A Statistical Exploration of Estimated Sasquatch Heights
Introduction
The towering presence of a sasquatch is often the highlight of a witness’s recount. The sheer mass of the creature is enough to raise goosebumps on one’s arms and bring witnesses to tears when sharing their experience. While we cannot take a measuring stick to a sasquatch for an accurate gauge on height, the best we can do is to rely on witness testimony. The Sasquatch Data Project has now parsed 592 reports from the BFRO’s (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) online database to bring you and scientists an open-source dataset optimized for coding and data analysis. Of these 592 reports, 311 of them have been “Class A” visual sightings of the animal. If you are not familiar with the term “Class A”, it means without a doubt the person saw a sasquatch. Of those 311, 211 reports mention at least one height of a sasquatch. In today’s blog we will be exploring the various heights of sasquatch and how this data can potentially allow us to learn more about their social dynamics. We will investigate sightings where only one sasquatch was seen and also those with multiple.
Sources of Error
Before diving in, I think it is important to go ahead and point out potential sources of error within this data. The first major place for error is a person’s inability to correctly gauge height, especially when afraid. This psychological phenomenon is called “visual magnification”. Stefanucci & Proffitt (2009) found that individuals estimating height while looking up from the ground overestimated the vertical height of a distance by up to 26-29%. It is important to note the subjects were not faced with fear in that portion of the experiment, suggesting people have a general tendency to overestimate heights larger than they are. Steffanuchi & Proffitt also found subjects experiencing fear and anxiety during the experiment perceived a size up to 31% larger, albeit while looking down from a point and judging the distance. Though much research has not been done on this specific phenomenon, this study should be kept in mind when considering the heights of sasquatches in these reports. For many people, seeing a sasquatch is an extremely unnerving experience. It is reasonable to assume there would be some level of error in height perception due to this.
Another source of error on my part lies in that sasquatches likely have height differences as a sexually dimorphic trait. This is seen in the other great apes and humans. In statistical analysis it would be more correct to separate out the heights based on the sex of the sasquatch in addition to their age. Currently, we are unable to do that with the data at hand. There are not enough reports specifically noting genitalia or secondary sex characteristics to do this. This will be discussed further in the blog, but I assume any height over 6ft to be an adult, and anything under, a juvenile. This idea introduces error into the analysis. With that out of the way, let’s get into the data.
Sightings of One Sasquatch & Their Estimated Heights
Data
To begin this investigation, let’s first look at sightings in which only one sasquatch was seen. Using Python, I filtered out only accounts detailing one sasquatch and provided a height for the individual. Out of the 289 reports of one sasquatch, 211 of those provided a height estimate. I then created a histogram to visualize the frequency distribution of heights (Figure 1). Histograms are a quick and easy way to get an idea of the distribution and shape of the data.
Figure 1. A histogram depicting the heights of sasquatches from sightings when one individual was seen.
Made obvious by Figure 1, the most reported height lies between 7 and 7.9 feet. The second largest bin includes heights from 8-8.9 feet.
Figure 2 depicts a box and whisker plot for the height of sightings with one sasquatch. Table 1 relays values for Figure 2.
Figure 2. A box and whisker plot for sasquatch heights from sightings with one sasquatch.
Table 1. Statistical values for Figure 2. Units in feet.
Box plots are a great next step for getting an initial look at how the data is spread. The y-axis (vertical axis) holds the height in feet of the individual. The x-axis (horizontal axis) labels the individual sasquatch in the sighting with the corresponding data. This will become extremely important later when we look at sightings with multiple sasquatches. For now, the reports only include one individual, so we are only investigating “Individual 1”.
To read a box plot, let’s start from the outside and work our way in. The circles sitting outside the main plot in Figure 2 designate outliers in the data. Outliers are data points that lie an abnormal distance from other data points in the sample. They can represent mistakes, variability, and rare occurrences. In our case, the data points at [3, 3.5, 4.5, 4.75, 5, 5.25, 10] are outliers and probably represent juveniles and very large males (or a case of visual magnification). So out of the 211 reports of single sasquatch sightings with heights associated with them, those values were abnormal compared to the others.
The short lines outside of the main box, or the tails, represent the minimum and maximum values in the data set that are not outliers. These are the highest and lowest values within a “normal” distance from the other data points.
