Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

No there is not a lot of open area in the US


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#16    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,778 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:29 PM

All that development, and not one secret bigfoot burial site found? You got to hand it to those porcupines they are doing a hell of a job. :tu:


#17    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:55 PM

View PostRafterman, on 15 May 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

You man there aren't 200 of them living in the woods behind the local Wal-Mart?

They're making clothes and getting paid in garlic cloves.

MADE IN THE USA

Edited by QuiteContrary, 15 May 2013 - 11:33 PM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#18    Insanity

Insanity

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 16 May 2013 - 04:01 AM

Respectfully I have to disagree with your conclusion that there is “not a lot of open area in the U.S.” or that “we are everywhere.”

I can agree that man has probably stepped foot everywhere in the country over the last 200 or 300+ years, but that does not mean we are everywhere now, and certainly doesn’t mean we maintain any constant surveillance on everywhere.

About one third of the country is forested and has been for about the last 100 years and I doubt that all of it is being logged at the moment.  If you wish to look at the Pacific Northwest, Washington is ~40% forest, Oregon is about the same, and Idaho is just over 30%.  There are 18 states that are more than 50% forest.

While there is a large population in the country, we are not everywhere.
Look at the U.S. Census data from 2010.
http://www.census.go...etteer2010.html

Under Places, there is a link to a text file that has the data for over 29,000 places (cities, town, and Census-designated places) and the area that those places occupy.

Removing Puerto Rico and Hawaii from the list, you have 29,111 individual places that have a total population of 227,149,751 and occupy about 201,545 sq mi.

The population of the U.S minus Puerto Rico and Hawaii in 2010 can be estimated at 303,659,448, and the area of the contiguous U.S. plus Alaska is 3,783,153 sq mi, suggesting that 74.8% of the contiguous U.S. and Alaskan populations occupy about 5.3% of the area.  Doing algebra then suggests that 100% of the continental population occupies around 7.1% of the area.  Most likely a majority of the population spends a majority of their time in this relatively small area.

The National Highway System, about 157,000 miles total and accounts for about 4% of the total road mileage in the country.  If we wish to assume all interstates are four lanes both ways, then they occupy about 0.14% of the area.  The other roads probably total about 4 million miles, and assuming these are one lane both ways they probably occupy another 0.88% of the area.  All roads then make up about 1% of the area.  

In total our cities, towns, highways and roads occupy about 8.1% of the area.

While we may have indeed been everywhere at one time or another, we were not everywhere at once, and we are not everywhere now, and we are certainly not maintaining any surveillance on the entire country constantly.  We do a good job at surveillance within our cities as we like keeping an eye on each other, but outside in the wilderness?

The question that should be considered is how many people travel away from cities and off from the main road, i.e. into the wilderness.  How many eyes and lenses are outside or away from our cities, towns and roads?

View PostWatchingTheStars, on 15 May 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

I like this post. It's really hard for a breeding population of large animals to hide in America, due to the large population.

Nice post, Sakari.

What is a breeding population?

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4730741

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#19    Wyverna

Wyverna

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 522 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Somewhere that has chocolate

  • "No, I'm not a dragon slayer. I'm a dragon SAVIOR. See the difference?"

Posted 16 May 2013 - 04:28 AM

View PostInsanity, on 16 May 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

What is a breeding population?

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4730741

I understand your point. I personally find it very hard to believe that there are groups of large ape-like creatures roaming around in America with no solid evidence of their existence. But each to their own.

Posted Image

“But it is one thing to read about dragons and another to meet them.”
--Ursula K. Le Guin, A Wizard of Earthsea


#20    DKO

DKO

    Ω is Futile.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Australia

  • When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra - Unless you're in Africa...

Posted 16 May 2013 - 04:39 AM

It's always the same arguments. One side will bring up evidence about the numbers you would need for a breeding population, the fact that no evidence of any apes being in The Americas before human and that there has been no evidence at all except for a few dodgy videos.

The other side will say, but we're not everywhere at once or maybe apes did come to The Americas, we just haven't found proof yet... Then the far out side will use bigfoot camouflage, burying the dead and even underground caves to try and win over the facts.

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it. - Neil DeGrasse Tyson


Confucius Says:

Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.

Man who wants pretty nurse must be patient.


#21    Sakari

Sakari

    Rob Lester

  • Member
  • 14,442 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 16 May 2013 - 11:06 AM

View PostInsanity, on 16 May 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:



The question that should be considered is how many people travel away from cities and off from the main road, i.e. into the wilderness.  How many eyes and lenses are outside or away from our cities, towns and roads?






I went into detail on this numerous times. Not again....As I said this topic ( Bigfoot ) is a discussion that is a broken record, playing over and over and over.....

So....

Forest service, Electrical workers, Pipeline workers, Pipeline inspectors, Biologists, Lumber, Mining, Hunting, Hiking, Fishing, Mountain Biking, back packing, Camping, 4 wheel drive, Horse Back, State Troopers, Wildlife Service, Fish and Game.....

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

People that live off the grid....

