Why Are There So Many Sightings In The Usa

[Guest]

Saskeptic said:

"So this was your challenge to the skeptics that has you so disappointed that we didn't rise to the bait? Personally, I didn't see anything to challenge. In North America we have a large amount of naturalistic landscapes capable of supporting something like a bigfoot, we've got extensive road networks, a largely mobile and technologically advanced citizenship, etc. If there was such a thing as bigfoots you're right - those five things you listed would contribute to a disproportionately high number of reports coming from the USA."

Sorry, not displeased at lack of "bait rising", I was/am displeased at how the question morphs into a "does popular culture influence the perceptions of bigfoot sighting witnesses and therefore invalidate same?" question.

Popular culture and tall tale telling are not limited to areas receiving over 20" of rainfall per year. Shouldn't pop culture induced sighting syndrome be fairly consistent across the the country?

British Columbia has the habitat to support numbers of bigfoot similar to the combined numbers of California, Oregon and Washington. That BC doesn't have similar sighting numbers suggests to me that to have a sighting a witness is required. To have a recorded sighting, that witness needs to inform somebody who is keeping records of that sighting. It is so simple, I'm amused it has even generated much debate.

edited for spelling

Edited December 10, 2011 by John T

[Guest]

Sasskeptic,

I stand corrected on the horse drinking capacity as I don't have horses but even 5 to 6 gallons per day is a lot if you in a dry area.

If you look at the BFRO sightings database the sightings do correlate to the amount of rainfall in the US. The center states tend to get much less water and the BF sightings correspond to that.

But also the center dry states also have less people generally for large areas and this may also affect the number of sightings.

[BobbyO]

My pleasure. I now own a copy on DVD and still watch it once a year. (No commercials and I get to skip Clarice's song.)

So . . . defective sense of humor gene or just not a fan of animated puppets?

I'm certainly not defective of a humor gene no, so it must be the Puppets yeah Sas, good one..

& i've just worked out who your Fan Club consists of, he's not very discreet about it either, i think you need to train him up a bit more..

Does he catch Fish too ??

Edited December 10, 2011 by BobbyO

[gigantor]

Would anyone on the forum care to estimate the number of reported sightings in the USA since PGF

This is a job for my sightings analysis tool... it's still a prototype.

PGF was 10/20/1967, my tool says 5815 since then, but there are a few more than that because the dataset I'm using is not complete. Maybe 200, 250 more.

Edited December 10, 2011 by gigantor

[slabdog]

sorry...weird double post from a few days back...not sure how that happened

Edited December 10, 2011 by slabdog

[Guest WesT]

Maybe prior to the PG film being televised (i.e - mass media / cultural exposure to Sasquatch), people had no idea what they might have been looking at.

A hairy man? A deformed bear? A Gorilla on the loose? A man in a fur coat?

Maybe, to some degree, once mass media provided the public with a potential category to put these sighting in, the sightings became more prevalent for no other reason than people finally could somewhat categorize or explain what they heck they were seeing?

This is the correct answer. At the time of my sighting (in the late 70's) I had no frame of reference to help me identify what it was I looking at.(except human, covered in hair)

Edited December 10, 2011 by WesT
Quoted Deleted Post

[Guest]

Several posts required moderator intervention on this page. This is a reminder to keep posts with the boundaries of the BFF Rules.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Back to our regularly scheduled programing,

Thank You,

Grayjay

[Guest]

Popular culture and tall tale telling are not limited to areas receiving over 20" of rainfall per year. Shouldn't pop culture induced sighting syndrome be fairly consistent across the the country?

It doesn't have to be. Do you call that stuff "pop", "soda", or "coke"?

More to the point though, the meme is that of big, hairy, man-apes that live in the forest. Thus the only places likely to perpetuate the myth are places with abundant forest. Note that some folks are convinced bigfoots live in the prairies too, but they contend that those bigfoots are largely confined to the forested riparian areas in states like Kansas.

A correlation between average rainfall and the number of bigfoot reports is no more compelling than that reports of lake monsters come from places with big lakes. I suspect we could find a statistically significant correlation between lakes with reported lake monster sightings and metrics like depth or shoreline length. Such a correlation would have zero to do with whether or not real lake monsters actually inhabit those lakes. We could make similar correlations with such things like ghost sightings and cemeteries or old, creepy buildings, but that doesn't mean there are real ghosts in those places.

Here's a great example: As a middle-aged suburban American, I looked forward each December of my youth to watching "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer" in the weeks before Christmas. I can't think of a year that I missed it before heading off to college. Every year, tens of millions of kids were tuning in and seeing Santa, the elves, Rudolph and the other reindeer, and, of course, "the Bumble Snowmonster of the North!" "Bigfoot" and similar creatures are remarkably pervasive in American culture.

Update: I watched Rudolph with my kids this weekend. It's still funny, and now I'm feeling more Christmasy.

