Full Version: The Paper Chase
Very interesting. Thanks for that. By the way, I think the term "slope aspect" might be better described as the degree of slop on the land, rather than the "way it is sloping". So flat land with no slope is red,like in CA's central valley, and extremely steep stuff which has a lot of slope like along the crest of the Sierras, is blue, or am I misunderstanding this map?
Here's the way the aspect of encounters breaks down by month:
Click to view attachment
Aspect really shows a pattern when broken down by east/west, since most of the mountain
ranges in this area run north/south. Obvious preference for the west slope, assuming because
of more moisture and the vegetation and climate that greater moisture provides:
Click to view attachment
Also, about 90 encounters had descriptions that contained a height estimate, and about 80 had
estimates or measurements of footprint length. These show a normal distrubtion, with slight
negative skewness (indicating a slight bias for observation or estimate of larger individuals):
Height:
Click to view attachment
Footprint length:
Click to view attachment
This is just slope aspect, or the way the slope is facing, rather than steepness, or degree, of slope.
Click to view attachment
Aspect really shows a pattern when broken down by east/west, since most of the mountain
ranges in this area run north/south. Obvious preference for the west slope, assuming because
of more moisture and the vegetation and climate that greater moisture provides:
Click to view attachment
Also, about 90 encounters had descriptions that contained a height estimate, and about 80 had
estimates or measurements of footprint length. These show a normal distrubtion, with slight
negative skewness (indicating a slight bias for observation or estimate of larger individuals):
Height:
Click to view attachment
Footprint length:
Click to view attachment
QUOTE(dogu4 @ Dec 19 2007, 01:33 PM) 
Very interesting. Thanks for that. By the way, I think the term "slope aspect" might be better described as the degree of slop on the land, rather than the "way it is sloping". So flat land with no slope is red,like in CA's central valley, and extremely steep stuff which has a lot of slope like along the crest of the Sierras, is blue, or am I misunderstanding this map?
This is just slope aspect, or the way the slope is facing, rather than steepness, or degree, of slope.
Are these stats taken from the published reports of the BFRO? I understand that they only represent a "fraction" of all the reports submitted. Are members allowed to view all reports? I noticed that the stat showing only one sighting by someone actually looking for BF is 1. What about sightings that occur on BFRO expeditions? I really appreciate the work done here. I wonder if the trends would be the same if ALL reports to the BFRO were taken into account.
windigeo, thanks so very much for posting some of your work, it is much appreciated.
I'm also interested to read moregon's take.
I'm also interested to read moregon's take.
In regards to the mountains running mainly North and South in that area, the only range I know that runs East and West is the Siskiyous in Northern California/Southern Oregon. In that range there's been sightings on both sides of the range, North and South with probably the count being a tad heavier to the South. It appears your maps display that quite well with a high concentration on the western end of the range in the areas of Del Norte and Humboldt Counties. As you said the western slopes of those ranges, such as the Cascades tend to have more moisture, as well as milder winters.
I'm glad that both data collections show the average height, by quite a good sized margin is in the 6 to 8 foot range. I think it's been shown here a few times with exercises trying to estimate height through photographs, that people are not that accurate for the most part. When I was attending school in NM our tallest basketball player was a guy by the name of Sam Lacey, who went on to play pro. I think at school he was billed as being 7' tall, but as a pro at 6'10". Either way he was BIG and personally if I had tried to guess his height without knowing the data probably would have put him over 7' by a couple of inches. I think a shorter witness is more likely to overestimate height, than a taller witness who's closer to the height of the subject he's viewing. It would be interesting to see if there is some pattern to the height estimates given, compared to the height of the witness. Would it show shorter people estimate taller bigfoots and tall people estimate shorter ones, vice versa, or no difference.
On your month to month date, I'm surprised to see the big dips in May and July of sightings. Have you come up with any possible reason that might be the case? At least from Northern California northward during a good portion of May there's still a lot of snow as well as ice on the roads at higher elevations. I see the dip in sightings also correlates with the jump in altitude the sightings are at in that month according to your chart if I'm reading it corrrectly. Maybe in that part of the year they are following the receding snowline for? Tender shoots as the snow recedes? Or possibly following the smaller mammals as they feed on the new growth as the snow recedes.
Lots of good info and detail..
I'm glad that both data collections show the average height, by quite a good sized margin is in the 6 to 8 foot range. I think it's been shown here a few times with exercises trying to estimate height through photographs, that people are not that accurate for the most part. When I was attending school in NM our tallest basketball player was a guy by the name of Sam Lacey, who went on to play pro. I think at school he was billed as being 7' tall, but as a pro at 6'10". Either way he was BIG and personally if I had tried to guess his height without knowing the data probably would have put him over 7' by a couple of inches. I think a shorter witness is more likely to overestimate height, than a taller witness who's closer to the height of the subject he's viewing. It would be interesting to see if there is some pattern to the height estimates given, compared to the height of the witness. Would it show shorter people estimate taller bigfoots and tall people estimate shorter ones, vice versa, or no difference.
On your month to month date, I'm surprised to see the big dips in May and July of sightings. Have you come up with any possible reason that might be the case? At least from Northern California northward during a good portion of May there's still a lot of snow as well as ice on the roads at higher elevations. I see the dip in sightings also correlates with the jump in altitude the sightings are at in that month according to your chart if I'm reading it corrrectly. Maybe in that part of the year they are following the receding snowline for? Tender shoots as the snow recedes? Or possibly following the smaller mammals as they feed on the new growth as the snow recedes.
Lots of good info and detail..
Sorry moregon, I should have explained better...the numbers in the aspect chart are the mean aspect
(compass direction) by month. Here's a graph showing number of encounters by month, which shows
pretty much what you would expect...a peak in mid-summer when all the snow is generally melted
from the high country and people are out hiking, and another smaller peak in October during hunting
season:
Click to view attachment
(compass direction) by month. Here's a graph showing number of encounters by month, which shows
pretty much what you would expect...a peak in mid-summer when all the snow is generally melted
from the high country and people are out hiking, and another smaller peak in October during hunting
season:
Click to view attachment
Fantastic results! Granted, it may seem like the results tell you what you might expect, but that's still a huge step forward. As the interpretation of results sort of lean on the idea of a 'random' distribution of people, are the results skewed slightly if more people frequent a specific slope? My thought being that if a west slope side is more easily accessible to people than the corresponding east facing slope, does that account for the observation that more BF sightings occur on a west facing slope?
Still awesome work both moregon and Windigeo compiling all this data!
I agree with the statement earlier that this is probably the most information filled/most under appreciated thread in the Forum.
Still awesome work both moregon and Windigeo compiling all this data!
I agree with the statement earlier that this is probably the most information filled/most under appreciated thread in the Forum.
Ok, got it and thanks.
Click to view attachment
This is interesting how November elevation increases. I'm thinking maybe because of hunting season, higher elevations may be safer. I'm wondering about other reasons for the increase in November?
This is interesting how November elevation increases. I'm thinking maybe because of hunting season, higher elevations may be safer. I'm wondering about other reasons for the increase in November?
Hard to say. I thought that the May and November peaks may have been caused by
a few statistical outliers, but that is not the case...the histogram looks pretty much
the same when statistical outliers (beyond 90 percent confidence interval) are
thrown out.
a few statistical outliers, but that is not the case...the histogram looks pretty much
the same when statistical outliers (beyond 90 percent confidence interval) are
thrown out.
Also strange the two peaks are months exactly 6 months apart.
Hmmmm and in the month that falls between the ending of the solstice before the equinox of the next seasonal change.
Possible significant increase during those times of local migration between altitudes? The May one as they move from lower to Higher altitudes and November as they move from the higher to lower altitudes?
Let's say during May they know it's time to move up, so during the cover of darkness they move to the higher elevations they'll spend the summer in. However they've just arrived, and none have an area staked out yet as their own, so there'll be a lot of activity until things settle down. This leaves them in a more visible state at the higher altitude.
In November those who have moved to the highest altitudes will know it's time to move lower before the oncoming winter. Some will hang on until the last minute and that may be a larger than normal group that does that, again making them more visible to anyone in the area. You get one or two bigfoot moving through the forest, that can be easily overlooked as a bear or other large mammal making the noise and disturbance. Get a group of ten bigfoot, and somebody is going to see something with that much being visible.
Hmmmm and in the month that falls between the ending of the solstice before the equinox of the next seasonal change.
Possible significant increase during those times of local migration between altitudes? The May one as they move from lower to Higher altitudes and November as they move from the higher to lower altitudes?
Let's say during May they know it's time to move up, so during the cover of darkness they move to the higher elevations they'll spend the summer in. However they've just arrived, and none have an area staked out yet as their own, so there'll be a lot of activity until things settle down. This leaves them in a more visible state at the higher altitude.
In November those who have moved to the highest altitudes will know it's time to move lower before the oncoming winter. Some will hang on until the last minute and that may be a larger than normal group that does that, again making them more visible to anyone in the area. You get one or two bigfoot moving through the forest, that can be easily overlooked as a bear or other large mammal making the noise and disturbance. Get a group of ten bigfoot, and somebody is going to see something with that much being visible.
