Suggestions For Utilizing A Bigfoot Database

[hiflier]

The thought struck me about the best way to utilize the information in the John Green Database. There is an approach to the data that would seem to be the most useful.

 

Remember that the data only goes up to the year 2000 which means no entries were added after that time. But that in no way makes the data obsolete and I'll explain why. There is a wide consensus on how long the Bigfoots actually live. Some say they can live as long as 50 years. If that is true then the first thing to realize is that any Bigfoots born in 2000 will only be 20 years old. It means that there could be at least two new generations of Bigfoots if the females start having young between 10-20 years old or beyond.

 

It could also mean that some Bigfoots born in 1970 or later may still be alive today. So taking note of the actual year of any sighting will help keep the data more current when it comes to where one might conduct their field research. That said, one thing to pay attention to would be the data regarding females but, more importantly perhaps, any reports that involve infants or small Bigfoots.

 

It may also be beneficial regarding questions of possible misidentification to to scope out the database's "Duration" column because the longer the creature, or creatures, were observed the less likely they were misidentified. Also pay attention to the column listing the county, and then the nearest city or town and the direction from them that the sighting occurred. I think all these criteria will help any researcher zero in on a prospective area for their investigations.

 

The last point is that, since it has been 20 years since the last database entry, there may have been Human activity such as development, new roads, logging or other resource extraction projects, that may have taken place which would impact an area of an older report. If these Bigfoots are in fact territorial then, depending on what changes have occurred in a given region, then older Bigfoots and/or subsequent generations may still be active. Google Earth's timeline feature will help greatly when researching any alterations that may have occurred in a given area.

 

And then there is the more current Bigfootforum's SSR database available to Premium members but I think the way to approach it would be pretty much the same way as above.

 

Hope these points help in learning how to perhaps be more effective in determining just how to assess a database. I say that because some reports can be quite detailed and one can get mired down and forget to look at a larger picture when figuring out a research program that may be fruitful in saving a researcher time and effort in the field.     

Edited October 22, 2020 by hiflier

[hiflier]

I re-read my OP and realized that I should probably put my money where my mouth is. A few years ago I reorganized John Green's relational database into a spreadsheet. I did it so that more folks could view it, but mostly because I wanted to be able to view reports in fairly decent chronological order from the 1700's on up. Then a while back I decided to individually group all of the US states and Canadian Provinces in alphabetical order. And that's where I pretty much stopped. In the OP I mentioned something about the Bigfoot's longevity. I think it as Tal H. Branco that told the story of a Bigfoot (in Alabama maybe?) that townspeople had watched crossing a certain road outside of their town and that it had crossed that same road for decades. It got so on in years that the creature's crossing became slower and slower to the point where motorists had to stop and wait for it to get to the other side. Its age was estimated to be maybe 52 years old.

 

I decided to take the database with the states and provinces and set it up with an historical metric of 52 years back from from year 2020. And since the database I was working with goes up to 2000. So when one subtracts 52 years (as an arbitrary maximum) from 2020 one gets 1968. So 1968 became my new starting point for a database that would span from 1968-2000 to be able to include a maximum Bigfoot age of 52 years. The process resulted in the removal of about 1,000 reports from the original database but since I was streamlining it for the 52-year maximum criteria I didn't care about losing reports say from the 1920-1967. What I really wanted to see was how many reports were logged between 1968 and 2000. It turns out that the database STILL contain over 3,000 reports spanning the 32 years between 1968 and 2000!

 

So now I think I have this database such that it reflects a Bigfoot that is 52 years old this year and however many more that are younger that were born from 1968 to the present. My goal being to find out what states, and within what regions of those states, are there Bigfoots younger than 52 years old. In other words, culling for chances of locating an elder/dead one. Or its skeleton. Or maybe estimating the size of a a state's BF population and what recent sighting may mean as far as their more recent ancestors. We try to stay current with what's happening with reports but if there's a way to better consider a more recent generational connection then the picture in a researchers area may become clearer- especially if one doesn't have to wade through and try to piece together and make sense of 300 years of BF history in a given area trying to see a pattern. I think any patterns of the last 40-50 years should be all that we need.

