If My Math Is Correct (Sasquatch/square Mileage)

[Guest]

The bear number is presumably reasonably accurate at 733,000.

 

You've then guessed 10,000 for sasquatch.

 

All your maths is simply going round in a circle to come back to the ratio of 73:1 between these two numbers.  

 

As this is wholly dependent on a guess of 10,000, any value it has is solely dependent  the accuracy of that guess.

 

You have effectively said "I guess there are 73 times fewer sasquatch than bears, therefore there are 73 times as many bears as saquatch."

 

I'm just throwing around numbers, use it for a population of 1000 or 2000, that gaps becomes much, much larger.

 

It's just to show how the large the forest is and refute the idea that there is no room for a population of these animals to survive and remain undetected, it's completely false.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Austin M.

[norseman]

One thing I will say, you simply can not try to attribute sightings of Bear > Sasquatch and attempt to work off of that as the reporting of a sighting of a Bear > Sasquatch is a WHOLE different ball game.

The potential ridicule, the mainstream taboo, the risk involved of reporting a Sasquatch sighting is so great for so many, that its just not worth it.

Use me asa perfect example.

A Bear on the other and getting reported to a Park Ranger, and all of a sudden you're entering into a 20 minute conversation.

It really is apples and oranges, baseball and football, sharks and gold fishes etc etc.

 

I don't agree, simply because the bear is utterly so mundane that people are not going to report it.

 

We saw a black bear............big deal. A Squatch?  Probably a once in a life time event, that IS a big deal.

[Guest]

Map of wilderness in the Continental US

 

 

 

Map of bigfoot sightings

 

[Guest DWA]

Um, we've seen this before, and we've said why it's irrelevant before.

 

(For just one:  sasquatch don't need to spend all their time in Federally-designated wilderness for two reasons anyone acquainted with evidence knows:  first, there is lots of de facto, non-Federally-designated wildnerness; second, we provide them with lots of food.)

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

I'm just throwing around numbers, use it for a population of 1000 or 2000, that gaps becomes much, much larger.

 

It's just to show how the large the forest is and refute the idea that there is no room for a population of these animals to survive and remain undetected, it's completely false.

 

 

 

Yes but the only numbers have any effect on your figures are the 733,000 and the 10,000.  In order for this to have any validity, you have to show some indication of how you have arrived at that number.  Otherwise I might as well say "No there aren't, there ought to be 500,000 sasquatches, that is a similar density to bears and therefore they should have been detected."

 

The 10,000 is the only number of any relevance and you have simply plucked it out of the air without any supporting evidence.  The fact that you have surrounded it with a lot of other numbers which are supportable simply serves to confuse the fact that the 10,000 is not.

[Guest DWA]

Well, as to the matter of simple detection:  sasquatch detection indicates higher numbers than the rare-and-elusive camp tends to come up with.

 

It's simply that the detection has gone unrecognized by the scientific mainstream. 

 

John Bindernagel, for one, considers the detection more than sufficient to label sasquatch a scientific discovery that hasn't been recognized yet.  His The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010) is the book to read for anyone interested in a truly scientific slant on this field (and sure, read Meldrum and Krantz et al too).

Edited May 26, 2013 by DWA

[BobbyO]

 

I don't agree, simply because the bear is utterly so mundane that people are not going to report it.

 

We saw a black bear............big deal. A Squatch?  Probably a once in a life time event, that IS a big deal.

What don't you agree with ?

[Northern Lights]

Another factor could also be that bears don't seem to have the need to avoid detection that squatches obviously do. I've caught bears going through garbage cans and they know I'm there but just act like they don't care.

[Guest DWA]

That is so classic - cubs in the dumpster and mom does nothing.  If mom had been a griz, pieces of Ladder Man would have been going in that dumpster to feed the kiddies.

[Guest openminded skeptic]

Re: Map of wilderness in the continental US.

 

If you want a better idea of where forested areas in the US and Canada are located, take a look at Google map's satellite view.  Some bigfoot sighting areas make sense from the point of view of being coincident with large, continuous forested areas, or smaller areas connected to larger ones.  Such areas might conceivably be able to support and provide a hiding place for a large number of large animals.

 

Other sighting areas, not so much...

[Guest]

The "map of wilderness areas" is so laughably and ludicruously incomplete that it can only have been chosen deliberately. Using lots of white space leaves the impression that the US is all wide open country except where the green bits are and that is the furthest thing from the truth that I can think of.

By that map, there is little wild lands in MO and OK. Go to either one and you'll see plenty of wild lands, mountains, etc.

Then take the other map and slather huge blotches over any place with a "claimed sighting" within 100 miles of it. Make 'em bright red so they REALLY draw the eye.

So it looks like this great big open empty country has squatches crawling out of every nook and cranny...nice bit of psychological manipulation, but as far as a legitimate argument goes it's basically DOA.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest]

Whats "psychological manipulation" is the claim that "well, there's a lot of forests so therefore, there's plenty of room for bigfoot to hide". Of course that doesn't work for deer, wolverines, bears and mountain lions. Several of the reports also place sasquatch close to towns and residential areas.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

"Of course that doesn't work for deer, wolverines, bears and mountain lions."

 

If you mean avoiding people to the point where they are not accepted as a reality then I guess you have a point, but the forests do provide them some shelter. For example, mountain lion sightings are sometimes even rarer than Bigfoot sightings in places where we know they exist.

[Guest]

This reminds me a little of the math I did regarding the lack of trail cam pictures.  As far as population, I tend to think that there are 2000-4000 animals.  Suggestions of tens of thousands of these animals is unrealistic IMO.  Were there that many we would not still be debating this as they would have been "discovered" by mainstream science - no matter how intelligent they are.  While the worlds wolverine population is not completely known, estimates range around 30,000 animals worldwide - WORLDWIDE.  With a population of around 400 in the continental US, and this is a fairly easy species to find if you are motivated.  I'm fairly confident that even the Finding Bigfoot guys could have found a wolverine by now if they were trying (maybe).  I'm also still not sold on the sightings outside of historical hotspots.  I read the other day about a guy who claims to have photo evidence of BF within the city limits of Philadelphia.  To me that is absurd. 

[norseman]

This reminds me a little of the math I did regarding the lack of trail cam pictures.  As far as population, I tend to think that there are 2000-4000 animals.  Suggestions of tens of thousands of these animals is unrealistic IMO.  Were there that many we would not still be debating this as they would have been "discovered" by mainstream science - no matter how intelligent they are.  While the worlds wolverine population is not completely known, estimates range around 30,000 animals worldwide - WORLDWIDE.  With a population of around 400 in the continental US, and this is a fairly easy species to find if you are motivated.  I'm fairly confident that even the Finding Bigfoot guys could have found a wolverine by now if they were trying (maybe).  I'm also still not sold on the sightings outside of historical hotspots.  I read the other day about a guy who claims to have photo evidence of BF within the city limits of Philadelphia.  To me that is absurd. 

 

I tend to agree. I have no experience with the east so I just tend to reserve judgement and keep my mouth shut.

 

But as far as Alaska, PacNW, much of Canada? Exploring it my whole life, I have no doubt in my mind there is plenty of elbow room for something like a Squach to exist.