Let's Do Some Math...

[Guest Coonbo]

@ dmaker:  Totally. 

[Cotter]

I know people will argue that it isn't just a matter of numbers, and I'm not arguing with that.  I'm just pointing out that your numbers don't say what you think they do.

 

Well, interestingly enough, it DOES point out what he's saying.  Here's another interesting thread on the subject:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45538-why-are-more-bigfoots-not-shot-dead-and-brought-in/

 

47 reported cases.

 

But if one immediately dismisses these reports out of hand, then one could state what you have.  However, if BF is real, and DOES indeed come close to the numbers assumed, we would have people that have shot one, as indicated in the thread above.

Seems a bit self fulfilling.

[Guest Llawgoch]

 47 unsupported stories compared to many many thousands of dead bear carcasses does not suggest what you would expect for an animal 144 times rarer than bears, even if you do not dismiss those reports out of hand.

 

We would expect some Bigfoot carcasses to make it in if that was the case.

[Cotter]

^Well, the OP was blasted because he/she 'assumed' a '5000' figure.

 

And you ASSUME that harvesting a bigfoot is done as easily as harvesting a bear.  (Would you please share how you arrived at that assumption?)

 

I simply provided a link to a discussion regarding 47 bigfoot shootings.  Something one would expect if there was a population of them.

 

Now, we can nit-pick over bear vs bf populations and difficulty in harvesting.  But perhaps we could agree that, IF a population of them exists, we would have reports of people shooting them.

Now, the bigger question is "why hasn't it been scientifically recognized", but I won't delve into that, there are other threads that cover that area.

[dmaker]

I personally think there are a LOT more than 5000 bigfoot/sasquatch in North America.

 

They greatly outnumber bears in much of the U.S.

That seems completely unreasonable and fanciful. Where did you pull those estimates from?

[BobbyO]

I could swear the OP said " rough population ".

Now within this subject, a lot of things involve rough estimates, rough ideas and ways of thinking that haven't been confirmed because they can't be currently so for the normal members to take literally what he said about population and lambast the OP like they have shows really poor form to me.

If we can't talk about rough ideas, rough populations, rough guesses and guesstimates on this specific subject forum without it getting ripped apart by the normal wise guys, I fail to see why there is in fact a forum in the first place on this specific subject.

[Guest Llawgoch]

^Well, the OP was blasted because he/she 'assumed' a '5000' figure.

 

And you ASSUME that harvesting a bigfoot is done as easily as harvesting a bear.  (Would you please share how you arrived at that assumption?)

 

I simply provided a link to a discussion regarding 47 bigfoot shootings.  Something one would expect if there was a population of them.

 

Now, we can nit-pick over bear vs bf populations and difficulty in harvesting.  But perhaps we could agree that, IF a population of them exists, we would have reports of people shooting them.

Now, the bigger question is "why hasn't it been scientifically recognized", but I won't delve into that, there are other threads that cover that area.

 

 

I don't ASSUME anything of the sort.

 

The argument put forward is purely based on relative numbers.  If we are going to say that harvesting a Bigfoot is subject to a number of variables that make it more difficult than harvesting a bear, then that's another argument entirely that renders this one irrelevant.

 

It's the original  post that ASSUMES (your capitals) that harvesting a Bigfoot is related to harvesting a bear, and goes on to say that on grounds of pure numbers, we shouldn't expect a Bigfoot to be harvested.  This is not the case.

 

Be clear here that I am not arguing for or against Sasquatch.  I am addressing only the figures and arguments  put forward in the initial post.

I could swear the OP said " rough population ".

Now within this subject, a lot of things involve rough estimates, rough ideas and ways of thinking that haven't been confirmed because they can't be currently so for the normal members to take literally what he said about population and lambast the OP like they have shows really poor form to me.

If we can't talk about rough ideas, rough populations, rough guesses and guesstimates on this specific subject forum without it getting ripped apart by the normal wise guys, I fail to see why there is in fact a forum in the first place on this specific subject.