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#22    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 16 May 2013 - 11:07 AM

View Postevancj, on 15 May 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

All that development, and not one secret bigfoot burial site found? You got to hand it to those porcupines they are doing a hell of a job. :tu:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it takes a lot of time to eat an entire Bigfoot.


#23    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 16 May 2013 - 11:17 AM

Quote

The question that should be considered is how many people travel away from cities and off from the main road, i.e. into the wilderness.  How many eyes and lenses are outside or away from our cities, towns and roads?

Insanity, I complete get what you're saying and I actually agree with it, but then too you have to consider that the population of the US has more than doubled and very nearly tripled in the time since the PGF. That's a lot of potential eyes looking. Me, I have had the great opportunity in life to hike and camp all over the US. Never once seen a track from a Bigfoot, never seen one, might have smelled one once and that covers some forty plus years. Now this hardly makes me a total expert but the law of averages says I should have seen something by now.......although I have seen some Porcupines that seemed a little suspicious a couple times.

I guess my main point is that urban sprawl is a serious thing, shoot you can google up Google Earth and see the sprawl happen over the last twenty years in a number of very specific locations. But, at least in my mind the thing in the population increase and still no solid evidence of Bigfoot. Maybe we should test Porcupine pooh for DNA?


#24    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,778 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:47 AM

View PostInsanity, on 16 May 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Respectfully I have to disagree with your conclusion that there is "not a lot of open area in the U.S." or that "we are everywhere."

I can agree that man has probably stepped foot everywhere in the country over the last 200 or 300+ years, but that does not mean we are everywhere now, and certainly doesn't mean we maintain any constant surveillance on everywhere.

About one third of the country is forested and has been for about the last 100 years and I doubt that all of it is being logged at the moment.  If you wish to look at the Pacific Northwest, Washington is ~40% forest, Oregon is about the same, and Idaho is just over 30%.  There are 18 states that are more than 50% forest.

Forested areas do not equate to the lack of human habitation. In fact I would argue forested areas attract humans and human habitation especially in the arid west. Back east, and on the west coast millions of people live in forested areas.

View PostInsanity, on 16 May 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

While there is a large population in the country, we are not everywhere.
Look at the U.S. Census data from 2010.
http://www.census.go...etteer2010.html

Under Places, there is a link to a text file that has the data for over 29,000 places (cities, town, and Census-designated places) and the area that those places occupy.

Removing Puerto Rico and Hawaii from the list, you have 29,111 individual places that have a total population of 227,149,751 and occupy about 201,545 sq mi.

The population of the U.S minus Puerto Rico and Hawaii in 2010 can be estimated at 303,659,448, and the area of the contiguous U.S. plus Alaska is 3,783,153 sq mi, suggesting that 74.8% of the contiguous U.S. and Alaskan populations occupy about 5.3% of the area.  Doing algebra then suggests that 100% of the continental population occupies around 7.1% of the area.  Most likely a majority of the population spends a majority of their time in this relatively small area.

The National Highway System, about 157,000 miles total and accounts for about 4% of the total road mileage in the country.  If we wish to assume all interstates are four lanes both ways, then they occupy about 0.14% of the area.  The other roads probably total about 4 million miles, and assuming these are one lane both ways they probably occupy another 0.88% of the area.  All roads then make up about 1% of the area.  

In total our cities, towns, highways and roads occupy about 8.1% of the area.

While we may have indeed been everywhere at one time or another, we were not everywhere at once, and we are not everywhere now, and we are certainly not maintaining any surveillance on the entire country constantly.  We do a good job at surveillance within our cities as we like keeping an eye on each other, but outside in the wilderness?

The question that should be considered is how many people travel away from cities and off from the main road, i.e. into the wilderness.  How many eyes and lenses are outside or away from our cities, towns and roads?

The problem with statistics, and averages is, they can be manipulated to side with the users argument.

I think you failed to consider agricultural activity. Have you flown over the mid west lately? the vast majority of the land between the Rocky Mountains and Mississippi River has been plowed, planted, and irrigated. By necessity farm workers must maintain irrigation systems, plow, plant, and harvest their crops so these areas are visited regularly.

There is also gas and oil exploration/development. Vast tracts of land in southern Wyoming, and and eastern Utah are pockmarked with oil and gas wells that are all connected with a spiderweb of roads that are traveled frequently by maintainers. Google earth it if you don't believe me.

The pacific north west has been virtually clear cut, there is very little land that has not seen a chainsaw, or that is not crisscrossed with logging roads that are regularly used by the public, lumber companies, and the department of interior workers. Most of the land there is dotted with small farms and homesteads. I suggest you Google earth the area as Sakai suggested you might be surprised about the density of human habitation outside of the cities.

The last large tracts of uninhabited land in the US are in the interior western states, and Alaska, and even those areas are visited relatively frequently by people for a number of reasons. These wilderness areas attract millions of visitors a year just because they are remote and wild.

While your statistics seemingly indicate a very small percentage of the US is actually occupied by human habitation they do not tell the whole story of how we use the land and how often we visit the unoccupied areas. I think the satellite photo Sakari posted tells us the full story at a glance, as opposed to the skewed statistics you provided.

Edited by evancj, 17 May 2013 - 01:51 AM.