Pete, another question. I was listening to an interview last night given by Australian researcher Tom Healy. He said that he and Paul Cropper had done an analysis on the yowie reports concerning time of day/night. They found in running the numbers that between 6AM-Noon activity was almost nil. Highest concentration occured after high noon and continued till right before dawn.
Has your data given any insights into this?
Has your data given any insights into this?
Hominid, I haven't tracked time of day, because not many reports accurately specified a time of day,
at least not many that I was able to place geographically with reasonable certainty.
I see that moregon was able to get a count of day vs. night, roughly a ratio of 4:3. This looks
like an indication of validity to the theory that sasquatches are nocturnal, since I doubt there
are 75 percent as many people out at night as during the day. I would guess the number
50 percent or less, making the weighted proportion higher in favor of night encounters.
moregon, your theory of movement making them more likely to be spotted during times
of changing seasons is as good a guess as anything right now.
Mon0705, you're definitely right that you can't take the "people" aspect out of the encounter,
as right now that is the only means we have of deriving location...nobody has been able to
radio collar one. So the fact that more people live on the west side of the Cascades and
Sierras than on the east side may have an influence.
at least not many that I was able to place geographically with reasonable certainty.
I see that moregon was able to get a count of day vs. night, roughly a ratio of 4:3. This looks
like an indication of validity to the theory that sasquatches are nocturnal, since I doubt there
are 75 percent as many people out at night as during the day. I would guess the number
50 percent or less, making the weighted proportion higher in favor of night encounters.
moregon, your theory of movement making them more likely to be spotted during times
of changing seasons is as good a guess as anything right now.
Mon0705, you're definitely right that you can't take the "people" aspect out of the encounter,
as right now that is the only means we have of deriving location...nobody has been able to
radio collar one. So the fact that more people live on the west side of the Cascades and
Sierras than on the east side may have an influence.
Another possibility is that they know the season is about to change and that they will be losing food resources in the higher elevations. So they move up in elevation to 'strip' resources from those areas before they are lost for the season and thus help preserve the resources in the lower elevations longer. It is like if you know Mount Rainier is going to blow soon, you grab all the food out of your house before you evacuate and not just hope you can find enough at your destination, because you know the sudden influx of people will sap local resources for a while.
Oh, and I just did a bit of research into edible wild plants. There is a good mushroom that likes to grow along receding ice and snow lines. Maybe a clue to a good search place and time?????
Oh, and I just did a bit of research into edible wild plants. There is a good mushroom that likes to grow along receding ice and snow lines. Maybe a clue to a good search place and time?????
QUOTE(moregon @ Dec 20 2007, 05:33 AM)
In regards to the mountains running mainly North and South in that area, the only range I know that runs East and West is the Siskiyous in Northern California/Southern Oregon. In that range there's been sightings on both sides of the range, North and South with probably the count being a tad heavier to the South.
The Uintah Mountain range in Utah also runs East to West and I believe is the largest range in the US to do so.
The Black Mountain Range in Western North Carolina (Highest Range East of the Rockies) also runs East to West contrary to the NE to SW
Blue Ridge and Great Smokies, it is shaped like a sideways fish hook with the point turned under
and pointing West.
Blue Ridge and Great Smokies, it is shaped like a sideways fish hook with the point turned under
and pointing West.
I was able to find some geospatial data for old growth boundaries (what government agencies
call "late successional" forest) for the Cascade Mountains from the multi-agency Regional Ecosystem
Office (www.reo.gov/gis). A quick analysis shows that old growth occupies about 22 percent of the
Cascades, and that about 29 percent of the bigfoot encounters in the Cascades occur within old
growth boundaries. If past encounter locations are a reasonable predictor of future encounter
locations, this means that a bigfoot encounter is about 30 percent more likely in old growth areas
than at any random area in the Cascades.
call "late successional" forest) for the Cascade Mountains from the multi-agency Regional Ecosystem
Office (www.reo.gov/gis). A quick analysis shows that old growth occupies about 22 percent of the
Cascades, and that about 29 percent of the bigfoot encounters in the Cascades occur within old
growth boundaries. If past encounter locations are a reasonable predictor of future encounter
locations, this means that a bigfoot encounter is about 30 percent more likely in old growth areas
than at any random area in the Cascades.
Interesting. Thanks Pete.
Superb thread, the most informative thread on the most informative Forum...With regadrs to the E/W Mountain Ranges people, i found this..
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_an_east...range_in_the_US
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_any_mountain_...south_in_the_US
Hat's off to all who have contributed & shared their findings...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_an_east...range_in_the_US
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_any_mountain_...south_in_the_US
Hat's off to all who have contributed & shared their findings...
