Estimating Sasquatch Population

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, gigantor said:

zeebob889 is really vinchyfoot, I hate trolls.

 

Huh. I thought it might be Bob Zenor, but he sure didn't act like Bob.

[gigantor]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Huh. I thought it might be Bob Zenor, but he sure didn't act like Bob.

 

Nah, @BobZenorhas a different username.

 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

15 hours ago, gigantor said:

zeebob889 is really vinchyfoot, I hate trolls.

 

 

 

Lol!

 

 

Good catch!

[Backdoc]

Get the numbers

 

This idea of estimating Bigfoot's population is difficult.   We assume by the Q Bigfoot exists.   If so, then the extent of Bigfoot existing is the issue.   

 

Here is my completely symbolic made-up the formula which defines the issue:    B / T          

 

That is, Bigfoot / Territory size or the vastness of the area.   

 

Example: If you had 50 Dodo birds, and they were on a small island we would see them all the time.    If you had 1,000 but they were in the vastness of some jungle, most natives might go their whole life and only ever see 1 on occasion.

 

 

We cannot assume all reports of Bigfoot are accurate.  But, we cannot assume no reports of Bigfoot are accurate should Bigfoot exist.    We are left to do a lot of guessing.   If we can't have accurate numbers we are all guessing so we must make the best educated guess we can.    

 

If Bigfoot is near extinct, then any guesses we might make of a viable population of Bigfoot would be way off.  Why?  Because a near extinct population would not be a viable number.   Also, a population could not be assumed to be very high or sightings and filmings would occur all the time.   To me this means the numbers must be very low.   

 

Are sightings numbers going up or down?    Are reports going up or down?  Does that tell us anything? 

 

 

Here is a final point to consider about these Bigfoot Numbers:   There are more eyes in the form of cameras out there.  In the days of the PGF there were few cameras esp due to expense.  Over the decades, camera and later VCR Sony handicams became more popular and cheaper.  Now Billions of Cell phones with cameras and video are out there. That would be Millions in the USA alone.  This means nearly everyone out there hiking around looking for Bigfoot -and nearly anyone who is just hiking -have a camera with them.  If Bigfoot numbers were high,  we should have several PGF- level sightings.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MIB]

41 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

There are more eyes in the form of cameras out there.

 

Yes, but each and every assumption about how effective they are is unwarranted.  

 

MIB 

[wiiawiwb]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

Now Billions of Cell phones with cameras and video are out there. That would be Millions in the USA alone.  This means nearly everyone out there hiking around looking for Bigfoot -and nearly anyone who is just hiking -have a camera with them.  If Bigfoot numbers were high,  we should have several PGF- level sightings.     

 

 

The number of cellphones is very large. However, I would submit that today's smartphone cameras are not nearly as useful as 35mm cameras that many, like myself, use to carry.  For some, it takes too long to sign into the phone and, in my opinion, it is not easy to capture clear images in a wooded environment for all except the highly initiated. Too many layers of branches, leaves, and brush between the subject and camera owner.

 

I've posted this picture before of a deer at the summit of a mountain I encountered two years ago. I took at least a dozen pictures and even "boxed" the head of the deer on my phone before taking the pictures. Absolutely useless for people like me which is probably most.

 

In the past, I would grab my 35mm and quickly focus on exactly what I wanted to capture and it would come out clear as a bell. Not anymore for me with a cellphone in my hands.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by wiiawiwb

[Backdoc]

25 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Yes, but each and every assumption about how effective they are is unwarranted.  

 

MIB 

 

I'll admit many times we can't get our cell phones out fast enough to capture routine life stuff.      

 

 

[Backdoc]

Fast Encounters vs slow encounter.

 

Slow Encounter:

I watched one of these Bigfoot shows growing up (Peter Graves?).   On the show a lady claimed to have been at some beach and saw Bigfoot digging in the soil/sand eating some type of food.   Since she lacked a camera, she claims she just watched for several minutes as this animal/ Bigfoot dug in the ground for food.  Nothing she could really do but just watch in awe.

