All Categories

What the Whoop? A Scientific Look at the 2023 Bigfoot Vocalization

3/22/2025

Spectrogram of the "Whoop."

In the field of Bigfoot research, it’s rare that an investigation yields data worthy of deeper scientific analysis. But that’s exactly what happened during the 2023 expedition to “Research Area 1,” What started as a routine night surveillance operation turned into something far more intriguing—a single, clear, and oddly powerful vocalization that sparked questions no campfire story could answer.

Let’s cut to the chase: we recorded a “whoop.” Not just any whoop, but one with acoustic properties that stand apart from typical human calls and bear strong similarities to vocalizations of large-bodied primates.

We broke this down in a recent scientific paper, comparing the vocalization’s spectrogram and frequency analysis to known calls of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and howler monkeys. Here’s the kicker—the whoop was centered in a lower frequency range, averaging around 156 Hz. That’s significantly deeper than most human whoops, and well within the realm of some non-human primate vocalizations. We're talking frequency territory typically inhabited by gorillas or howler monkeys, not hikers or pranksters.

And no, there are no known non-human primates in that area.

To make things even more compelling, the context of the recording lends it additional weight. The whoop occurred shortly after I attempted to announce my presence, as I had for years prior, using vocal calls and whistles; methods also used in primate research to elicit response behavior.

Coincidence? Possibly. But it’s one hell of a coincidence.

The original archive entry offers a boots-on-the-ground account of the event, but when paired with proper signal analysis and primate vocal studies, it becomes something more: an anomaly grounded in data. Not definitive proof, but evidence that demands attention and further study.

What makes this case stand out isn’t just the quality of the audio, but the scientific rigor we applied afterward. This wasn’t brushed off as “just another sound in the woods.” It was analyzed, compared, and documented with transparent methodology.

In a field often plagued by hoaxes and hyperbole, this instance stands as a model for how Bigfoot research should be conducted: evidence-based, technically analyzed, and open to peer review.

Whether you’re a die-hard believer, an open-minded skeptic, or a hardcore primatologist, the 2023 whoop is worth a listen and more importantly, it’s worth a look through a scientific lens.

Want to hear it for yourself?

Check out the original post here: Expedition 2023 – The Best Vocal

Because sometimes, the woods talk back.

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D

0 Comments

Why Bigfoot Varies in Size Across North America

3/21/2025

0 Comments

A Look at Bergmann’s Rule, Allen’s Rule, and Regional Differences

Why do Bigfoot seem to vary in size depending on where they’re reported? From towering giants in the Pacific Northwest to leaner, more agile variants in the South, this isn’t just a case of eyewitness inconsistency, there’s a biological explanation worth considering.
Let’s break down what’s going on and how Bergmann’s Rule and Allen’s Rule might be the key.

Bergmann’s Rule: The Biology Behind the Beast

Bergmann’s Rule is a principle from biology that applies to warm-blooded animals (endotherms). It states that animals in colder climates tend to be larger in body size than those in warmer climates.
Why? Because larger animals retain heat better due to a lower surface-area-to-volume ratio, an evolutionary advantage in colder environments. It’s a law that holds true for bears, wolves, deer… and if Bigfoot is a real biological entity, it would make sense that the same rule applies.

Allen’s Rule: Shape Matters Too

Allen’s Rule builds on this by looking at body proportions rather than just overall size. Animals in warmer climates tend to have longer limbs and appendages, while those in colder climates have shorter ones.
Why? Because longer limbs radiate heat more effectively useful in hot environments. In cold climates, shorter limbs conserve heat. Again, this is a pattern we see in hares, birds, and even human populations.
So when we hear reports of long-limbed, lanky Sasquatches in the Deep South versus stockier, barrel-chested ones in Alaska or British Columbia it may not just be perception. It could be thermal adaptation in action.

Regional Differences in Bigfoot Size and Shape

Across North America, reports and footprint evidence suggest distinct differences in size and build based on geography which aligns remarkably well with both Bergmann’s and Allen’s Rules.