 

I hope you don't think I'm challenging that population estimate.  My point is simply that all the additional numbers had no bearing at all on the original estimate.  We assumed 5000, which is 144 times less than bears, so that's the ratio that came out after we had multiplied and divided the bear population and the sasquatch population by the same factors.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Llawgoch

[dmaker]

I could swear the OP said " rough population ".

Now within this subject, a lot of things involve rough estimates, rough ideas and ways of thinking that haven't been confirmed because they can't be currently so for the normal members to take literally what he said about population and lambast the OP like they have shows really poor form to me.

If we can't talk about rough ideas, rough populations, rough guesses and guesstimates on this specific subject forum without it getting ripped apart by the normal wise guys, I fail to see why there is in fact a forum in the first place on this specific subject.

Well this is the general forum, Bobby. Anyone can say and do anything they want as long as it is within the rules. That includes not only making up wild statements like bigfoots outnumber bears, but also includes counter statements. I'm sorry if you would rather everyone just consider everyone's fantasies as potential realities, but since I have the right to express myself within the rules here, I am going to continue to do so.  

 

Not pausing to offer any type of counter statement is how ridiculous bigfoot memes happen. One person says bigfoot outnumber bears, for example. That gets unchallenged and then spread around and the next thing you know Matt Moneymaker is rolling it off on national TV. I thought some people here wanted to be taken seriously.  Letting wildly unfounded statements take root and grow here is not a good way to accomplish that.  There are over 1,000,000 bears in North America. If we are to take Coonbo seriously then we are to seriously consider that there may be, what, 2 or 3 million bigfoot in North America?  And this is the type of " rough guesses" and "rough ideas" that you think should not even have to suffer simple commentary? 

Edited March 31, 2014 by dmaker

[BobbyO]

Well this is the general forum, Bobby. Anyone can say and do anything they want as long as it is within the rules.

And what ?

Still doesn't make it right just because it's within the rules.

we are to take Coonbo seriously then we are to seriously consider that there may be, what, 2 or 3 million bigfoot in North America? And this is the type of " rough guesses" and "rough ideas" that you think should not even have to suffer simple commentary?

Absolutely not but you don't take coonbo seriously as I doubt lots of others would/wouldn't, but maybe some would.

Come on DM, you know better than that.

No one HAS to be taken seriously and I've said a zillion times, I take a hell of a lot that's said on this forum with a pinch of salt but I don't think a 5,000 guesstimate is as completely left field as a lot of other stuff that's written but of course, it is to you guys as you don't think there is any number to be guesstimate as not even one exists and that's cool.

I just don't think you should be jumping all over someone who does though.

I hope you don't think I'm challenging that population estimate. My point is simply that all the additional numbers had no bearing at all on the original estimate. We assumed 5000, which is 144 times less than bears, so that's the ratio that came out after we had multiplied and divided the bear population and the sasquatch population by the same factors.

Excuse my stupidity, if you aren't challenging the 5k, then what are you doing ?

Admittedly I've just had a long day at work but.........

Thanks in advance for clarifying.

Edited March 31, 2014 by BobbyO

[dmaker]

It wasn't the OPs number guesstimate that I had the most issue with, it was the post as a whole. It is the typical approach in this field, so there should be little surprise. It's the whole I need something that sounds like fact to backup my guesses and assumptions. So I assume bigfoot to be more rare than bears. That way no one has to explain why they are never found nor are any remains ever found. Cool. I will start with making up a number to plug into my simple model of x over y = chance of finding a bigfoot. And of course, voila, look how rare bigfoots are!  Wow, that mystery was solved quickly.  

 

What was all this fuss about after all? All we need to do is make up a number of bigfoot and do some simple division and then science and skeptics can go pester some other topic because " the simple math" clearly shows that bigfoot is super rare.   And then others go, oh yeah. I knew bigfoot were really rare. Look how rare they are....etc, etc.   