Working our way in, the line that creates the bottom and top sides of the box are called the lower and upper quartiles, respectively. They are also called the first and third quartiles, or Q1 and Q3. The lower quartile is found by arranging the data in ascending order and finding the data point where 25% of the data is less than that value. The upper quartile is found in a similar fashion, but is the value where 75% of the data is less than that value.
The entire box itself is called the Interquartile Range, or IQR, and describes the spread of the middle half of the data or distribution. The IQR is a useful tool in finding outliers and it gives you a good look at how spread out the middle 50% of your data is.
The green line represents the median of the dataset. The median is the value exactly in the middle of all the data if you arranged it in ascending order. It is where 50% of the data is less than that value, and 50% is greater than. This is different from the mean (designated by the green triangle), or the average, which tells us the value if you added all the data points then divided by the number of data points. We can learn a lot about a data set by comparing the median and the mean, which we will touch upon shortly.
Discussion
Based on witness testimony, adult sasquatches do not typically exceed 9 feet tall. Claims of heights exceeding 9 feet are outliers, as seen in Figure 2, and may be attributed to the visual magnification phenomenon described earlier in this article. On the flip side, it is possible certain individual sasquatches could reach and exceed this height due to genetic diversity, climate, or resource availability. The average height of an adult male human is 5’9, but there are people who exceed 7 feet tall. It is not out of the realm of possibility that sasquatches could grow beyond 9 feet, but it seems more rare as things stand (pun intended) right now. As stated earlier, I consider any height over 6 feet to be an adult sasquatch while acknowledging the error in this logic. Height-based sexual dimorphism, or height dimorphism, is likely to be present in this species as it is seen in other apes and humans. A “teenage” male sasquatch could potentially be in the height range of an adult female sasquatch. For example, the Patterson-Gimlin film subject “Patty” is estimated to be in the range of 6’4. She is thought to be an adult female sasquatch showing enlarged breasts and a muscular, mature stature. Male sasquatches exceeding 7 feet tall have to grow to that height someway, though, so it only makes sense some of the sasquatches seen in the 6 foot range would be adolescent males and not adult females. I acknowledge this potential source of error and how it may skew the data. Nonetheless, I will proceed with my current assumption that adult sasquatches can be described as any individual over 6 feet tall.
When data has a mean that is less than the median, in this case 7.4 and 7.5 respectively, it suggests the data is slightly skewed to the left. This also suggests most of the outliers lie on the smaller end of the spectrum, and is evident by visually looking at the plot. A left skew indicates smaller values are less likely than larger values in this particular dataset. The opposite would be true if the data was skewed to the right. Figure 1 visually demonstrates this concept well. The “tail” of the histogram is on the left of the plot while the bulk of the data is on the right. Therefore it is skewed left. The idea that smaller sasquatches are less likely to be seen on their own makes sense from a biological standpoint. Filial attachment between great ape mothers and juveniles describes the strong emotional bond juveniles have towards their mothers. They seek out the presence of their mother for both emotional and physical care. Chimpanzees and bonobos exhibit more independence from a younger age than gorillas or orangutans, but their lone escapades are only for short periods of time and the mother is typically still watching them. On the contrary, orangutan juveniles will stay within close proximity of their mother until they are a few years old. Assuming sasquatch juveniles show a similar level of dependence, it is not surprising the majority of single sasquatch sightings are of larger, older individuals. Socially among great apes, adults are the ones foraging, hunting, and scoping out new areas to live. They will stray from the group in search of resources, and we can assume the same is happening with sasquatches based on this data.
Moving forward, the spread of the IQR as seen in Figure 2 is relatively small. This will be readily apparent when compared to the dataset that includes sightings with multiple sasquatches. A small IQR indicates the data is clustered around the median, which can also be seen and supported by Figure 1. This feature can suggest a high level of consistency and precision within the data, but that is not likely in our case. Consistency is possible, precision is absolutely not in my opinion. This data is based on eyewitness testimony, not a physical measurement, therefore the data is not precise. We can assume most witnesses are not highly trained in judging heights and distances. We must also acknowledge that the height range of 7-8 feet has been thrown around as “common knowledge” for sasquatches for decades, therefore witnesses may have preconceived notions of what they think they “should” be seeing when they see a sasquatch, therefore defaulting to that range when relaying how large it was. In a future investigation, I am going to be investigating the purported heights of sasquatches pre and post internet to see if there is any significant difference in the heights reported. If witnesses are indeed defaulting to the “expected” height of a sasquatches, I do not think it is intentional, we must accept this as a source for error. Height distortion could also be a source of error. A person could be seeing a 6-6.5’ sasquatch but due to its muscular body build and emotional fear, a taller size could be perceived. Therefore the data is not precise. But that does not mean it cannot be consistent. If the sasquatch is much taller than a typical human (5’9 for males and 5’4 for females), but not monstrously tall, a height of 7-8 feet is not out of reach. So for this study we have to focus on the consistency aspect of the data and what it could potentially tell us about sightings with one sasquatch.