Final Thoughts: Nature Doesn’t Make Exceptions

Sasquatch exists as a living, breathing creature, and they are shaped by natural law like every other warm-blooded animal.
Bergmann’s Rule explains the massive builds in colder regions, while Allen’s Rule accounts for limb proportion differences across climates. Together, these biological principles help us make sense of the regional variation in Bigfoot reports, not as contradictions, but as evidence of environmental adaptation.

In short, it’s not that witnesses are inconsistent. It’s that Sasquatch may be evolving regionally, just like every other species.

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D

0 Comments

The Flaws in the Patterson-Gimlin Film Hoax Claims: A Critical Examination

3/3/2025

0 Comments

For decades, the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film has remained one of the most debated pieces of evidence in the study of Bigfoot. Many have sought to debunk it, but some of the loudest voices claiming it was a hoax, Bob Heironimus, Phillip Morris, Greg Long, and Kal Korff, have presented narratives riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright fabrications.

In my recent Critical Analysis of the Heironimus Claims, I dissect the claims made by these individuals and expose their glaring weaknesses. Here is a brief overview of the major points.

Bob Heironimus

Bob Heironimus: A Story That Keeps Changing

Heironimus claims he wore a Bigfoot costume in the film, yet his descriptions of the suit's material have changed drastically over time. At first, he described it as being made of a twenty-five-pound horsehide suit, then later changed his story to say it was a lightweight synthetic fur. He also gave conflicting details about its construction, the boots he wore, and even the filming location. Additionally, weather records contradict his claim that he was sweating profusely inside the suit on a hot day when the recorded temperature was just fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit.
Perhaps most telling is Heironimus’ financial motive. He admitted publicly that his reason for coming forward was money, saying, "It’s my turn now." His claims only surfaced decades later, conveniently timed to align with a book deal.

Phillip Morris

Phillip Morris: Where is the Proof?

Morris, a costume salesman, asserts he sold Roger Patterson the suit used in the film. Yet, he has provided no evidence, no receipts, no order records, and no surviving suit that matches the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject. His story also conveniently surfaced over thirty years after the film, once it was a recognized cultural phenomenon.
Morris has a history of dubious business practices, including a lawsuit for selling unlicensed Barney the Dinosaur costumes and making opportunistic claims, such as falsely stating he inspired the character Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. His involvement suggests a profit-driven publicity stunt rather than a credible revelation.

Easy to tell which one is a costume!

The character assassination of a dead man.

Greg Long

Greg Long’s The Making of Bigfoot: A Biased Attack Piece

Long’s book, The Making of Bigfoot, set out to "prove" the Patterson-Gimlin Film was a hoax, but his research was deeply biased. He actively sought out negative testimonials against Patterson while ignoring key witnesses like Bob Gimlin. His portrayal of Patterson as a "liar and thief" is based on cherry-picked anecdotes, and his reliance on unverified hearsay further discredits his work.
Most importantly, no physical proof of a Bigfoot costume was ever presented in Long’s book. Instead, his case rests on assumptions, contradictions, and biased storytelling.

The "Colonel" himself, Kal Korf (sitting between an American & Israeli Flag).

Kal Korff: The Self-Proclaimed Intelligence Officer

Korff, who played a key role in promoting the hoax claims and assisting Long lining up witnesses, has a well-documented history of fabricating credentials, including falsely claiming to be a Colonel in Israeli Intelligence.
His past is littered with publicity stunts and fraudulent statements, making him one of the least credible figures to support the hoax theory. Yet he writes the forward in Long's attack piece.

Conclusion: The Case Against the Patterson-Gimlin Film Falls Apart

Despite their combined efforts, Heironimus, Morris, Long, and Korff have failed to present a consistent or convincing case that the Patterson-Gimlin Film was a hoax. Their testimonies contradict each other, rely on no physical evidence, and are financially and personally motivated. Meanwhile, the Patterson-Gimlin Film endures. Its subject displays biomechanics, proportions, and muscle movement that remain unmatched by any costume reproduction to this day.