#25    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,777 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 17 May 2013 - 07:09 AM

View PostSakari, on 14 May 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Been meaning to do this for a while....

Some people try to say that there is so much area in the USA that we have not, or do not explore.

Is this the guy (Sakari) who said just the other day in the Trail Camera thread, that his "backyard" went all the way over to I-5 with basically very little people in between?

How much of that land, (About 100 miles from the coast to I-5) then is inhabited to the degree where you'd feel that say, a caribou (released totally anoymusly), would quickly be spotted? Could it live in the woods indefinately and die alone of old age without ever being remarked or captured?

I think you're still overestimating mankinds observational skills and underestimating how much wild land there is.

View PostVance665, on 14 May 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

Look at all of those Canadian moochers riding our coattails.
Yeah. Look at all that dark Canadian land...

View PostSakari, on 16 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Forest service, Electrical workers, Pipeline workers, Pipeline inspectors, Biologists, Lumber, Mining, Hunting, Hiking, Fishing, Mountain Biking, back packing, Camping, 4 wheel drive, Horse Back, State Troopers, Wildlife Service, Fish and Game.....

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

People that live off the grid....

People that have filed bigfoot sightings.... "Forest service, Electrical workers, Pipeline workers, Pipeline inspectors, Biologists, Lumber, Mining, Hunting, Hiking, Fishing, Mountain Biking, back packing, Camping, 4 wheel drive, Horse Back, State Troopers, Wildlife Service, Fish and Game....."

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#26    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,777 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 17 May 2013 - 07:18 AM

View Postevancj, on 17 May 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

The pacific north west has been virtually clear cut, there is very little land that has not seen a chainsaw, or that is not crisscrossed with logging roads that are regularly used by the public, lumber companies, and the department of interior workers. Most of the land there is dotted with small farms and homesteads. I suggest you Google earth the area as Sakai suggested you might be surprised about the density of human habitation outside of the cities.
While this is true to an extent, I've driven lots of backroads and logroads, and generally a log road only exists (on Government lands) if it is regularly used. Otherwise the forest takes it back pretty quick. Brush, trees and landslides wipe out log roads within 4 to 5 years unless someone is using them.

Oregon as an example does have a large rural population. Maybe somewhere around 33% of Oregonians live in a rural setting. But... still there are many areas where a person can go on government lands were there is no maintained road within 10 to 15 miles.

A lot of the roads that lead into government lands have actually been broken down and removed, and trailheads installed, for hikers. But even if you had 200 hikers passing through a valley every single day, many of those hikers may never ever see one another. And a hiker that specifically wanted to go "off trail" would basically disappear altogether, even though he may only be a quarter mile away and paralleling the established trail.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#27    TwilightSilver

TwilightSilver

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Joined:25 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 17 May 2013 - 07:24 AM

I'm sorry. I love the bigfoot myth and all that jazz, but I have to agree with Sakari. I even had an experience which I could attribte to the hairy guy. I just cannot imagine in the small (yes I say small but a lot of areas are massive in acreage) areas left untouched, a population of intelligent apes could thrive. Please don't give me the mountain gorilla speach either. First it was vampires, then zombies and now it seems Sasquatch is the new trend. I would LOVE to see Bigfoot proven once and for all, but I highly doubt it will ever happen. If it does I'll promise all here on U.M. I'll eat my boot. :)

"I'm struggling to say what I want to... but you hurt my brain so much with your nonsense..."

Quote of the week: "When are people going to learn? The rapture is like a health inspection. They don't anounce when they're coming, otherwise you could let things go all year and clean everything up right before they come. The plan is to catch you off guard, so they can see what state things are kept in an on going basis." - ZeddKnite

#28    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 17 May 2013 - 09:27 AM

imo
I'm intrigued by how impossible it appears to be to do a study on these creatures. They are just animals. They move, make noise, like food, the opposite sex, and to rest and then eventually die. These are habits we take advantage of to locate other animals. Even the more elusive ones.

I am not convinced that these giant creatures retreat and are deftly hiding --completely lost from the eyes of science and researchers and the public-- in remote areas here and there all over NA just minutes and hours after being seen by the public: crossing roads, trekking through fields, eating berries and spying on children and through windows - some in urban areas.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 17 May 2013 - 10:01 AM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#29    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 17 May 2013 - 09:52 AM

imo
Whether some live in a remote hollow or some live in a small state park, these are flesh and blood animals and like every other flesh and blood animal humans would be able to track, locate, bait, kill, photograph and study them.

Remember, we already allegedly know where they are.

So, we’re not needing to guess where they are, we are just at their complete and total mercy apparently, unlike any other known animal.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 17 May 2013 - 10:02 AM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#30    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 May 2013 - 10:59 AM

View PostSakari, on 14 May 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Posted Image

At 34.2 people per km2 the US has one of the lowest population densities on the planet. In comparison its 255.6 people per km2 in the UK.

The US is mostly wilderness. The misleading thing about your map is it shows lights not people and the map is zoomed out. If you zoom in you'd see many areas dont have a light for miles and miles.

Please remember that you could fit 75 Britains into the land area of the US yet your population is only about five times larger.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users