Estimation: The Total # Of Credible Sightings, Reported, And Un-Reported

[Guest SquatchinNY]

And guesses?

[VAfooter]

100,000 credible sightings in the U.S. since 1700. Vast majority are unreported. Lots and lots 1800-1960 in the rural backwoods before "civilization" came to those areas. Just something the locals do not talk about to outsiders.

[yowiie]

100,000 credible sighting and not one shread of evidence. Thats whay it hard convincing skeptics that these animal are alive and well.

There are only about 360 credible documented sighting in Australia, in the same time frame. makes you wonder what's been seen in the USA

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

100,000 credible sightings sounds extreme. I'm willing to bet a good chunk are hoaxes. But I think there are likely more sightings that go unreported.

[VAfooter]

There is evidence, but not great evidence. PGF is the best, and we know how that has been torn apart for 45 years now. Of course, there are no professional scientific organizations with plenty of $$$ out there looking for it too. If there were, this would have been settled long ago.

Remember, the 100K was total sightings, reported and unreported as well. I read something somewhere that seemed to indicate that only about 1 in 10-15 sightings gets reported. I would probably put it closer to 1 in 20. But these are just WAGs. Yours are as good as mine.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

^Let's do some math!

Say there are 6K sightings reported.

1/20 =6/X

1x=20(6)

x=120

X=120K

[Guest BFSleuth]

As long as credible sighting reports are > 1 then I'm happy.

The percentage of credible reports is really a function of follow up investigations and collection of evidence. For example, the BFRO database is one of the most widely known. In that database there are a number of reports with no apparent (at least no written) follow up reports, while some more recent reports have extensive follow up investigation. IMO:

- I would think that at least 10-15% of their reports are solidly credible

- 35-45% are somewhat credible

- The balance are either unknown, not credible, or to little to information to determine.

Of the total BFRO publicly available sighting reports we can see a small minority. The majority of their investigated reports aren't published. The estimate is that the total reports they have determined as valid is in the neighborhood of 40,000. Who knows how many they have investigated and had either no determination or found were false reports.

I think it was Peter Byrnes who said that the majority of sighting reports he investigated were determined to be either hoaxes or misidentifications.

[Guest thermalman]

^Let's do some math!

Say there are 6K sightings reported.

1/20 =6/X

1x=20(6)

x=120

X=120K

Do you mean1200? Or 120?

Edited July 1, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

He means 120,000.

I think there are easily at least 10-times as many sightings as those that have been reported that are credible.

[Guest]

I would guess in the 10's of 1000's in North America. I can't see 100'000 plus, I don't know why but that seems like to large a number.

Edited July 1, 2012 by AlbertaSasquatch

[Guest UPs]

I think it may be considerably less if we are trying to estimate actual sightings or class A. It seems a majority of the reports that I read are other than visual encounters. Has anyone ever broken down the sightings by classes (A, other)? If we take the above estimate of 120k and break it down to close up visual sightings, that number may go as low as 4-6k. This is just a WAG based on 1 in 20 or 30 of all reports being actual visual sighting and not tracks, knocks, mis-Idents, etc. This number may well be much too low or high as this is all based on estimates and my own guesses. For those that are involved in documenting reports, any idea on what percentage of reports you are involved with are actual visual sightings? UPs

[chelefoot]

WAG = Wild A_ _ Guess?

[Guest Schmiml]

I could never begin to estimate the total number of sightings, but I would guess that the number would be high for those reports that have never been filed. My reasoning is that we have (probably not so much now), but old-timer loggers/men who work in the woods, have either chalked it up as being another type of animal or they are afraid of being classified as crazy/having some degenerative disease.

I remember on the old forum that a young man had related a story from, I believe, his grandfather, about encounters up in the Olympic National forest or general vicinity and the old man had said at the time he figured no one would believe him or think he was old and losing it.

--Schmiml

[Guest]

I know of one sighting (actually 2 now) that haven't been reported. First one, individual I'm assuming either doesn't want to be bothered....ridiculed. Second one.....well that is too be determined. Both sightings in my belief were actual sightings. One nighttime, one broad daylight.

I recently came upon a third one.....and doing my best to get the encounter logged.

Edited July 1, 2012 by treadstone

[Guest]

I have been studying John Green's database; over 50 years of collecting data on sightings, etc.

of sasquatch. As of now I have 3485 records for the USA and 502 for Canada.

Does anyone know if BFRO has any/many from Canada? Or any other group, Canadian or otherwise?

I think I can get down to a sort by visual/non-visual based on detail in the record.

I do not find it significant that he never personally had a sighting

(that we know of). He was always getting to the fire after the lightning started it.