---

Methods & Framework

This page documents the methodological framework used in Holstonia Bigfoot Investigations, including field instruments, analytical approaches, and interpretive constraints.

Methods & Framework

Holstonia Bigfoot Investigations adopts a conservative, method-driven approach to the examination of anomalous biological reports. The project does not assume the existence of an unverified organism and instead focuses on the structured analysis of reported phenomena using established principles from ecology, ethology, anthropology, and field biology.

Site Sections

• Methods & Framework
• Research Papers
• Reference Library
• Media & FAQ
• About & Scope
• Contact
• Changelog & Updates

  Guiding Principles

This work is guided by the following principles:

• Methodological transparency over persuasive narrative
• Documentation of uncertainty rather than elimination of ambiguity
• Separation of reported observations from inferred conclusions
• Preference for replicable procedures over anecdotal accumulation

Presence-Only Inference

Many reported biological anomalies fall into the category of presence-only data, where absence cannot be reliably interpreted as evidence of non-existence. This project treats such reports analogously to rare or elusive species monitoring, emphasizing spatial, temporal, and ecological patterning rather than individual events.

Observer Effort and Reporting Bias

Reported observations are influenced by observer effort, access, expectation, and reporting pathways. Where possible, this project incorporates effort-based considerations, including:

• Temporal sampling bias
• Observer density and activity
• Reporting thresholds and filtering effects

Patterns are interpreted cautiously, with explicit acknowledgment of these constraints.

Acoustic Reference Analysis

Acoustic materials are treated as reference exemplars rather than definitive identifiers. Recordings are evaluated for:

• Signal structure and duration
• Environmental context and propagation conditions
• Comparison against known biological and anthropogenic sources

Inclusion in the reference library does not imply attribution to a specific organism.

Gait and Locomotion Comparisons

Video materials are examined using comparative gait analysis, including side-by-side human controls where appropriate. Factors considered include stride length, limb articulation, cadence, and posture, with attention to recording quality and compression artifacts.

Terminology and Framing

The term “perinormal” is used descriptively to denote reported phenomena that fall outside current biological documentation but do not require paranormal explanation. This framing is intended to maintain analytical openness while avoiding premature ontological claims.

Analytical Tools and Editorial Review

Some components of data handling, analysis, and manuscript preparation in the Holstonia Bigfoot Investigations project use AI-assisted tools as analytical and editorial aids, including outlining, structural review, consistency checks, and stress-testing of arguments. These tools are not used to generate evidence, sources, data classifications, or conclusions. All empirical claims, citations, interpretations, and inferential limits remain governed by explicitly stated methodological constraints and human judgment and accountability.

Limitations

This project acknowledges substantial limitations, including incomplete data, unverifiable reports, and the absence of physical specimens. Conclusions are therefore provisional and subject to revision as new evidence or methods become available.