Posted by: Rick Noll on May 3rd, 2007
Does it seem that there hasn’t been any good Bigfoot track ways found lately? Have we gotten so good at looking at this type of evidence that the preponderance of new finds have people not wanting to come forward with their pictures, tracks or casts of them? We now can look at these tracks and casts and tell with reasonable certainty if they were or were not of human manufacture?
In the past, large finds of track ways seem to have been laid down at random. What was going on in the Bossburg, Washington area (for now forget about Ivan Marx) that left over 1,000 tracks with all the tracks found at Blue Creek mountain, California? Would it be prudent to make a simple spread sheet for each of the large finds and place columns next to them of seemingly unrelated activities to see if maybe we were wrong and that there is a really is a pattern?
Logging, road construction, road building, harvest time, good substrate for tracks, Bigfoot researchers in the area, dynamite explosions, floods, drought, time of year for latitude, forest fires, holidays, fish runs, human behavioral changes with new laws, who knows.
Of course quantification for relatedness has to be determined… spatial and temporal distance limits for instance. A new road punched through an area may not mean Bigfoot suddenly gets seen more on that newer road… but maybe 20 miles away on an older road it use to cross easily and unseen things are now changed. What if the area is only occupied partially during the year? A road punched through in summer may not affect anything until fall.
A study area size is determined by a lot of these factors and you sometimes just have to take a WAG as to what to include and what not to include. A contiguous area can be just as hard to work as a patchwork or mosaic. I like both for each has its advantages.