Statistical Analysis of Sasquatch Reports

Barbara Wasson

The following graphs were compiled from 619 reports, 470 of which designated a month and year, or a month only. As this data was compiled from three investigator sources,† and there were differences in designated months for the identical report, the eartier month was used for two reasons: one, the second month could have been the reporting of an earlier event; and second, when in doubt, a systematic bias in one direction must be taken. The only exception to that would be if indicated otherwise in the content of the report.

Graphs 1 through 4 show an interesting trend, if this is not a function of sampling error. There is a decided dip (fewer reports) in one month in each area, becoming earlier by a month the further south you are. British Columbia has a distinct drop in September, Washington in August, Oregon in July, and California in May and June, but also September. Consider the expectation for human activity in the woods. We would expect September to be a drop after summer vacations and good weather ends (thus B.C. and Calif. September drops). But August in Washington and July in Oregon? Why even May and June in warmer California? One can speculate that it could have something to do with Sasquatch activity and perhaps temperature. This would not fit in with California, however. I have another bookful of data which I retrieved from the Oakridge Ranger District, McKenzie Ranger District, and the Willamette National Forest. In order to establish a baseline for human activity in the woods I used forest service statistics from two Ranger Districts, and three Wilderness areas in Oregon as a pilot study for the general areas where Sasquatch evidence had been reported. Establishing a baseline for human population allows comparison of the sighting reports by month. Should the sighting reports in that area not parallel the human population then we can speculate that the sighting reports are not a function solely of the existence of people in the woods. By that I mean that I was attemping to eliminate the human factor in sighting reports as a contaminating influence. For the entire state of Oregon we see a decided lowering of reports in the month of July. I worked with a set of variables which paralleled the July decline, and those are the rise of temperature and decline of precipitation in July for the entire state of Oregon, as per the Weather Bureau statistics. Establishing a baseline for human population in the woods also allows a view of the ratio of sighting reports to the population density, also by season. That the pilot areas chosen are inadequate to generalize beyond this is acknowledged, but its value as a model for analysis of other areas and use on a larger scale is indicated.

I had intended to present the extensive data I have, which indicated sighting reports dependent more on the rise of temperature and drop in humidity than on people being in the woods. Mosquito hatching at higher elevations in July could account for some of the Oregon State drop in people being in the woods, but I did not do further work with that as it did not influence the Willamette National Forest data. It is very detailed reporting as I looked at the individual influences for each area by population figures to arrive at a reasonable ratio of humans in the areas to Sasquatch reports. For example, I took the Willamette National Forest, and in that I eliminated some numbers of people who are downhill skiers on one slope, to make a more realistic ratio. However, they did use cars to get to the area and so were more likely to see a Sasquatch by road than on a downhill slope, although less likely to see one than away from a crowded highway. So you see how complicated statistics become to give at all a realistic picture. Then one has to combine the witness validity rating in the sighting reports that you have. I went into detail for each area on other points as to the number of road builders in the area. I recognized that the number of sightings I had as the other part of the ratio was over a 103 year period, and there would have to be account taken for that in final analysis. For example, for the Oakridge Ranger District the ratio was 55,230 people to one report, over 103 years. There were only two reports in the entire designated area. Now what, I ask you, can you do with that? Taken on a larger scale, perhaps you would get a little more sensible data. I do not know. So what.

† Ron Olson and Roger Patterson's reports, courtesy of Ron Olson; John Green's reports as published in Sasquatch File, 1973, duplicates eliminated.

From: Sasquatch Apparitions by Barbara Wasson, 1979.