[BobbyO]

We'll they are rare aren't they ?

They generally seem to range from anything upwards of 7ft tall, weigh the same as a small car, are upright, hairy and are living right under the noses of 400m people..

I can't imagine they're are millions of them to be honest, I maybe wrong of course.

[WSA]

I think any population estimate for the critter, even with lots of long division included, is what we could safely describe as a W.A.G. Moreover, I see such exercises as being rather pointless, as is disputing them. Large mammals are where you find them, not where you think they should be, and they certainly aren't evenly sprinkled over the landscape like birds or ladybugs. If saw a coyote outside my door tomorrow morning, it doesn't inform me at all on the probabilities of you seeing one tomorrow, wherever YOU are,  or even your chances of doing that in the next decade. It barely informs me about MY chances of seeing another one, ever. Or cougar. Or elk. Or....     

 

But hey, party on!

[Guest Llawgoch]

Excuse my stupidity, if you aren't challenging the 5k, then what are you doing ?

Admittedly I've just had a long day at work but.........

Thanks in advance for clarifying.

 

 

I honestly don't know what I've said that can be seen as challenging the 5,000.

 

I'm saying two things.

 

First is that estimating 5,000, then applying a lot of other numbers and multiplying and dividing them, doesn't add any value.  It's still just a guesstimate of 5,000.  The final ratio of 144 to 1 is made up ONLY of two numbers, the known bear population and the estimated sasquatch population.  All the other numbers are pointless as they do not affect this ratio.  The post is not using mathematics to do anything, it is simply saying "If we assume there are 144 times fewer sasquatch than bears, then there are 144 times fewer sasquatch than bears".

 

Second, if sasquatch is 144 times rarer than bear then we would expect sasquatch bodies, IF sasquatch and bears were equivalent in terms of 'harvesting'.  Now the original post does not make any distinction between them.  It assumes that they are equivalent, then draws the wrong conclusion from the numbers.

 

Now, I know most people here would argue that sasquatch is a lot harder to find and shoot than bears.  That's fine.  but that being the case, I don't know why they would place any value in this argument based on numbers.  it makes no logical sense.  The numbers show that we SHOULD have found sasquatch, UNLESS it is a lot harder to find, in which case it doesn't matter if there are  5,000, 50,000 or a million.  The attributes making them harder to find trump the argument from numbers, and make it moot.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Llawgoch

[dmaker]

I think any population estimate for the critter, even with lots of long division included, is what we could safely describe as a W.A.G. Moreover, I see such exercises as being rather pointless, as is disputing them. Large mammals are where you find them, not where you think they should be, and they certainly aren't evenly sprinkled over the landscape like birds or ladybugs. If saw a coyote outside my door tomorrow morning, it doesn't inform me at all on the probabilities of you seeing one tomorrow, wherever YOU are,  or even your chances of doing that in the next decade. It barely informs me about MY chances of seeing another one, ever. Or cougar. Or elk. Or....     

 

But hey, party on!

Au contraire, mon ami. If the numbers are increasingly high, then yes your chances of seeing something do increase. If all of my neighbors suddenly reported morning coffee breaks on their porches with coyotes, then clearly my chance of a similar encounter go up. Regionally speaking, of course. This makes sense and can be seen in action all the time.

[WSA]

Right. Except your neighbors wouldn't report that, coyotes being coyotes.  Meadowlarks? Stink bugs? Well, sure.  That said, yes, your probabilities would probably go up in some infinitesimal percentage. Then the model proposed is to correlate some probabilities of encountering one species to inform on the likelihood of spotting another kind, and well, how informative is that, really?

 

Strike elk from that list too. More like cougars, wolverines and such like, mostly solitary mammals of the kind BF is purported to be.  

And also, as has been mentioned, in some places you are almost guaranteed of spotting something like a black bear. Go to certain rivers in Canada, during the salmon run, and you'll see brown bears anywhere you look.  As a learned man said once though, "So what?"