The hoax claims collapse under scrutiny. The film stands as a piece of evidence that has yet to be debunked and remains one of the most compelling pieces of footage in cryptozoology.

Below find the Critical Analysis in PDF form!

0 Comments

J. W. Burns – The Journalist Who Popularized “Sasquatch”

2/25/2025

0 Comments

J.W. Burns

John W. Burns (1888–1962), was a Canadian schoolteacher and Indian Agent who worked with First Nations communities in British Columbia.

In the 1920s, while teaching at the Chehalis Indian Reserve east of Vancouver, Burns became fascinated by local Indigenous legends of “wild hairy giants” said to roam the forests.

He earned the trust of Chehalis elders and collected their accounts of these creatures. Rather than keep these stories within the community, Burns wrote them up for a wider audience.

His most famous contribution was bringing the Sasquatch legend to mainstream attention through articles and stories published in Canadian media. This work effectively introduced an obscure Indigenous oral tradition to non-Indigenous readers, making Burns a seminal figure in Sasquatch lore.

Coining the Term “Sasquatch”

Burns is widely credited as the first to popularize the term “Sasquatch.” In fact, he effectively coined the word by anglicizing an Indigenous term. The word Sasquatch derives from “sasq’ets,” a word in the local Halkomelem (Coast Salish) language referring to a wild man or hairy giant. Burns heard various Indigenous names for the creature and decided to use a single term for his articles.

In 1929, he introduced this new term to the public in Maclean’s magazine, in an article titled “Introducing B.C.’s Hairy Giants,” thereby putting “Sasquatch” into print. By compiling First Nations stories and giving the creature a memorable name, Burns ensured that the legend would stick in popular imagination.

His 1929 article was the first modern account of the Sasquatch and is considered the origin point for all later “Bigfoot” lore in pop culture. Every subsequent mention of Sasquatch or Bigfoot can be traced back to Burns’s storytelling in that era.

Cultural Appropriation and Modern Critiques

While Burns helped preserve and popularize Indigenous stories, modern perspectives often criticize his work as an example of cultural appropriation. Burns was a non-Native “Indian Agent” retelling sacred First Nations legends at a time when Indigenous peoples were oppressed and even legally barred from practicing elements of their culture.

Critics note that Burns took Coast Salish stories and put his own name on them, repackaging communal oral traditions as his own discovery. According to one analysis, “J.W. Burns took the Sasquatch story from the Coast Salish people, put his name on it, and submitted it to Maclean’s.”

Indigenous writers argue that Burns’s retelling distorted and commodified their traditions, presenting them as entertaining curiosities for non-Native readers. Over time, Burns became “obsessed” with the Sasquatch, embellishing the legends with each retelling. As a result, the authentic legend eventually became unrecognizable. This has been cited as a classic case of cultural misappropriation—an example of how Indigenous knowledge was taken and transformed by outsiders.

At the same time, there is a nuanced view that the Sasquatch story has since been reclaimed by Indigenous communities. The Sts’ailes First Nation, for example, openly celebrate Sasquatch Days and share the Sasq’ets legend on their own terms, something that might not have been possible in the 1930s without Burns’s initial exposure of the legend. Nonetheless, the prevailing modern critique is that Burns’s role in Sasquatch lore came at the expense of Indigenous ownership of their own stories.

Condensed captures of Burn's article.

The 1929 Maclean’s Article and April Fool’s Day

Burns’s landmark article, “Introducing B.C.’s Hairy Giants,” appeared in the April 1, 1929, issue of Maclean’s magazine. Because it was published on April Fool’s Day, some readers at the time wondered if the wild tale was meant as a prank.

In fact, the piece was a sincere collection of accounts, not a satirical hoax but the coincidence of the date caused confusion. Historically, Maclean’s did not have a tradition of April Fool’s hoaxes. At the time, it was a serious monthly periodical that was typically released on the first of each month as a matter of routine scheduling.

