Rockape Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 I don't see a single one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 OK I'll guess for real, perhaps around 200? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 OK I'll guess for real, perhaps around 200? And I'll guess that your estimation might not be very far off. That map covers some pretty "Squatchy" areas on both side of the state line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottv Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Ok, so why 200? Is this an even distribution or are they clustered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Well, it looks like around 7500 square miles of, as Branco points out, prime areas. I think there may be several tens of thousands of BF distributed widely. So 200 here seemed about right, might even be low. But I did not grid anything out or crunch any numbers on the computer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 To me, the sheer volume of consistent reports of something that isn't supposed to exist argues that it isn't exactly rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMBigfoot Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 In a 100 square mile area I've been searching for bigfoot for the past 20 years. I've only seen 3 bigfoots, 5 cougars, and 6 black bears. All my bigfoot sightings were at a low to medium elevation at or near my campsite. All my cougar sightings were at a medium to high elevation always on the road. All my black bear sightings were from a low to high elevation, on the road, along a trail, or from a stakeout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottv Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Would bigfoot densities be comparable to black bear densities then, or would grizzlies be a better model because of their size? If bigfoot densities are much much lower than say grizzly bear densities, why would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 Confirming the animal would be a good start in answering those questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Confirming the Animal would be a Great start. Until then, one two three four I declare a thumb war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SquatchinNY Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 If I could have one month with a high tech military drone, I could confirm you a bigfoot. Safly, I do not have clearence or money for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Flying over the creeks and rivers in the Ouachitas at night with a search and rescue or police chopper equipped with the nicer Flir units would probably work but doubt anyone is gonna pull that off anytime soon. Imagine doing this in the winter when the leaves are off the hardwoods and the other trees are thin conifers , pretty hard to hide the heat ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Confirming the Animal would be a Great start. Until then, one two three four I declare a thumb war... Not my fault. That's the mainstream's fault. The numbers would be staring them right in the face. If they, you know, looked. There's no topic of which those skeptical so clearly broadcast their need to pay attention as this one. When this animal's confirmed everybody will do what everybody does: go back to figure out How This Could Possibly Have Happened. That will be one of science's biggest setbacks ever. You think there are a lot of people who distrust scientists now? Just wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Yes, it's always just wait and see. Just wait. But the thumb war is happening right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The guys responsible for the proof could just listen to what's actually happening, and go out and get it. Might be nice, it being their job and all. It's not for scientists to wait until a bunch of charitably-part-time amateurs hand them the proof. It's their job to get it; thumb war is all on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts