Here is an interesting link.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Matrix/4867/us.html

He has Arkansas right on target for the period of time he worked on this.

Yes.....that is a very interesting link he has there. I really like the maps he has on it.

That is pretty cool. Check out Utah. As they say in Young Frankenstien, nice grouping!

I wonder if any of this will tie in with the project fishys trying to complete?it is very cool.hey fishy any idea if this will affect your data?

It will definitely be useful for comparison! I can use it as a sort of litmus test to hold against a regression analysis.

GOOD FIND, ARKANSAN!!!

Hey Jim, what does fishy need? I will certainly help if I can.......

Well.... I can ask you myself I guess ..... what do you need help on Fishy....

Thanks, Ranshirl!!!

I'll definitely need help once I get the groundwork figured out. For right now though, I'm just trying to get the foundation laid out in my little beady brain. :wink:

It is quite useful for that. I checked against my own data for Arkansas too. And with the exception of a few more recent reported sightings I have on mine, it is right on target with the rest. Surprising to say the least that our data matched so closely!

It is a very interesting map....I was surprised that his "bigfoot habitat" range map did not include the Sierra Nevada Mountains...there have been oodles of reports from the Sierra (this is supposedly where the bigfoot recordings were made)he shows only a few around Lake Tahoe.....I know and RB knows of alot more than that.....

The Sierra has alot of extremely remote and inaccessable areas of National Forest and Wilderness so like I've speculated before.....the odds of seeing a bigfoot would seem to be with folks in the East as there are more people around to see 'em and less unpopulated areas for a bigfoot to live.

Yeah, msfit...there are more reports in our area than seem to be referenced there. I'm sure that's probably the case in other areas as well. But I'm pretty impressed with that map...thanks for posting that link, Arkansan!

He has made a very interesting connection to the types of vegetation and Biggies range. I think it is probably correct, but incomplete. I don't agree with him that any reports outside this area are "rogues". The areas outside his range boundary probably do have a smaller population of Bigfoot, but the population is certainly not non-existent...just maybe a smaller human population to sight them. IMO.