Let's Do Some Math...

[dmaker]

Why in the world would they do that? If they are trying to keep people away from bigfoot, to keep the existence secret, why would they give bigfoot a reason to hang around areas that people frequent? 

 

I have been in that very area. Even at the higher altitudes, in the Desolation Wilderness, I saw people pretty regularly. Stocking lakes to keep bigfoot around would be highly counter productive if the gubmint is trying to keep bigfoot hush-hush.

[JDL]

This is pure speculation:

 

Relatively few people use this area compared to other areas at lower altitude.  In fact, that was exactly what attracted us to it.  

 

The bigfoot have to be somewhere, so why not encourage them to hang out in a place used by fewer people.  Fish provide nutrients that are hard to get from other sources and would otherwise draw them down to lower altitude.  

 

This area is also adjacent to one of Paulides' clusters and the stocking was contemporary with some of those disappearances. 

 

The bigfoot are going to go wherever they want and take whatever they want to fulfill a dietary need, so why not make the path of least resistance for them a relatively isolated (from humans) food source, particularly just at the end of winter and beginning of spring when they are craving certain food items that could draw them to people.

 

This theory assumes that the Forest Service was cognizant of them and acting with a proactive strategy.

[dmaker]

Seems like a lot of effort to contain bigfoots. Why not just hang some trail cams?  They seem to avoid those like the plague.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Interesting. Yes, I did (well, maybe not 'needed', figured you would be OK without me saying anything ). From the post I was responding to, your point did not seem obvious at the time.

 

But apparently we were on the same page...

 

 

I should point out that I do not personally believe that to be the case, because I don't believe Bigfoot actually exists..  However, it is clear that arguing from pure numbers that we shouldn't have found a Bigfoot simply doesn't add up, so the argument has to be that they are more elusive; this is something that the original post was completely wrong about from a logical point of view, irrespective of the existence or non existence of Bigfoot.

[Guest thermalman]

Seems like a lot of effort to contain bigfoots. Why not just hang some trail cams?  They seem to avoid those like the plague.

Apparently, hanging ribs from Wal-Mart in a tree is the answer. And only Wal-Mart ribs, nothing else.

Edited April 4, 2014 by thermalman

[MIB]

That, if I understand what you intend, I agree with.  The only way we would not have found them is if they are deliberately, intelligently, elusive.  I don't think it probable that a *large* dumb animal can live in space overlapping substantial human population without its existence being proven.   If you disbelieve in their existence, then you might take that as evidence supporting your position.  Since I **KNOW** they exist, I, instead, take it as proof (though not yet accepted) of high intelligence.   I don't seen any middle ground I can take seriously. 

 

MIB

[Guest LarryP]

Seems like a lot of effort to contain bigfoots. Why not just hang some trail cams?  They seem to avoid those like the plague.

 

Stocking some lakes accessible by roads at higher elevations doesn't take really take a lot of effort.

[JDL]

Seems like a lot of effort to contain bigfoots. Why not just hang some trail cams?  They seem to avoid those like the plague.

 

This was back in '74.

[Cotter]

I would also surmise that 9 months out of the year, those higher altitude lakes saw ZERO people.

 

But maybe not.

[JDL]

Stocking some lakes accessible by roads at higher elevations doesn't take really take a lot of effort.

 

Our first trip up there in '69 was in a Rambler and we couldn't get past the lowest of the high lakes.  My dad spent hours trying to dig up and remove a boulder from the middle of the road and got drunk and snakebit (without noticing it) in that order over the course of a couple of hours while in combat with the boulder.  We cut our trip short when he got sick (maybe more from the beer than the snakebite).

 

We bought a 59 Willy's after that and could get up to the higher lakes.  Then they improved the road some.

[Guest DWA]

To the OP:  right on.  Elementary.

 

It's just another "skeptical" argument that doesn't pay much attention to reality.

 

I have seen far more than eight bears in the wild in my lifetime.  FAR more, and I don't hunt.  (Maybe that's it, bears are pretty smart, why show oneself to a hunter har har...)  But I have done still, I'd wager, the majority - definitely the plurality - of my hiking in Shenandoah National Park, commonly considered to be one of the planet's most densely populated bear habitats.  There isn't the habituation problem there that there is elsewhere; I'm seeing wild-as-can-be bears that tend overwhelmingly to avoid us.

 

Just on the math though:  would I expect by now to have seen a bigfoot, if they lived in SNP, as some reports indicate they might?

 

Nope.

The 5000 is a good solid as steel number.

 

Let's see.  What's the alternative?  Presume there are none?  Then all the math you want to do gets you,

 

....wait....

 

...for....

 

....it....

 

NONE.

 

How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient.

 

There are times when the real scientist must make presumptions to make a point, or to advance, you know, science; and they do it...well, 24 of them did it while I was typing this last...word.  Black holes are far less "thing" than they are "presumption based on numbers."

 

Unless you've seen one.

 

The perfectly valid presumption here is "if people are reporting all these sightings, there must be a viable breeding population."  I'm sure any biologist would tell you that 5000 is near the bottom, the very bottom, of the acceptable range of numbers explaining even a significant fragment of the sightings.

 

(No.  You can't assume "they're all mistaken."  You're a scientist...remember...?)

 

 

[Guest DWA]

In the OP, a population of 5000 was given "for the sake of the skeptics here," in other words, to show just how small a probability of a sasquatch sighting that number would still translate to.

Personally I'm not sure a population that small would account for half the reports in the lower 48, much less those in Canada or AK.  This isn't an issue of "no one sees them;" it's an issue of "a lot of people do, and the reason we don't have more reports is that the society at large doesn't acknowledge the possibility."

I'm also gonna say, based on plain ol' common sense and wildlife knowledge, that Coonbo has a much much more scientific take on the number than dmaker does.

Edited April 4, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Llawgoch]

What on earth are you talking about.  I've pointed out why the logic of the OP is flawed.  If you want to appear scientific, address that.

 

If there are 5,000 bigfoots we would expect 144 times fewer Bigfoot corpses than bear corpses, based on the numbers.

 

There are not 144 times fewer Bigfoot corpses, there are none,  compared to hundreds of thousands at a minimum.

 

Therefore the discrepancy needs to be explained.  Quoting numbers merely highlights the need for an explanation, wheereas the OP claimed it removed the need for an explanation.

 

if there are more than 5,000 Bigfoots, as most people seem to think, the discrepancy simply becomes larger.

 

I am at a loss to understand what anyone thinks the OP proved.

[Guest DWA]

The logic of the OP is not flawed, and you have not pointed out why.

 

What you have done is listed a lot of assumptions, none of them backed up by, well, pretty much anything.

I thought it was more than dirt obvious what the OP proved:  it doesn't make sense to use assumptions to wish something out of existence.  Oh, it proved that.

[dmaker]

They are backed up by simple logic. Very simple, very clear logic.