body, I think an entire gene sequence, good video and the replication of our methods by others will get enough academic interest. We have cataloged other branches of hominids off of a sequence and bone fragments ( nearly indistinguishable from neanderthal remains ) so I think the there is still room here.

 

DNA is problematic. Is there a chance? Sure. But far from expedient. And the risk of failure is great. Contamination, misidentification, lab loses or destroys sample, etc.

 

You say your not the guy to do it. I understand that. But would you be willing to work with someone who was?

 

In the right place and the right time? This mystery could be solved in a nano second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, Trogluddite said:

........My brother, some sort of PhD or some such.........

 

I'm sorry, but that just struck me as extremely funny. Carry on.........

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team
17 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.

 

This springs to mind.

#Sasquatch - Let's talk Arizona. 85 Total Reports, with 11/15 Counties responsible for those Reports.

What month is most common for Total AZ Reports ? August

What AZ County has the most days of precipitation in August ? Coconino (5)

What AZ County receives the most annual precipitation ? Coconino (The Northern portion of the Kaibab National Forest receives more than 20 Inches annually, on par with San Francisco)

What AZ County makes up 80% of all Summer Reports (20/25) from the turn of the century ? Coconino

What AZ County makes up 100% of Non Visual Reports from August in the last 12 years ? Coconino

What AZ County makes up 100% of Actual Visual Reports from August in the last 12 Years ? Coconino

Where do you think we should go on vacation this Summer ?
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
37 minutes ago, BobbyO said:
Where do you think we should go on vacation this Summer ?

Westmoreland County PA? 78 reports in, but only 16 came after 2000.

As of today there are STILL 58 Westmoreland County reports in the John Green database that have no SSR entries, plus several at PA Bigfoot. (not all of these will get an SSR entry)

image.thumb.png.52649106b5489816610015ad1ed2363c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

There is definitely a hotspot in the eastern Ohio/western Pennsylvania area. It's fairly rainy there, too.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

 

I have no looked at the data dictionary or data model for the research database, but it seems to me that we could look for consistency in any number of dimensions. Here is a quick take on some factors. Which are the key ones in an analysis of consistency? Gets complicated does it not? I imagine the folks working with the data have given this more thought than I have.

 

Dimensions of consistency

Observer characteristics

Role

  • Researcher,

  • Camper,

  • Driver,

  • Hiker,

  • Outdoors worker,

  • Sportsman

Situational characteristics

Sightings – clarity of sight lines

  • Ambiguity of sighting

 

Sightings – climate

  • Climate: dry, wet, cold, hot

 

Sightings – duration

  • Duration of sighting

 

Sightings – ecology

  • Ecological zone

 

Sightings – frequency

  • Frequency of sightings in area, repeat sightings of assumed same individuals

 

Sightings – geography

  • Terrain,

  • Soil,

  • Proximity to watercourses,

  • Local climate,

 

Sightings – location

  • Road crossing

 

Sightings – number

  • Groups, singletons

 

Sightings – vegetation

  • Density of bush, vegetation mix

 

Sightings – visibility

  • Visual clarity

  • Available light

  • Ground cover

  • Tree cover

 

Sightings – visual evidence

  • Track impression variation

 

Sightings – weather

  • Humidity

  • Current weather

  • Weather

  • Temperature

  • Precipitation

 

Sightings – time

  • Time of year, day

 

Sightings – location

  • Geographic location, elevation, latitude, longitude, proximity to towns and cities, watercourses, terrain, relief

 

Visual evidence traces

  • Foot prints

  • Hand prints

  • Trackways

  • Dermal impressions

Physical characteristics

Mobility

  • Stride length

  • Gait characteristics

  • Shin rise

 

Physical appearance

  • Face appearance, eyes, ears, nose, teeth, neck

  • Hair

  • Coloration

  • Eyes/eye shine/ears

  • Skin tone

  • Musculature

  • Hands

  • Feet

 

Physical appearance – size

  • Thickness front to back

  • Foot dimensions

  • Frame proportions, ratios of anatomical parts

  • Height

  • Width

  • Weight

Behavioral characteristics

Concealment

  • Stalking, tree peeking

 

Mobility

  • Athleticism

  • Running speed

  • Uphill speed

  • Jumping

  • Gait

 

Noises

  • Possible vocalizations

  • Possible knocking

  • Footsteps sounds

 

Threat display

  • Intimidation displays

  • Aggression

 

Other

  • Gifting

  • Twist-offs

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team
7 hours ago, Redbone said:

Westmoreland County PA? 78 reports in, but only 16 came after 2000.

As of today there are STILL 58 Westmoreland County reports in the John Green database that have no SSR entries, plus several at PA Bigfoot. (not all of these will get an SSR entry)

image.thumb.png.52649106b5489816610015ad1ed2363c.png

 

Nah, we missed the boat there then Red, let’s go to AZ instead..;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team
1 hour ago, MikeZimmer said:

 

I have no looked at the data dictionary or data model for the research database, but it seems to me that we could look for consistency in any number of dimensions. Here is a quick take on some factors. Which are the key ones in an analysis of consistency? Gets complicated does it not? I imagine the folks working with the data have given this more thought than I have.

 

Dimensions of consistency

Observer characteristics

Role

  • Researcher,

  • Camper,

  • Driver,

  • Hiker,

  • Outdoors worker,

  • Sportsman

Situational characteristics

Sightings – clarity of sight lines

  • Ambiguity of sighting

 

Sightings – climate

  • Climate: dry, wet, cold, hot

 

Sightings – duration

  • Duration of sighting

 

Sightings – ecology

  • Ecological zone

 

Sightings – frequency

  • Frequency of sightings in area, repeat sightings of assumed same individuals

 

Sightings – geography

  • Terrain,

  • Soil,

  • Proximity to watercourses,

  • Local climate,

 

Sightings – location

  • Road crossing

 

Sightings – number

  • Groups, singletons

 

Sightings – vegetation

  • Density of bush, vegetation mix

 

Sightings – visibility

  • Visual clarity

  • Available light

  • Ground cover

  • Tree cover

 

Sightings – weather

  • Humidity

  • Current weather

  • Weather

  • Temperature

  • Precipitation

 

Sightings – time

  • Time of year, day

 

Sightings – location

  • Geographic location, elevation, latitude, longitude, proximity to towns and cities, watercourses, terrain, relief

Behavioral characteristics

Concealment

  • Stalking, tree peeking

 

Noises

  • Possible vocalizations

  • Possible knocking

  • Footsteps sounds

 

Threat display

  • Intimidation displays

  • Aggression

 

 

 

Absoluteky Mike, for years too.

 

I personally, rightly or wrongly, like to go top heavy on what I’ve kept quoted in your above post.

 

There are certain parameters I give less weight to due to a number of reasons, largely though to my perception of them being too subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...