Fantastic thread. I did the same sort of research back in 06..comparing bits of data from numerous sightings to see what each had in common. I did find something a little strange,of all the sightings where sound could be heard fairly well(those not in automobiles or homes)such as camping,hiking and such..only 37 percent of the time did people report hearing sounds prior to the encounter. I thought that was a little odd considering that I had generally thought most usually heard a noise that alerted them that something was near. Of course,my research was only a portion of the total amount of sightings reported. Have any of you ever checked on this? I think if the percentage does hold up when taking all sightings into consideration,this just goes to show the stealth at which these creatures can move. Anyway,great info in this thread guys. This is where armchair research can really be valuable if shared openly amongst each other. Take care guys.
Great info moregon and Windigeo and thanks for sharing your data. I would like to see A database that had tables that would include what type of waterways sightings were near, terrain type, smells noticed, weather conditions and so on and so on. Then you could generate reports that would be very informative to researchers.
Example you could search for all the sightings near still waters where it was raining and a particular smell was noticed.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Example you could search for all the sightings near still waters where it was raining and a particular smell was noticed.
Just my 2 cents worth.
This is Fabulous information! I very much liked the maps that Windigeo created! One step further could overlay the seasonal information with the topo map to give you visual indications of "hot" zones as they vary through out the year. Could be something to use when narrowing down the research area. I also would really love a drop down menu you could tailor your search parameters with.
Wouldn't that be a sweet little program to download to your gps unit.....
Ah, I'm dreaming right now aren't I. I'm gonna have to get my crayons out and some more maps.
Edit for fast fingers. And to say that Moregon has just a wee smidge more patience than I do to wade through all those reports! I thank you for doing that!
Wouldn't that be a sweet little program to download to your gps unit.....
Ah, I'm dreaming right now aren't I. I'm gonna have to get my crayons out and some more maps.
Edit for fast fingers. And to say that Moregon has just a wee smidge more patience than I do to wade through all those reports! I thank you for doing that!
QUOTE(Bobby Orangeboom @ Jun 28 2008, 11:52 AM)
Superb thread, the most informative thread on the most informative Forum...With regadrs to the E/W Mountain Ranges people, i found this..
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_an_east...range_in_the_US
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_any_mountain_...south_in_the_US
Hat's off to all who have contributed & shared their findings...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_an_east...range_in_the_US
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_any_mountain_...south_in_the_US
Hat's off to all who have contributed & shared their findings...
East-West mtns missed, a small range in Western NC, the Black Mountains, run that direction but fish-hook a little to the n-s before paralleling back e-w again.
QUOTE(windigeo @ Dec 19 2007, 05:13 PM)
Sorry I missed this thread, it is interesting. HominidWA asked me to post some of my findings from
GIS (geographic information systems) analysis, so I'll add several posts showing some screenshots from
my TBRC presentation. These maps and graphs are based on 650 encounter locations from Washington,
Oregon, and California, that I compiled into a database and assigned coordinates based on maps, atlases,
and Topozone. Here are the locations of the encounters plotted on a map to show general location:
Click to view attachment
Here are the encounter locations plotted on top of a Digital Elevation Model, or DEM:
Click to view attachment
Here's a breakdown of elevation by month. You can see that encounters are generally
lower in winter, higher in summer, as would be expected:
Click to view attachment
Here's a density map of all encounters, which span the last 60 years. Darker areas
indicate higher density of encounters:
Click to view attachment
Here's a slope aspect map of the area, with different colors indicating different
slope aspects (the way a slope is facing):
Click to view attachment
GIS (geographic information systems) analysis, so I'll add several posts showing some screenshots from
my TBRC presentation. These maps and graphs are based on 650 encounter locations from Washington,
Oregon, and California, that I compiled into a database and assigned coordinates based on maps, atlases,
and Topozone. Here are the locations of the encounters plotted on a map to show general location:
Click to view attachment
Here are the encounter locations plotted on top of a Digital Elevation Model, or DEM:
Click to view attachment
Here's a breakdown of elevation by month. You can see that encounters are generally
lower in winter, higher in summer, as would be expected:
Click to view attachment
Here's a density map of all encounters, which span the last 60 years. Darker areas
indicate higher density of encounters:
Click to view attachment
Here's a slope aspect map of the area, with different colors indicating different
slope aspects (the way a slope is facing):
Click to view attachment
cool hot spots representations
QUOTE(bipedalist @ Mar 28 2009, 07:31 AM)
East-West mtns missed, a small range in Western NC, the Black Mountains, run that direction but fish-hook a little to the n-s before paralleling back e-w again.
Snakey little Suckers...
Actually at the end of that point of the fish-hook range there have been a few sighting reports, VERY squatchy, I have been planning an outing in that vicinity for late Spring/early autumn but have not pulled the trigger for an overnight, just scouting on day-hikes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.