Map of bigfoot sightings

[Q-C]

After people have now watched the BFRO and Moneymaker in action on Finding Bigfoot for a few years now, it is a wonder to me how anyone can cite any information from their site without a big dose of cautionary skepticism.

BFRO is Finding Bigfoot, Finding Bigfoot is the BFRO. Their factoids are quoted, their beliefs are preached and exactly what little they consider a bigfoot "event/encounter" is plain for all to see.

[keninsc]

WAIT!

.......you're suggesting that everything isn't a Bigfoot?

Edited September 24, 2013 by keninsc

[Q-C]

and WAIT!

I'm suggesting their site is full of crap!

[Myles]

ROFLMAO!!

cute

Really. If giant apes are given credit for hiding, why not bears?

[keninsc]

Bears aren't cryptids, we ain't got time for that.

[slaughtr]

Really it doesn't matter what proof any of you are shown you will still post non sense then alot of you joke and play.

It has me to believe that Bigfoot does exist but it's movements are too smooth for humans to even catch up to. One thing I do know is you can't you discount hundreds of sightings that's just stupid.

[S2F]

Really it doesn't matter what proof any of you are shown you will still post non sense then alot of you joke and play.

It has me to believe that Bigfoot does exist but it's movements are too smooth for humans to even catch up to. One thing I do know is you can't you discount hundreds of sightings that's just stupid.

What do you mean by Bigfoot's movements are "too smooth"? Have you ever been in an old growth forest? There is no way in hell that a 9 ft. 800 lb. animal is going to move 'smoothly' through that.

[Rafterman]

Ahhhhh, not even close. There are no bears in many states

Really???? yikes! I had no idea, thanks for that

But there are bears in states that report the highest Bigfoot sightings. Just compare these two maps.

But let me get this straight, you have no problem completely dismissing the connection between bear populations and bigfoot sightings, but get completely giddy over a possible connection to UFO sightings?

Interesting.

[Rafterman]

This is exactly the type of hard evidence that suggests to me that BF is *real*

"Right away, you can see that sightings are not evenly distributed," Stevens said on his website. "There are distinct regions where sightings are incredibly common, despite a very sparse population. On the other hand, in some of the most densely populated areas, Sasquatch sightings are exceedingly rare. The terrain and habitat likely play a major role in the distribution of reports."

There is no way that over 100 years of sightings and over a large land mass that there could be this *huge*, ongoing conspiracy to get a few people from one area to make up BS about BF and a lot of people to do likewise in some other area. you would think that hoaxing would be far more homogenous

that makes *no* sense.

Have you seen all the people that have come forward to *claim* they supplied the "monkey suit" to Patterson to use in his PG BigFoot film?

So why after 100 years has someone not come forward to tell us about this gigantic, 100 year old on-going conspiracy?

Ain't buying that at *all*, sorry y'all.

Well that's because it's not a conspiracy. It's simply a combination of fraud, wishful thinking, the power of suggestion, and downright ignorance.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Rafterman

[Rafterman]

Really it doesn't matter what proof any of you are shown you will still post non sense then alot of you joke and play.

It has me to believe that Bigfoot does exist but it's movements are too smooth for humans to even catch up to. One thing I do know is you can't you discount hundreds of sightings that's just stupid.

How can you say that given the hundreds of video clips on You Tube.

Bigfoot is so "smooth" that he stands on the side of the road as 4x4s come tearing ass by at high speed. He's so "smooth" that he walks across open fields in the broad daylight in front of large groups of people. He's so "smooth" that he hangs out next to high volume border crossings. He's so "smooth" that he vocalizes when TV production crews are right near by. He's so "smooth" that he can be tricked by Baby Ruth candy bars.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

After people have now watched the BFRO and Moneymaker in action on Finding Bigfoot for a few years now, it is a wonder to me how anyone can cite any information from their site without a big dose of cautionary skepticism.

BFRO is Finding Bigfoot, Finding Bigfoot is the BFRO. Their factoids are quoted, their beliefs are preached and exactly what little they consider a bigfoot "event/encounter" is plain for all to see.

well it is clear they are just trying to make a profit. we can all agree on that.

changes nothing

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Really. If giant apes are given credit for hiding, why not bears?

no proof here, but within the same species I suppose you can assume similar behavior.

Bears don't hide. :--)

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Really it doesn't matter what proof any of you are shown you will still post non sense then alot of you joke and play.

It has me to believe that Bigfoot does exist but it's movements are too smooth for humans to even catch up to. One thing I do know is you can't you discount hundreds of sightings that's just stupid.

I'm with you on that one, you can't discount all those reports over years and over vasts tracts of land.

sit around and watch, though. The ~EXIST-ers will indeed call everyone who reports seeing a BF a liar.

and they need to check no evidence. just wave a magic wand!

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

But there are bears in states that report the highest Bigfoot sightings. Just compare these two maps.

But let me get this straight, you have no problem completely dismissing the connection between bear populations and bigfoot sightings, but get completely giddy over a possible connection to UFO sightings?

Interesting.

Firstly, rafterman, the bears and BF's may tend to gravitate to the same regions for the exact same reasons. I don't know.

But they have their limits. There are indeed states that have BF's that bears simply refuse to venture into..

Remember when we were looking at the data of bear sightings and BF sightings in Ohio and Pennsylvania...?

There was a sudden surge in bears going into southeastern Ohio just as their was a surge in BF sightings in the same area.

Ppl in here are convinced that it was nothing more than misidentification, I think they are dead wrong.

A.) maybe the bears and BFs went there for - say, the same food source that became plentiful. Maybe.

B.) But we all agreed that the bear population in neighboring Pennsylvania was *much* high than the bear population in Ohio and there were not nearly as many BF sightings in Penna as in Ohio. There ya go, rafterman. No correlation at all.

