It is possible and often theorized that there are more than one species of this creature. If true, this would mean great variance in appearance. This is why I chose to conduct this study in a fairly small area.

This cross-reference study used sighting reports from Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, and Kansas. The purpose of this study was to provide the most accurate description of this creature that is available with current data.

Over 350 sighting reports were carefully reviewed in this study, looking for good physical descriptions. A total of 50 reports were used. All of these reports were daylight sighting reports with some physical descriptions given. I originally intended to use 100 reports, but the availability of quality reports simply was not there.

It must be considered by the reader that many variables may influence the final result of this study. Having a sighting of a creature that you are unfamiliar with can be a frightening experience and skew one’s perspective. Having previous knowledge of what you think one of these creatures might look like can be responsible for false memories. In essence, a person may “fill in the blanks” with preconceived ideas. Also, conditions and lighting can change the way an object is perceived.

The purpose of this study is simple. I hope to find out what a Sasquatch creature in my area of the United States looks like. Obviously, like any animal, the Sasquatch will vary in appearance depending on age, health, and genetics. What I hope to come up with is a very general description that is consistent with the data currently available.

Keep in mind that the statistics given in this study are factual. What may or may not be factual are my interpretations, or assumptions about what this data means.

With this information in mind, here is a breakdown of the data:

Sighting Distance

Although sighting distance is obviously not a physical description, I felt it necessary to include it within the data to give some idea as to how accurate the information provided in the reports might be. It stands to reason that someone who claims to have had a sighting from less than 10 yards could offer a better description than someone whose sighting was at over 200 yards.

Of the reports in this study, 8% took place at less than 10 yards, 16% took place between 10 and 24 yards, 16% took place between 25 and 49 yards, 14% took place between 50 and 74 yards, 6% took place between 75 and 99 yards, 8% took place between 100 and 149 yards, 2% took place between 150 and 199 yards, and 6% took place at over 200 yards. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the reports did not specify the distance of the sighting.

To break this down a little more, 54% or 27 of 50 reports in this study took place at under 75 yards, which seems a reasonable distance to offer a fairly accurate description under the right conditions. Keep in mind that these were all daylight sightings. When taking into consideration that 24% of the reports did not give a sighting distance, we can conclude that of the reports that did give a distance, 71.05% took place at under 75 yards.