The April 1929 issue happened to fall on the first, so Burns’s article ran that day by coincidence. Cryptozoology historians have noted that Burns did not intend to create a hoax or a joke creature; he was reporting legends he believed to be real.

Contemporary Reception and Legacy

At the time of publication, Burns’s Sasquatch writings were received with a mix of intrigue and doubt. The sensational nature of the claims combined with the April 1 issue date led many in the public to view Sasquatch as a curious folk tale rather than a credible reality.

Beyond local circles in British Columbia, the “hairy giants” were largely thought of as myth. Despite skepticism, the article did spark some interest, and in subsequent decades researchers occasionally cited Burns’s accounts as important early evidence for Sasquatch reports. Burns himself continued writing on the subject and helped organize Sasquatch-themed events in Harrison Hot Springs.

In the years since, J.W. Burns has become known as the “father of Sasquatch.” Cryptozoologists revere his work as foundational, while mainstream scientists and the broader public often view Sasquatch as purely mythical.
Modern scholars also focus on the cultural cost of his writings, noting how he extracted Indigenous legends for a sensational magazine piece and thereby appropriated stories.

Nonetheless, virtually all modern Sasquatch or Bigfoot lore traces back to Burns’s 1929 article and the term he introduced. His role in shaping the legend, despite controversies, remains profound.

Below you will find both the original issue of MacLean's Magazine and a transcription of Burn's groundbreaking yet controversial article.

Transcribed JW Burns' Article

MacLean's Magazine, April 1st, 1929

References

Burns, J. W. “Introducing B.C.’s Hairy Giants,” Maclean’s, April 1, 1929.
The Canadian Encyclopedia – Sasquatch.
Kook Science Archive – J. W. Burns.
Outpost Magazine – “Of Myths and Legends in the Great Bear Rainforest” .
Mysteries of Canada – “How the Sasquatch Got Its Name” .
The Walrus – “On Cultural Appropriation, Canadians Are Hypocrites”
Canadaland – “How Sasquatch was Stolen.”
Cryptomundo – “All-Time Best Cryptozoology April Fools’ Jokes.”

0 Comments

Unraveling the Mystery of Bigfoot’s Language: A Summary of New Insights

2/24/2025

0 Comments

As a longtime investigator of the Bigfoot phenomenon, I've dedicated much of my career to exploring every angle surrounding this mysterious creature, especially the possibility that Bigfoot could possess speech comparable to that of humans. Recently, I published a paper titled, “Assessing the Unlikelihood of Bigfoot Utilizing Speech Similar to Homo sapiens,” which dives deeply into the biological, evolutionary, and behavioral evidence surrounding this question.

I’d like to offer a more accessible overview of the paper’s key points and why I believe it’s unlikely that Bigfoot would speak in a manner like ours.

Why Speech Matters

Speech is one of the most defining characteristics of modern humans (Homo sapiens). Our ability to produce a wide range of vocalizations is tied to specific anatomical features, including a descended larynx and specialized brain structures (such as Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas).

These adaptations co-evolved with other critical developments like advanced tool use, control of fire, and complex social structures. When it comes to Bigfoot, there is no clear evidence of these same developments, so from a purely evolutionary standpoint, the building blocks for Homo sapiens-level speech might simply not be there.

Key Findings from the Paper

Anatomical and Cognitive Requirements: Humans can produce spoken language because of unique anatomical and neurological adaptations. While Bigfoot—if real—may share some traits with other large primates or early hominins, there’s no solid evidence it has the same vocal tract configurations or the advanced brain regions necessary for our level of speech.

Tool Use and Fire: Throughout human evolution, our use of tools and mastery of fire went hand-in-hand with developing more complex social and communication skills. There’s a strong correlation between these milestones and the selective pressures that shaped language. Reported Bigfoot activity does not consistently show evidence of complex toolmaking or fire usage, making the evolutionary leap to advanced language less likely.

Behavioral Observations: Sightings and anecdotal reports, while fascinating, typically depict Bigfoot as elusive, employing howls, whoops, or other calls—not structured language. Most of these stories lack the rigorous evidence we’d need to conclude Bigfoot has a communication system on par with human speech.