The cool part was after Rudolph, though. Somehow, I had missed Will Farrel's Elf until this past weekend; I don't know how because many folks have told me it's very funny. If you're familiar with the movie and you have a sharp eye, you no doubt caught the bigfoot reference in that movie! My kids and I practically fell off the couch laughing when we saw that. So again, bigfoot and Christmas are united through a Hollywood film.

[Guest mitchw]

"you no doubt caught the bigfoot reference in that movie!"

It's a relief not to be so alone, Sas

[Guest]

It doesn't have to be. Do you call that stuff "pop", "soda", or "coke"?

More to the point though, the meme is that of big, hairy, man-apes that live in the forest. Thus the only places likely to perpetuate the myth are places with abundant forest. Note that some folks are convinced bigfoots live in the prairies too, but they contend that those bigfoots are largely confined to the forested riparian areas in states like Kansas.

A correlation between average rainfall and the number of bigfoot reports is no more compelling than that reports of lake monsters come from places with big lakes. I suspect we could find a statistically significant correlation between lakes with reported lake monster sightings and metrics like depth or shoreline length. Such a correlation would have zero to do with whether or not real lake monsters actually inhabit those lakes. We could make similar correlations with such things like ghost sightings and cemeteries or old, creepy buildings, but that doesn't mean there are real ghosts in those places.

Update: I watched Rudolph with my kids this weekend. It's still funny, and now I'm feeling more Christmasy.

The cool part was after Rudolph, though. Somehow, I had missed Will Farrel's Elf until this past weekend; I don't know how because many folks have told me it's very funny. If you're familiar with the movie and you have a sharp eye, you no doubt caught the bigfoot reference in that movie! My kids and I practically fell off the couch laughing when we saw that. So again, bigfoot and Christmas are united through a Hollywood film.

I kid you not I watched those exact 2 movies back to back with my daughters this weekend (on DVD so that's what makes it more random). The bigfoot move by Will Ferrell was awesome by the way.

[Guest]

I think the answer is scattered in a lot of the replies here.A whole combination of reasons, more accessibility and use of the area's bigfoot would live in the USA. Certainly on the fringes anyway. A much broader social network on the subject than in many countries, and that will not only lead to more reports, but more mistaken reports,more hoax's ect. Individual cultural differences may affect the reported amounts to, for instance, Canada reports less, and that may simply mean a different level of acceptance within the northern population of Canada? I do not know if thats true, but I could see how it would affect the volume of reports if it was. I think awareness, acceptance, expectations, all these things can factor into the amount of reports. Would be interesting to do some comparisons, and try to come up with reasonably accurate percentage globally, it might aid in coming up with a rough number of genuine sitings? I know this repeats a lot of what you all already said,was just an attempt at a bit of a summery.

[MagniAesir]

British Columbia has the habitat to support numbers of bigfoot similar to the combined numbers of California, Oregon and Washington. That BC doesn't have similar sighting numbers suggests to me that to have a sighting a witness is required. To have a recorded sighting, that witness needs to inform somebody who is keeping records of that sighting. It is so simple, I'm amused it has even generated much debate.

edited for spelling

I would think that British Columbia matches all 5 of the reasons you spoke of in regards to the US.

With one notable exception, once you leave the Metro Vancouver area there is nobody here.

Something like 80% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the Can/US border.

Canada is slightly larger than the US in total landmass but we have roughly 10% the population.

3,000,000 Americans could probably sneak into Canada and hide in the bush and we wouldn't know

We have roughly 35 million people living in a total area of 9.9 million square kilometers (3.8 million square miles)

Yes the best thing about my country is that no one is here

Estimated Population of British Columbia (2005): 4,254,500

British Columbia, Canada's westernmost province, is located on the Pacific coast of North America, and has a land and freshwater area of 95 million hectares. It is Canada's third-largest province and comprises 9.5 per cent of the country's total land area. The province is nearly four times the size of Great Britain, 2.5 times larger than Japan, and larger than any American state except Alaska. BC is 1.35 times bigger than Texas! There are only thirty nations in the world larger than British Columbia.

B.C.’s 7,022-kilometre coastline supports a large shipping industry through ice-free, deep-water ports. The province has about 8.5 million hectares of grazing land, 1.8 million hectares of lakes and rivers, and 950,000 hectares of agricultural land that is capable of supporting a wide range of crops.

The province is bounded by the U.S. states of Washington, Idaho and Montana in the south, Alberta on the east, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon on the north, Alaska on the northwest and the Pacific Ocean to the west. From south to north, B.C. stretches 1,200 kilometres, and from east to west as much as 1,050 kilometres. Its deeply indented, island-dotted coastline features an offshore archipelago in the north and a large island in the south.

British Columbia is characterized by mountainous topography, but also has substantial areas of lowland and plateau country. The province has four basic regions: a northwesterly-trending mountain system on the coast, a similar mountain system on the east, an extensive area of plateau and mountain country between the two, and a lowland segment of the continent's Great Plains in the northeastern part of the province.