Sightings of Multiple Sasquatches and Their Estimated Heights
Data
Instances of multiple sasquatches being seen is quite rare. Out of the 311 sighting reports, 9 of them mention 2 sasquatches, and 2 report a group of 3. Obviously, we are seriously lacking data, but every investigation has to start somewhere. With such a small sample, I’ve skipped a histogram and gone straight to a box plot, Figure 3. The y-axis is the height in feet and the x-axis indicates which individual sasquatch the heights are for. In my dataset, Individual 1 is always the tallest sasquatch. Individual 2 is the second tallest, and Individual 3 is the smallest. Because only 2 reports mention 3 sasquatches, I will be focusing on the 9 reports that mention 2. But for transparency’s sake, I’ve gone ahead and plotted the 2 reports of 3 sasquatches and their heights.
Figure 3. Box and whisker plot of estimated heights of sasquatches where multiple individuals are seen.
Table 2. A table detailing the values associated with the box plot.
Individual 1 and 2’s mean is less than its median, meaning the data is skewed left. Since Individual 3 only includes 2 data points, I am not going to make any assumptions on the data.
Figure 4 compares the heights of the sasquatches within each individual sighting. The height of “Individual 1” in feet is listed on the x-axis, and the height of “Individual 2” in feet is noted on the y-axis. Sightings of an assumed adult (>=6ft) and juvenile (<6 ft) are denoted with yellow circles, green circles indicate 2 adults, and purple circles label 2 juveniles. It is important to note that two sightings reported seeing two sasquatches both of 5.5 feet tall. So there are two data points overlapping at that intersection on the plot.
Three reports indicated Individual 1’s height was greater than or equal to 6ft and Individual 2’s height was less than 6 ft. There were also 2 reports claiming both Individual 1 & 2’s heights were less than 6 feet. Lastly, 4 reports noted that both Individual 1 & 2 stood taller than 6 feet
Figure 4. Comparing heights of sasquatches when multiple are seen in one sighting. Yellow circles denote an adult and juvenile, green circles indicate 2 adults, and purple labels 2 juveniles.
Discussion
With so little data pertaining to sightings of multiple sasquatches, there is only so much that can (and should) be said. The first bit of information that jumps out at me is the difference in heights between Individual 1 & 2. Both the mean and median for Individual 1 are over 6 feet while the opposite is true for Individual 2. In my opinion, this points to an adult sasquatch being with a juvenile. It is also interesting to note the average height is on the suspected “smaller” side of the adult height spectrum coming in at 6.5 feet and the median is sitting at 7.0. This could potentially suggest female adults are more likely to be traveling with juveniles over an adult male. As discussed previously, it is likely sasquatches also exhibit filial attachment between mother and offspring, and so far the data suggests this is the case.
Additionally, in every report in which multiple juveniles are traveling together, one of them is over five feet tall, suggesting they are possibly past childhood and into adolescence. If this trend continues as more data is collected, it seems older juveniles have some level of independence and responsibility for their younger counterparts.
Sightings reporting two adults do not give us any insight into which sexes travel together and in what frequency, therefore we will just leave it at that until I can get through more reports.
Conclusion
Sasquatch heights are more than just a number. Once more data is obtained we can dive deeper into what their size might indicate about their evolution, social structures, and ecological role. Something I have realized through years of independent research into sasquatch is that we as a community make a lot of assumptions without actual data to back it up. No one can tell you numbers as to why something is or isn’t the case, it is mostly opinion based on personal experience. Part of my mission with the Sasquatch Data Project is to provide that data. While many of the findings so far seem intuitive, in science we have to have the numbers to back up claims. I am really excited to be doing that for this field and can’t wait to watch the numbers evolve and start performing statistical analysis once I get through more reports. I hope you enjoyed this blog and found bits of it interesting. I will continue to expand upon this area of research as I get through more reports. If you have any questions or (positive) comments, please feel free to leave them under this blog or email me!