 

What comes to mind here that supports this, is the discovery of the suspected BF ground nests in Washington State in an area that hadn't been logged in 50 years. And the fact that witnesses saw more in a stage of construction just last winter. Surely that can't be the only pattern there is that has hard evidence? So for me, looking back beyond 50 years in a database takes away from what I might "see" if I stayed closer to a BF's age time frame. I's be curious if anyone has been, or is, thinking the same way.      

Edited October 22, 2020 by hiflier

[Trogluddite]

Hiflier, 

 

Let me again thank you for all the hard work you did making JG's (RIP) database more accessible.  I've found it really useful.  What I would like to see is some data wizard take the average distance and time between encounters for an area and see if some math magic can find some sort of overall pattern that we can't see from looking at 100/200/ even a thousand encounters. 

[hiflier]

Thank you, Trog, I was a man on a mission but it was a selfish one, truth be known. I wanted the data revised for MYSELF for my own research. But then guilt set in and I couldn't not share the database with others. Like now for instance. Here is the database, revised yet one more time, to reflect going back only 52 years to 1968. Even if Bigfoots only rarely live that long, I think it's more relevant to have a set of data points that are closer chronologically to our researchers in any given area:

 

John Green Database States and Provinces from 1968-2000.ods 

 

As I mentioned, LibreOffice or any similar program will open this file. And, Trogluddite, (man, do I ever love that name ) maybe you could elaborate a bit on what you mean by distance and time? Do you think some method of sorting the data might help? I mean, for starters, if someone only wanted to consider sightings that lasted say 15 min. or more as long as the sightings chronology is maintained? I also think that areas that cross state lines might be a factor? Seems to me the SSR takes that into account?

 

The OP by and large is going after a certain maximum-age time frame. Assuming these creatures are territorial, even if only seasonally territorial, of course. The point being that the Forum has spoken at length about working at SETTING UP in an area ahead of time where the creatures may be COMING TO.

 

As an example, going back to the nesting site in Washington State in say late Summer of mid Fall and installing detection equipment in the vicinity of the nesting sites BEFORE anything arrives to do any construction. That way no one would have to, or should have to, be going into that area from mid Winter to late Spring which interrupts the nest building process. Something that apparently happens every five years or so- and that Humans have evidently interfered with TWICE now. Although, to be kinder to folks, the five year cycle is an assumption on my part. If true, though, it was a cycle completely unknown about. For me, the second incident last winter may have been a telling clue. So I'm kind of hoping the shortened time window in the database posted will be of some use? Mainly because locations of such activity may change over a few decades according to how Human activity in different areas evolves.

 

Personally, I think it takes at least two decades for Sasquatches to feel comfortable enough to stay in any area. The nesting site hadn't been touched for nearly 50 years and the evidence of nest building showed various levels of decomposition in the same general area. So building activity that was ongoing over time, seasonally, and for decades. We have to somehow learn from this.   

Edited November 7, 2020 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

Yep, where the nests are concerned and databases, it's all about attempting to detect patterns, depending on what the objective is of course.

 

I've lost count of the number of 'potential patterns' i've found within the numbers over the years whilst literally just looking at nothing in particular, or following up on something i've read/listened to that has piqued my interest.

 

Wrongly, the only place this is logged is in my head.

 

• The Colorado movement pattern (Colorado Springs general area to 'The Triangle') to literally right on top of confirmed Elk/Mule Deer migration routes further west.
• The Arizona (Coconino County in August) and the specific location of mid-summer reports that are narrowed completely to the only area of the State that receives ample precipitation at that time
• The Western WA Gray Animal/Animals that in recent times show a clear liking for specific areas in specific seasons within a certain range.
• The notability of Spring where the Western Washington potential breeding grounds are concerned that were picked up via listening to a podcast and what a witness was experiencing each year.
• The Douglas County, OR Reports where 100% of All Reports there come from the Summer and Fall, where the Salmon runs begin in late July and taper off in to September.
• The possible insight in to the shy yet inquisitive nature of our subject in how so few Reports (around 80% Continent wide and higher than that in the States with a large number of Reports) coming from people that were Camping that actually have a Visual Sighting.

 

 

That's literally just what i can recall off the top of my head as i've logged on this morning waiting for my daughter to get ready as we are going out.

 

The answer is in the numbers, we just have to do a better job at finding the right questions imo.

 

Have a good weekend all.