Scott Nelson’s Analysis and the Sierra Sounds

The most prominent audio recordings that proponents claim could indicate Bigfoot language are the “Sierra Sounds,” captured in the 1970s. Scott Nelson, a retired military cryptolinguist, analyzed these vocalizations and proposed they represent a unique language.

However, his conclusions rest on a single set of audio samples, which have never been independently validated under scientific scrutiny. Although intriguing, the data remains inconclusive at best.

The Role of Skepticism and Scientific Rigor

Being skeptical doesn’t mean rejecting the possibility of Bigfoot Speech outright; rather, it ensures that claims about Bigfoot’s biology or behaviors stand up to scientific standards. I emphasize that we need multiple lines of evidence peer-reviewed and independently replicated to confidently claim something as significant as human-like speech in an undiscovered primate.

For those of us who steadfast believe of Bigfoot’s existence, maintaining a rigorous scientific approach to investigating vocalizations is the most productive path forward. With careful methodology and unbiased analysis, we can continue to search for answers while staying grounded in the best evidence available.

0 Comments

Reframing the Bear Misidentification Debate

2/22/2025

0 Comments

American Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Photo Credit - Mykola Swarnyk via Wikimedia Commons.

For those of us who believe in the existence of Bigfoot, skepticism is nothing new. Various explanations have been floated—ranging from hoaxes to misidentified wildlife—but what about the growing body of evidence suggesting that Bigfoot really is out there?

In A Critical Examination of the Bear Misidentification Claim made by Floe Foxon, I delve into the argument set forth by Floe Foxon’s 2024 paper, Bigfoot: If It’s There, Could It Be a Bear?, which proposes that most sightings are simply black bear misidentifications.

While there’s no question bears can be confused for other creatures under poor conditions, and may account for some misidentifications, my analysis highlights where Foxon’s approach falls short and why we need to take seriously the evidence that Bigfoot may indeed be a living, as-yet undocumented hominid.

How the Bear Theory Falls Short

Data Gaps:
Foxon leans heavily on a single year of bear population estimates (2006). Such a narrow window ignores ever-shifting black bear demographics, habitat changes, and conservation efforts. Relying on outdated or incomplete data can create an inflated impression that bears perfectly align with Bigfoot sighting hotbeds.
Regional Mismatches:
Some states with significant Bigfoot sightings—like Texas, Ohio, and Florida—don’t have extensive black bear populations. Florida’s “Skunk Ape” has been reported in marshy Everglade regions where bears are relatively rare. Ohio has a long history of robust Sasquatch encounters despite only modest bear presence.
Confirmation Bias:
By focusing on bears as the primary culprit, Foxon effectively dismisses other explanations or evidence that simply doesn’t match the black bear profile. This narrow view can lead researchers to disregard legitimate sightings in “bear-poor” states or to downplay physical evidence—such as footprints with dermal ridges or eyewitness descriptions that don’t match typical bear behavior.

The Evidence for Bigfoot’s Existence

Open-minded researchers point to a range of data supporting the notion of a genuine, undiscovered hominid species in North America:

Footprints with Unique Morphology
Footprint casts often show details like toes with evident flexion and dermal ridges that differ significantly from any known bear paw shape. These footprints frequently appear in remote, hard-to-access regions, making intentional hoaxes less likely.
Hair Samples and Possible DNA
Over the years, hair samples have been tested by various labs. While some are inconclusive or match known animals, a few defy easy classification. Even though the science is ongoing and no definitive “Bigfoot DNA” has yet been isolated, these anomalies warrant further study rather than immediate dismissal.
Historical and Cultural Accounts (Anecdotal Evidence)
Indigenous tribes throughout North America have long-standing traditions of large, hairy hominids inhabiting forested regions. The continuity of these stories—predating modern pop culture—supports the idea that Bigfoot could indeed be more than myth.
Witness Evidence and Recordings
Many witnesses describe upright, ape-like figures that move in ways atypical for a bear. Alleged audio recordings capture vocalizations that some experts have difficulty attributing to known wildlife. While witness evidence isn’t necessarily conclusive on its own, the sheer volume of consistent eyewitness reports, with consistent primate behavioral descriptions, across different regions and eras adds weight.
Ecological Plausibility
Some primatologists and anthropologists argue that a relic hominid could exist in the vast, densely forested areas of the Pacific Northwest and other remote regions. The fact that it hasn’t been fully documented does not, in itself, disprove its existence—large, elusive species have evaded definitive classification before (consider the Okapi, once deemed mythical until it was scientifically recognized).

