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

# Relative BigFoot Population Densities

43 replies to this topic

### #1 Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

BigFoot Whisperer

• Member
• 3,653 posts
• Joined:20 Dec 2011
• Location:Planet Elsewhere

• One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:33 PM

The nuber of BigFoot sightings in a certain area is not only predicated on the Squatch population itself, but on the human population, as well. Let us compare two US states, Washington and Louisiana.

WASHINGTON State: Population - 6.724 million; Area (land area only) 66.54 thousand square miles; human population density 101.2 person / sq. mile; BigFoot Sightings - 567 (according to BigFoot Research Org.)

LOUISIANA: Population - 4.53 million; Area (land area only) 43.56 thousand square miles; human population density 104.9 person / sq. mile; BigFoot Sightings - 40 (according to BigFoot Research Org.)

Since the human population densities are *roughly* equal, all we need do is increase the size and human population of Louisiana to have roughly equival states.

(Area Washington/ Area Louisiana) = 66.54/43.56 = 1.527. Increase Louisiana's size and pop. by that much, 1.527.

So, we must increase the Squatch sightings of Louisiana by that factor, as well, 40 x 1.527 = 61 BigFoot sightings.
This means now, a Louisiana *roughly* the same size, human population, and human population denisty as Washington only has *roughly* 61 BigFoot sightings, as compared to the 567 BigFoot sightings in an equivalent Washington State.

that is 567/61 = 9.3 times the BigFoot population density

CONCLUSION: (for EXISTERS) The Bigfoot population density in Washington is 9.3 times that of the BigFoot population density of Louisiana.

or... CONCLUSION II: (for ~EXISTERS) People in Washington lie 9.3 times as people in Louisiana!   ROFLMAO!!

"Daydreaming and I'm thinking of you.... Daydreaming and I'm thinking of you... "  - Aretha

There are no such things as Lenticular clouds, only UFO's in disguise

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~

### #2 Q-C

Q-C

BugWhisperer

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

Posted 24 June 2013 - 11:55 PM

And in Hawaii they don't lie at all.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

### #3 Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

BigFoot Whisperer

• Member
• 3,653 posts
• Joined:20 Dec 2011
• Location:Planet Elsewhere

• One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:22 AM

where's Ken?? yoo hoo, Ken? aweful quiet in here.

skeptics don't want to touch it?

There are no such things as Lenticular clouds, only UFO's in disguise

"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~

### #4 Rafterman

Rafterman

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,409 posts
• Joined:27 Sep 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:Upstate

Posted 27 June 2013 - 12:59 AM

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 27 June 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

where's Ken?? yoo hoo, Ken? aweful quiet in here.

skeptics don't want to touch it?

Touch what?  I don't see any reason to be skeptical of your math.

Skeptical of your dataset, most definitely, but your math looks pretty good.

Interestingly, however, the black bear population in Washington is 30,000 vs 700 in Louisiana.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

### #5 evancj

evancj

Poltergeist

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

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:45 AM

Does the same hold true for...lets say; Florida vs Idaho or Texas vs Alaska?

### #6 Q-C

Q-C

BugWhisperer

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

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:01 AM

evancj, on 27 June 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

Does the same hold true for...lets say; Florida vs Idaho or Texas vs Alaska?

For bear population comparisons? At least one exception I can think of is, Ohio. They are one of the highest BF report states, "Hot Spots", yet the bear population is low.

"The Ohio Department of Natural Resources places Ohio’s total black bear population at around 100. By comparison, Pennsylvania’s black bear population is estimated to be around 8,000-10,000." 2013

http://2presspapers....-lorain-county/

And Pennsylvania has fewer BF sightings than Ohio. But when dealing with BF report databases, well, you know the story...

Edited by QuiteContrary, 27 June 2013 - 03:03 AM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

### #7 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 27 June 2013 - 04:33 AM

Earl.Of.Trumps said:

where's Ken?? yoo hoo, Ken? aweful quiet in here.

skeptics don't want to touch it?