[hiflier]

Just noticed the file I uploaded was only 47kb and realized it was the wrong one. Sorry about that. This is the one I meant to upload, it's 2.2Mb:

 

John Green Incident-Creature-Footprint Data by State-Province.ods

 

 

[Trogluddite]

Hiflier - what I meant was some sort of high end mathematical analysis to take the human preconfigured notions out of it and to look deeper than we can.

 

As I'm not a statistician I can't articulate it well.  You or I or any member can look at a set of 100 encounters in a given geographic area over a period of time and compare one to the next.  We'd see possible patterns like Bobbie O has or the observation that I have (in the east) that there tends to be a distinct time/place cluster, then an absence of reports, then a new cluster 100 miles away.  

 

A computer taking the average variation in time, distance apart, and direction from first encounter with the next 10, or 20, or 100, might provide greater insights. Or maybe it will produce a muddle, but I'd love to see a serious mathematician/ statistician have a go at it.  

[hiflier]

Ah, gotcha! I can certainly see the benefit in something like that. Thanks for clarifying

[Arvedis]

On 11/7/2020 at 3:35 AM, BobbyO said:

Yep, where the nests are concerned and databases, it's all about attempting to detect patterns, depending on what the objective is of course.

 

I've lost count of the number of 'potential patterns' i've found within the numbers over the years whilst literally just looking at nothing in particular, or following up on something i've read/listened to that has piqued my interest.

 

Wrongly, the only place this is logged is in my head.

 

• The Colorado movement pattern (Colorado Springs general area to 'The Triangle') to literally right on top of confirmed Elk/Mule Deer migration routes further west.
• The Arizona (Coconino County in August) and the specific location of mid-summer reports that are narrowed completely to the only area of the State that receives ample precipitation at that time
• The Western WA Gray Animal/Animals that in recent times show a clear liking for specific areas in specific seasons within a certain range.
• The notability of Spring where the Western Washington potential breeding grounds are concerned that were picked up via listening to a podcast and what a witness was experiencing each year.
• The Douglas County, OR Reports where 100% of All Reports there come from the Summer and Fall, where the Salmon runs begin in late July and taper off in to September.
• The possible insight in to the shy yet inquisitive nature of our subject in how so few Reports (around 80% Continent wide and higher than that in the States with a large number of Reports) coming from people that were Camping that actually have a Visual Sighting.

 

 

Bigfootery is at the point where people should be developing AI algorithms around these important clues. It's a big task but it needs to be kickstarted so once there is an algorithm, it can be used in tools such as a BF database.

 

 

 

[hiflier]

11 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

 

Bigfootery is at the point where people should be developing AI algorithms around these important clues. It's a big task but it needs to be kickstarted so once there is an algorithm, it can be used in tools such as a BF database.

 

 

 

 

There may be someone who could help with that. It would be a daunting endeavor but I'll at least ask

[BobbyO]

12 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

 

Bigfootery is at the point where people should be developing AI algorithms around these important clues. It's a big task but it needs to be kickstarted so once there is an algorithm, it can be used in tools such as a BF database.

 

 

 

 

Funny you should say that, i've been recently (within the last month) speaking with a couple of data Guys at one of the big western State Uni's that you guys have and they are interested in doing exactly that.

 

Potential correlations of precipitation, Ungulate migration, Bear habitat, all stuff that .

 

Fingers crossed we can build a relationship in such a way that it can benefit the subject. 

[hiflier]

Well then, BobbyO, you da man!

[Arvedis]

4 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

Funny you should say that, i've been recently (within the last month) speaking with a couple of data Guys at one of the big western State Uni's that you guys have and they are interested in doing exactly that.

 

Potential correlations of precipitation, Ungulate migration, Bear habitat, all stuff that .

 

Fingers crossed we can build a relationship in such a way that it can benefit the subject. 

 

That data would go a long way for any study of BF patterns.  I am kicking around some ideas on next steps with using data sets for machine learning or "deep learning", which is not so easy.  But oddly enough, people have time these days to work on it and bigfootery needs AI to perform tasks at lightning speed. It would take bigfooters years to scream through huge data sets and correlate patterns to discernable clues to study more in depth.  ML-generated data will help bigfooters target their research areas with data points to pursue.  Started brainstorming on that in the Olympic Project thread.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Arvedis

[hiflier]

Good stuff, Arvedis.

[wiiawiwb]

That's the beauty of BFF....people on the ground together with people discerning/evaluating trends of all available information.  Hand in glove.