Why Bear-Based Explanations Aren’t Enough

Overlooking Inconvenient Sightings: Foxon’s bear hypothesis fails to accommodate large numbers of sightings in areas with low or non-existent black bear populations.
Ignoring Other Large Mammals: There are other animals—like elk, moose, or even feral hogs—that might also complicate wildlife identifications, but none so easily explains the consistent humanoid shape and behavior that Bigfoot witnesses describe.
Dismissing Compelling Clues: Physical evidence—from footprints to alleged DNA—cannot be explained by bears alone. Strict reliance on the bear theory can lead researchers to ignore or ridicule data that points to an unknown primate.

A More Holistic Research Path

Instead of attributing every sighting to bears, researchers should:

Incorporate Multi-Year Data: Examine trends in bear populations over time, not just a single static snapshot.
Account for Regional Variations: Properly investigate locations where bears are uncommon; examine if sightings are consistent with bear-like features or if they suggest a unique phenomenon.
Engage in Rigorous Fieldwork: Collect and analyze footprints, audio, video, hair, and other trace evidence to see if it deviates from known species.
Balance Skepticism with Open Inquiry: Avoid dismissing unusual findings prematurely. Skepticism is healthy, but it should not shut the door on genuinely unexplained phenomena.

Researchers have long argued that Bigfoot represents more than wishful thinking or misidentified wildlife. A Critical Examination of the Bear Misidentification Claim made by Floe Foxon underscores the importance of thorough, open-minded research. While black bears undoubtedly contribute to some mistaken sightings, the consistent sightings in low-bear regions, coupled with compelling physical and cultural evidence, indicate there’s more to the story than the “it’s all bears” narrative.

In my latest paper, A Critical Examination of the Bear Misidentification Claim made by Floe Foxon, I take a closer look at the popular assumption that black bear sightings account for the majority of Bigfoot reports. Floe Foxon’s 2024 study attempted to present a compelling argument linking Sasquatch encounters with black bear populations, yet my research uncovers notable inconsistencies and outliers—especially in regions with few bears.

By spotlighting these discrepancies and calling for a broader, data-driven approach, I hope to add depth and nuance to the ongoing discussion about Bigfoot’s potential existence.

As researchers, if we maintain a robust and unbiased scientific approach, we stand a chance at uncovering the truth behind one of the greatest mysteries of all time!

0 Comments

Bigfoot by the Numbers

2/21/2025

0 Comments

While witness sightings flood online forums and historical records, a deeper numerical analysis provides a clearer picture of Bigfoot’s presence across the United States. Leveraging comprehensive datasets from multiple sources, including the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), The Bigfoot Mapping Project, Oregon Bigfoot, The Squatchdetective Archives and Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization (GCBRO), we analyze where, when, and under what conditions these sightings occur.

This data-driven approach highlights the frequency of reports, the states where Bigfoot is most seen, and other factors such as weather, time of day, and even the reported smell. Let's dive into Bigfoot by the Numbers and explore the patterns behind one of the world's greatest mysteries.

State-by-State Bigfoot Sightings
Analyzing 5,577 reported Bigfoot sightings, we see a clear geographical pattern emerging. Certain states, particularly those with dense forests and vast wilderness, report significantly more sightings than others. Here’s a breakdown of the top states for Bigfoot sightings:

Washington – 724 sightings (12.76%)
California – 463 sightings (8.16%)
Florida – 344 sightings (6.06%)
Ohio – 326 sightings (5.75%)
Illinois – 304 sightings (5.36%)
Oregon – 260 sightings (4.58%)
Texas – 259 sightings (4.57%)
Michigan – 225 sightings (3.97%)

At the other end of the spectrum, states with fewer forests and smaller rural areas report the least number of sightings, such as Delaware (5 sightings) and Rhode Island (5 sightings), which account for just 0.09% of the total reports.