Its really just speculation on speculation.......what useful purpose does it serve to add more speculation?

### #8 Sakari

Sakari

Rob Lester

• Member
• 14,452 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 27 June 2013 - 04:39 AM

Rafterman, on 27 June 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

Touch what?  I don't see any reason to be skeptical of your math.

Skeptical of your dataset, most definitely, but your math looks pretty good.

Interestingly, however, the black bear population in Washington is 30,000 vs 700 in Louisiana.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

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

### #9 Papagiorgio

Papagiorgio

Paranormal Investigator

• Member
• 847 posts
• Joined:17 Oct 2008
• Gender:Male

• I'm just saying.

Posted 27 June 2013 - 11:01 AM

QuiteContrary, on 27 June 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

For bear population comparisons? At least one exception I can think of is, Ohio. They are one of the highest BF report states, "Hot Spots", yet the bear population is low.

"The Ohio Department of Natural Resources places Ohio’s total black bear population at around 100. By comparison, Pennsylvania’s black bear population is estimated to be around 8,000-10,000." 2013

http://2presspapers....-lorain-county/

And Pennsylvania has fewer BF sightings than Ohio. But when dealing with BF report databases, well, you know the story...
There was just a black bear roaming around near my neighborhood. No bigfoot sightings however.

I'm just saying.

### #10 Rafterman

Rafterman

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,409 posts
• Joined:27 Sep 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:Upstate

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:03 PM

Yes, the bear population is quite small, but has grown significantly in the past 20 years.  (http://wildlifehaven...od.com/bear.htm).  Biologists think that most of the population growth is the result of migration from WV and PA which both have much higher bear populations.  Additionally, you are most likely to see a bear in Eastern Ohio near the WV and PA borders.

Looking at the BFRO map (http://www.bfro.net/...ng.asp?state=oh), lo and behold, where are most of the "sightings" found - you guessed it, Eastern Ohio close to the WV/PA border.  Also of note is that the overwhelming majority of these "sightings" have taken place in the past 20 years.

Not saying that bears would account for all of the "sightings", but there does seem to be a strong correlation between the rise in bear population and location to bigfoot "sightings".  There's also the not so insignificant fact that you're dealing with a population of people that is frankly not that familiar with what a bear in its natural habitat might look like.

Also keep in mind, that a good number of the BFRO reports aren't sightings at all - they're reports of unknown vocalizations (which we've discussed and debunked many times around here) and reports of things like footprints.

And, of course, the standard (and fairly significant) caveat - all it takes to make a report on the BFRO website is an internet connection.

Edited by Rafterman, 27 June 2013 - 02:06 PM.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

### #11 Q-C

Q-C

BugWhisperer

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

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:22 PM

Rafterman, on 27 June 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Yes, the bear population is quite small, but has grown significantly in the past 20 years.  (http://wildlifehaven...od.com/bear.htm).  Biologists think that most of the population growth is the result of migration from WV and PA which both have much higher bear populations.  Additionally, you are most likely to see a bear in Eastern Ohio near the WV and PA borders.

Looking at the BFRO map (http://www.bfro.net/...ng.asp?state=oh), lo and behold, where are most of the "sightings" found - you guessed it, Eastern Ohio close to the WV/PA border.  Also of note is that the overwhelming majority of these "sightings" have taken place in the past 20 years.

Not saying that bears would account for all of the "sightings", but there does seem to be a strong correlation between the rise in bear population and location to bigfoot "sightings".  There's also the not so insignificant fact that you're dealing with a population of people that is frankly not that familiar with what a bear in its natural habitat might look like.

Also keep in mind, that a good number of the BFRO reports aren't sightings at all - they're reports of unknown vocalizations (which we've discussed and debunked many times around here) and reports of things like footprints.

And, of course, the standard (and fairly significant) caveat - all it takes to make a report on the BFRO website is an internet connection.