The province is blessed with an abundance of waterways in the form of rivers, lakes, streams and swamps. Freshwater surfaces total 1.8 million hectares. Major river systems include the Fraser, Columbia, Skeena and Peace Rivers.

Approximately 21% (20.3 million hectares) of British Columbia is rock or consists of alpine barren icefields and glaciers.

Approximately 62% of British Columbia is forest land, with 48 million hectares, or 51% productive forest.

Approximately 5% (4.04 million hectares) of British Columbia is arable and grazing land consisting of 2.6 million hectares cultivated land; 10 million hectares open range; and 0.4 million hectares Alpine and sub-Alpine range.

Edited December 13, 2011 by MagniAesir

[Guest SwampMonster]

Take pieces of numerous posts in this thread, and you have already mentioned many of the reasons for the US having more sightings.

"350,000,000 people scattered over a large area."

Many of these 350 million people get around. We like to travel, often to regions with critters that we have never seen in person. The rump of a cow moose in the bushes might look like a BF to somebody that has never seen one before, or maybe a bear standing upright peeking around a tree. Maybe a clump of spanish moss hanging from a tree and blowing in the wind in the moonlight, or a cypress stump lurking in the fog.

People that have never experienced rural life and aren't familiar with the sights or sounds are moving into rural areas. Honest, straightforward people with no ill intentions.

People that partake of mind altering drugs and hallucinating Bigfoots.

Attention seekers. Overactive imaginations.

Maybe people in some countries are afraid of being locked in a padded room if they report something?

Who knows? These are just some possibilities. If only 25% (don't panic, just a number pulled out of a hat) of the reports are legit, then there are still alot of good reports.

Something that I didn't see mentioned is the fact that many of us hunt, fish, hike, ride the backroads, etc, putting us smack dab in Bigfoot's living room. We trek deep into the habitat that Bigfoot supposedly needs in order to survive. We can afford to do these things, possibly more so than people in other parts of the world.

Firearms are illegal in many countries, so hunting is probably not as common as it is here and people don't get to experience the wilderness as much.

Just some random, neutral thoughts.

[MagniAesir]

When you compare the US to Canada everything is similar except population.

Firearms ownership in Canada on a per capa basis is similar to the US.

The recreational pastimes between the two countries are similar, so the only explanations I can think of are

Difference in populations/population centers verse landmass

Difference in climate between Northern Canada and the rest of the continent and how that would effect Sasquatch populations

Some or all Sasquatchs sightings in the US are caused by media induced reactions (mis-identifications, fabrication or whatever), however I don't think there is much difference between our cultures to make this a reason

[Guest]

There have been lots of good reasons put forward in this thread pertaining to why there are more reported sightings in the USA... and some humorous lateral forays on the subject.

I thought to add another, unless it was spoken of previously. Socially it may be that Americans in general are more outwardly expressive with concern to events outside of mainstream experience. Graham Green wrote "The quiet American" knowing the title in itself was somewhat of an oxymoron. Americans speak. In my personal experience speaking out on outskirt experience is not culturally jumped at in Australia, and likely Britain. Austrlalia has a history where many have been subdued in terms of self expression. White Australian culture commenced in a brutal situation - people sent for life to a landscape far from ever they had known, for stealing a loaf of bread. Speaking out about personal experiences, especially those which might not be accepted, could mean much more than a tongue whipping. The indigenous people from that time on also suffered for speaking of their personal experience - greatly!

Indigenous people in Australia spoke clearly within their own culture about creatures that meet the description of a hairy hominid who lived along side them, some stories have them as OK others as enemies or to be feared. There were various sizes to such hairy people. This is clear in aboriginal culture across Australia. There were also many other types of creatures that would fit the crytozoological area of study. While there are stories of mermaids across the world it is not generally known that there are aboriginal stories of mermaids too as well as the little people. (Just on that I recall reading a post by an Irish member talking of the little people not the same as the hairy ones - but I have read some Japanese indigenous peoples believed in the hairy very very small people who made clay ware and had pit dwellings, some recently found)

I think we may tend to think that what is reported in the western concrete world is more real a report than what is reported in indigenous communities. Without a doubt the yowie (by other names) is reported in indigenous circles in Australia without problem. Very few indigenous Australians however will discuss their experiences and cultural beliefs with non aboriginal people. Even what was given to anthropologists in the past was very little and made to fit the anthropologists understandings concerning reality and sociology. Some might note my avator - taken from an ancient rock painting, what do you see there?

Some cultures just dont wish to put their experiences out in their nations modern domain. Some cultures, I think particularly indigenous Australians, dont feel a need to prove their beliefs and experience to those who do no see reality in the same way and would abuse the knowledge. Aboriginal australians have tried in the past to explain certain matters concerning the environment with western cultured australia but this often ended in fairly tragic circumstances.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Encounter