So *yes*, I have absolutely no problem in not linking BF and bear sightings. none. the proof is in the pudding.

Part 2: I learned a knew piece of knowledge. BF and UFO sighting surges are related. Never knew that

Now, unless you suggest fraud, the two maps were made having nothing to do with one another by separate people. We can be fairly certain the data is real and was as a result of many many people from many areas making reports of their sightings, not just a few people.

Do you realize that result, BF and UFO sighting surge, has to be *darn* real?

unless you have a theory, rafterman.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

PS: If you wish to have a meaningful discussion about Bear/BF misidentifications and want to see how it is not possible for that to be in the vast majority

of cases, try to correlate bear population to human population v. area. sort what I did in here with the BF population density in Louisiana and Washington (I think?)

compare that result to BF sighting density map and see if there is a correlation.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Well that's because it's not a conspiracy. It's simply a combination of fraud, wishful thinking, the power of suggestion, and downright ignorance.

let me guess.... and you can back that assertion up with *science*?

ROFLMAO

sure.... I won't hold my breathe, rafterman.

And that's the trouble with you ~EXIST-ers. you just make wild unsubstansiated declarations. It does not fit your life view...? it's all fraud and lies!

[Rafterman]

Firstly, rafterman, the bears and BF's may tend to gravitate to the same regions for the exact same reasons. I don't know.

But they have their limits. There are indeed states that have BF's that bears simply refuse to venture into..

So now you admit there is a correlation? I believe you said above "not even close".

Well, as these maps indicate. It IS close. It's pretty much exact.

As to the UFO link - how can there be a correlation when UFOs* don't exist?

*and by UFO I don't mean "oh look there's something in the sky I can't identify", I mean honest to goodness little green men in spaceships.

[Rafterman]

let me guess.... and you can back that assertion up with *science*?

ROFLMAO

sure.... I won't hold my breathe, rafterman.

And that's the trouble with you ~EXIST-ers. you just make wild unsubstansiated declarations. It does not fit your life view...? it's all fraud and lies!

Can you back up your conspiracy claim? For there to be a conspiracy, someone or something has to be carrying it out.

Who is it?

[Rafterman]

PS: If you wish to have a meaningful discussion about Bear/BF misidentifications and want to see how it is not possible for that to be in the vast majority

of cases, try to correlate bear population to human population v. area. sort what I did in here with the BF population density in Louisiana and Washington (I think?)

compare that result to BF sighting density map and see if there is a correlation.

The "proof" is in those two maps posted above.

Every state with higher Bigfoot sightings have bear populations. The states that don't have bears (upper plains states for example) have very few Bigfoot sightings.

[Sweetpumper]

They're investigating the area where we heard some blood-curdling screams a few months ago.

[Q-C]

changes nothing

Very true, nothing is still nothing.

(And Ranae is still not a believer)

[Ajiesh]

Unreliable or proof less information of bigfoot reports are only from the US/Canada and few from UK and never from any other part of the world . So guess its Hoax , footprints are easy to make up anyway . I think the 1st report ever is from the remote mountains of himalayas .

[+DieChecker]

But there are bears in states that report the highest Bigfoot sightings. Just compare these two maps.

But let me get this straight, you have no problem completely dismissing the connection between bear populations and bigfoot sightings, but get completely giddy over a possible connection to UFO sightings?

Interesting.

That bear map would suggest that there are no black bear in North, or South Dakota, Illinois, Wisconsin, or in Wyoming. Can that be right? White = zero, on the map.

Maybe that map is not so good?

Edited September 25, 2013 by DieChecker

[Night Walker]

This is exactly the type of hard evidence that suggests to me that BF is *real*

If there are heaps of Bigfoot sightings in USA and Canada but none in Mexico then isn't this map hard evidence that Bigfoot is a cultural phenomenon which combines Native American mythology with white-anglo folklore? If not then why not?

well it is clear they are just trying to make a profit. we can all agree on that.

changes nothing

Finding Bigfoot demonstrate how to make-believe that Bigfoot exists. Furthermore they demonstrate that there are others just like them all over the place. Do you think their "town hall meetings" are open to all concerned citizens or are they parachuting directly into make-believe central each and every time?

And that's the trouble with you ~EXIST-ers. you just make wild unsubstansiated declarations. It does not fit your life view...? it's all fraud and lies!

There have been many Bigfoot frauds, lies, fakes, stories, and absolute nonsense in the last 40 years but not one piece of substantiated objective evidence. Not one. It's not asking too much is it?

Yet you accuse "~EXIST-ers" (wtf does that mean anyway?) of having some sort of irrational "life view"?

"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

[Leonardo]

If there are heaps of Bigfoot sightings in USA and Canada but none in Mexico then isn't this map hard evidence that Bigfoot is a cultural phenomenon which combines Native American mythology with white-anglo folklore? If not then why not?

Perhaps because no-one has performed a study of sightings/reports from Mexico, so that information is simply not included on the maps in question? Which does not suggest there are no sightings/reports in Mexico.

There have been many Bigfoot frauds, lies, fakes, stories, and absolute nonsense in the last 40 years but not one piece of substantiated objective evidence. Not one. It's not asking too much is it?

Asking for "substantiated evidence" is an obvious red herring - because to substantiate any evidence sasquatch would have to be known to exist. What there is, however, is objective evidence (footprint casts, vocalisations) that are not known to be hoaxes, are not identifiable to any known species inhabiting the area in question and appear to be suggestive (in the case of the footprints) of a predictable population bell-curve. That alone would indicate if those casts were hoaxes, all those hoaxers across the country were in collusion and far more clever than any hoaxers known so far. It is less likely these casts represent a hoax, than an actual population of animals.

So, your claim there is "not one piece of objective evidence" falls flat.