The Ketchum Report

[Guest VioletX]

I am guessing not eastern then?

[Guest]

Your typical Pro-bigfoot person waiting for an annoucement at 5 :00 PM

4:45

5:00

5:03

5:05

5: 15

5:16 Sign into BFF ...

Edited November 16, 2012 by zigoapex

[Guest]

The landmass data I promised:

And there are still 100s and 100s of 1000s of square miles of undeveloped and in many cases virtually unvisited wilderness.

The simple fact is (as is shown by Census data) that the overwhelming majority of the US is NOT developed by man.

http://news.heartlan...ural-open-space

More than two out of three Americans live in urbanized areas. These areas collectively cover 2 percent of the nation’s land area. Counting urbanized areas and urban clusters together, nearly four out of five Americans live in an urban setting. Urbanized areas and urban clusters cover 2.6 percent of the nation’s land.

Remaining “places†account for just 4.4 percent of the U.S. population, but they cover 2.8 percent of the land. Their density is far lower than the density of urbanized areas and urban clusters. The average urbanized area has nearly 2,700 people per square mile, and the average urban cluster has close to 1,500 people per square mile. But the average place (outside of urban areas) has just 133 people per square mile.

In many cases, this is because small towns have large corporate boundaries, only portions of which are occupied. This is most noticeable in Alaska, where many cities have legal boundaries that include thousands of square miles of unoccupied land. As a result, the density of Alaska’s non-urban places averages just 7 people per square mile.

Non-urban place densities in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming average between 30 and 100 people per square mile. In all other states except Nebraska, non-urban place densities range from 100 to 500 people per square mile. Nebraska is the only state whose non-urban places approach urban densities: 805 people per square mile.

So are places “developed� The Census Bureau counts them as “rural.†Only people living in urbanized areas or urban clusters are counted as “urban.†At the same time, a town of 1,000 people is obviously not “rural open space.†Conservatively, only those areas outside of any “place†can be considered rural open space. But it is clear that large portions of the rural places are also rural open space.

Together, urbanized areas, urban clusters, and rural places occupy 5.4 percent of the nation’s land, while urban areas alone cover just 2.6 percent. Rural open space thus covers between 94.6 and 97.4 percent of the land in the United States.

US average population density is ~84 people/square mile ( http://www.infopleas...a/A0934666.html ), clustered in just 5.4% of the landmass as noted above.

Canada occupies 41% of the N American continent's landmass ( http://en.wikipedia....raphy_of_Canada ).It's average population density is just 9 people/square mile (same source as US average), most of which live within 100 miles of the US border ( http://www.nationsen...cas/Canada.html ).

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Your typical Pro-bigfoot person waiting for an annoucement at 5 :00 PM

4:45

5:00

5:03

5:05

5: 15

5:16 Sign into BFF ...

^I'd say that's accurate.

[Guest]

So I thought today was supposed to be the big day? I'm sure there will be plenty of explanations for why it still hasn't been published.

Edited November 16, 2012 by squatting squatch

[bipedalist]

.....Why would somebody spend that much money on somthing like this?

I'll play. Maybe because they were playing with the money of others?

[BobbyO]

Great post Mulder.

[Guest VioletX]

So I thought today was supposed to be the big day? I'm sure there will be plenty of explanations for why it still hasn't been published.

I only know from what Science Critic was guessing...Who else was reporting this?

[Guest]

There was a comment on bf evidence also, maybe that was SC posting as anom, But I wouldn't expect it anytime "soon".

[Guest VioletX]

There was a comment on bf evidence also, maybe that was SC posting as anom, But I wouldn't expect it anytime "soon".

Oh a comment on BFE...

[Guest]

Well you know, BF evidence is the foremost serious bigfoot sight, especially the comment section.lol

[Guest]

Great post Mulder.

Thank you. Too many people buy into the Hollywood portrayal of things like GPS, survey mapping, etc that make it seem like man has been everywhere and seen (and can see) everything with just the click of a mouse, when it's not true, and won't BE true for the forseeable future.

[Guest VioletX]

Well you know, BF evidence is the foremost serious bigfoot sight, especially the comment section.lol

I have no idea what you mean, I have never read the comment section ; }

[Guest]

Yeah, I never post a comment on there either. I'm much to intellectual for that.

[Guest]

I only know from what Science Critic was guessing...Who else was reporting this?

Not a guess .... ( get your ducks in a row ) there is a difference between a "Guess" and the "Fact" that an embargo is being listed..

And posted for discussion............

There was a comment on bf evidence also, maybe that was SC posting as anom, But I wouldn't expect it anytime "soon".

I Don't post anom .... BTW, Ya Got Any more accusations to post at this time ...

That time, currently being used by seriously regarded skeptic's, as serious, is limited..... Kinda like the flat earth theory....

That IS a " FACT" not a " GUESS "

Enjoy ...... That time....... It is precious ....

Nuff Said...