 

Fast Encounter:

Most shows mention someone hiking who spot Bigfoot.  Then it walks across the path and disappears into the woods just seconds later.   

 

If the person has a slow encounter there is more time to film bigfoot.  For a future slow encounter, a cell phone pic/vid might work.  For a fast encounter, I would bet cell phone would not be quick enough.

 

My crazy guess is nearly every claimed encounter is a fast encounter.    My guess is they are the typical encounter.    

 

[Backdoc]

...But if there were 10 people all with cell phones we would have to say that increased the odds 'somebody' got it on vid.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Backdoc

[Doug]

6 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Then it walks across the path and disappears into the woods just seconds later. 

You forgot to say in three steps. The common fast encounter witness seem to always say it crossed the path in three steps or it went up the bank in three steps and was gone.

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

.....I've posted this picture before of a deer at the summit of a mountain I encountered two years ago. I took at least a dozen pictures and even "boxed" the head of the deer on my phone before taking the pictures. Absolutely useless.......

 

 

 

True. I took photos of a wolf near my tent @ 85-100 yards away, and no brush or terrain to confuse the subject with. It's so pixelated, you can barely see it.

 

One might get a pic of a sasquatch with their phone, but it will not move the ball. It will net you nothing but frustration and condemnation.

[Hoekler73]

On 3/27/2022 at 3:35 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Wow. Lots of questions. 

It is my opinion that there is a very good explanation for the habitats being shared.

 

I agree there would be logical reasons these species would share habitat, even though they compete for food resources. The answer seems simple... both are large omnivores who require abundant resources of a similar nature. Both also tend to avoid humans, although they occasionally raid human settlements for food.

 

Kind of a side note... I wonder if Sasquatch have an extremely long gestation period, leading to lower populations and allowing the species to live a more solitary life in smaller groups.

[Hoekler73]

On 3/27/2022 at 9:53 PM, NorthWind said:

Most everyone I have ever spoken directly with who has had a bigfoot sighting / encounter has never officially reported it. That would greatly change the data.

...Not only do many witnesses not report sightings for fear of ridicule, there are multiple groups taking reports and no overall way of compiling all the data into one resource.

 

Hopefully at some point there will be a central database where all researchers and research groups can input sighting reports and other evidence. This would allow better analysis of any available data... unfortunately the state of the Bigfoot community so to speak leaves me doubting this type of cooperation will happen anytime soon.

[Backdoc]

12 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

True. I took photos of a wolf near my tent @ 85-100 yards away, and no brush or terrain to confuse the subject with. It's so pixelated, you can barely see it.

 

One might get a pic of a sasquatch with their phone, but it will not move the ball. It will net you nothing but frustration and condemnation.

 

I don't know the answer so I will just ask....

 

Does the Tech of a digital pic or a cell phone pic allow a more detailed blow up?   That is, film grain in the old school 1960's could have an image that at some point could not be blown up more than a certain amount.    The PGF is an example.  In the above pic I would imagine there is at least some level of enhancement or 'blow up' where the image could benefit.

 

Also, using the strength- in- numbers logic, the fact so many cell phones are out there, an encounter such as the pic above might have 20 people there who all get their 'cameras' out.  The result would be various pics, some zoomed some not.  Also, one or two might even switch to video mode where we would also have that to consider.  

 

In this way, the number of available video Eyes should overtake the hide- and- seek champ known as bigfoot.

 

 

[Marty]

I'm gonna estimate it at around 700-900, pushing 1000, I don't know and am basing this off zero data, but considering other sub populations of Orangutans and other apes can be stable at that range but are vulnerable to threats, namely humans. I just can't imagine it being any higher, even for how vast and remote many places are in America, a lot of it is patchwork and they'd have to traverse our pathways on the regular, I'd imagine any higher and we'd be seeing them a lot more frequently. A lot easier to stay hidden with low numbers. I'm going to go on a limb and propose that there might an extra 1000 in Canada considering a vast chunk of that wilderness is largely untraveled. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Marty