When Are Bigfoot Sightings Most Common?
Despite the wealth of sighting reports, aggregated monthly data remains elusive. However, researchers like Charles Holbert suggest that late summer and early fall are peak times for sightings. This aligns with the idea that Bigfoot is more likely to be seen when people are hiking, camping, and spending more time in wooded areas.

Time of Day Analysis
The best time to see Bigfoot? Dawn and dusk. Anecdotal reports consistently indicate that Bigfoot sightings occur during low-light conditions, likely due to their nocturnal or crepuscular nature. The Sasquatch Data Project found that nighttime sightings are significantly more common than daytime ones, further supporting the idea that Bigfoot is most active during twilight hours.

What Does Bigfoot Look (and Smell) Like?
While the stereotypical image of Bigfoot is a large, dark-furred creature, the data suggests variability in its appearance:

Predominant fur colors: Black, brown, and reddish-brown
Less common colors: Grey, white, or a mix
Estimated height: 6 to 9 feet tall

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of these reports is the common mention of a foul smell. Descriptions range from “rotting meat” to “sulfur”, and 12.5% of Class A sightings (where the creature was seen clearly) included a mention of a strong, putrid odor.
This matches reports from BFRO case studies and historical encounters, where the smell is often described as overpowering. Whether this is a defense mechanism, a trait of the species, remains unclear.

Bigfoot Sightings by State

Bigfoot Sightings by Month

Bigfoot Sightings by Time Period

Bigfoot Sightings by Weather

Bigfoot Sightings by Color Reported

Bigfoot Sightings – A Data-Driven Conclusion
This numerical deep dive into Bigfoot sightings underscores several key takeaways:

✅ Bigfoot sightings are geographically concentrated in forested states like Washington, California, and Ohio, with Washington leading by a significant margin.
✅ Bigfoot is most often seen in late summer to early fall, aligning with increased outdoor activity.
✅ Twilight and nighttime are the most common times for encounters, possibly due to Bigfoot’s nocturnal nature.
✅ Smell is a frequently reported characteristic, with witnesses describing a sulfuric, musky, or decaying odor in about 1 in 8 sightings.

While skeptics will continue to challenge the existence of Bigfoot, the numbers reveal consistent patterns that suggest something unusual is happening in North America's wilderness. The legend of Bigfoot endures—backed by data and numbers that continue to grow.

Sources & Citations

BFRO Geographical Database of Bigfoot Sightings & Reports
GCBRO US Database – Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization
Bigfoot Encounters State by State Sightings List
Squatchdetective Archives
2-D Density Map of Bigfoot Sightings – Charles Holbert
Unraveling Bigfoot Hair Color Patterns – Sasquatch Data Project
Bigfoot characteristics – Wikipedia
What Does Bigfoot Smell Like? – MEL Magazine

0 Comments

What the Whoop? A Scientific Look at the 2023 Bigfoot Vocalization

Why Bigfoot Varies in Size Across North America

The Flaws in the Patterson-Gimlin Film Hoax Claims: A Critical Examination

​J. W. Burns – The Journalist Who Popularized “Sasquatch”

Transcribed JW Burns' Article

MacLean's Magazine, April 1st, 1929

Unraveling the Mystery of Bigfoot’s Language: A Summary of New Insights

Reframing the Bear Misidentification Debate

Bigfoot by the Numbers

Bigfoot Sightings by State

Bigfoot Sightings by Month

Bigfoot Sightings by Time Period

Bigfoot Sightings by Weather

Bigfoot Sightings by Color Reported

Archives

Categories

J. W. Burns – The Journalist Who Popularized “Sasquatch”