Yet, also to take into account, one of the eastern Ohio hot spots is at a state park where you get people from all over the U.S. visiting... including plenty of BFers  (which I think account for sightings too, funny that )

Also, that is why I added the caveat "But when dealing with BF report databases, well, you know the story..." it is such a poor system, debating alleged reports with any certainty is very difficult to do in my opinion.

I also wonder if it is not an unfamiliarity with bears, I'd guess "bear" first, and I am not familiar with seeing them in the wild to any degree. I think it may be wishful thinking, influence, etc to guess "Bigfoot", a speculation I wouldn't jump to, familiar with seeing bears or not.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 27 June 2013 - 08:24 PM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

### #12 Rafterman

Rafterman

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,409 posts
• Joined:27 Sep 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:Upstate

Posted 27 June 2013 - 08:36 PM

QuiteContrary, on 27 June 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Yet, also to take into account, one of the eastern Ohio hot spots is at a state park where you get people from all over the U.S. visiting... including plenty of BFers  (which I think account for sightings too, funny that )

Also, that is why I added the caveat "But when dealing with BF report databases, well, you know the story..." it is such a poor system, debating alleged reports with any certainty is very difficult to do in my opinion.

I also wonder if it is not an unfamiliarity with bears, I'd guess "bear" first, and I am not familiar with seeing them in the wild to any degree. I think it may be wishful thinking, influence, etc to guess "Bigfoot", a speculation I wouldn't jump to, familiar with seeing bears or not.

Very true.  If you're predisposed to believe in Bigfoot, chances are you're going to go there given an opportunity.  It seems to be like that with most of this paranormal stuff.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

### #13 Night Walker

Night Walker

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,371 posts
• Joined:23 Oct 2009
• Gender:Male
• Location:Where women glow and men plunder

• We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

J.M. Smith

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:51 AM

Perhaps the number of Bigfoot sightings in a certain area is not predicated by the Squatch population itself (Bigfoot being a fictional character), nor by the overall human population numbers (not everyone can experience Bigfoot), but are directly affected by human factors — specifically, the number of followers of the Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons for whom the mythical figure represents a fringe part of their dynamic folklore) relative to the size of the state. Let us compare two US states, Washington and Louisiana.

Washington
276,837 Latter-Day Saints
567 Bigfoot reports
66.54 thousand square miles Land Area

Louisiana
29,366 Latter-Day Saints
40 Bigfoot reports
43.56 thousand square miles

http://en.wikipedia...._(United_States)

Washington has 9.12 times more Mormons than Louisiana.

Washington has 14.175 times more Bigfoot sightings than Louisiana but when the number of Louisiana Bigfoot sightings is adjusted by 1.528 (Washington is 1.528 times larger in area than Louisiana) to account for land area the differential becomes 9.3

So its not that there are 9.3 times more Bigfoots or the folk are 9.3 times more dishonest in one state compared to another. When reports are adjusted for land area, the number of Bigfoot reports in Washington and Louisiana are directly proportional (1% difference) to the number of Mormons in their respective states. This is what you'd expect if Bigfoot was a fringe cultural (psycho-social) experience/phenomenon...

Edited by Night Walker, 28 June 2013 - 05:58 AM.

Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

### #14 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 28 June 2013 - 06:41 AM

Well, there's your problem, it's those Godless Mormon's fault.

### #15 Q-C

Q-C

BugWhisperer

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

Posted 28 June 2013 - 07:01 AM

Night Walker, on 28 June 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

Perhaps the number of Bigfoot sightings in a certain area is not predicated by the Squatch population itself (Bigfoot being a fictional character), nor by the overall human population numbers (not everyone can experience Bigfoot), but are directly affected by human factors
*snip*
bolding mine

I'm with you on that one, 100%: The influence of others, through various means.

Interesting point, Nightwalker. How many of the "well-known" footers (researchers and those with an infamous encounter) are known to be Mormon? I know of two, but I never looked into it.

http://en.wikipedia....(United_States)

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users