Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Earl.Of.Trumps

Relative BigFoot Population Densities

44 posts in this topic

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!! :clap:

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in Hawaii they don't lie at all.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

skeptics don't want to touch it? :w00t:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

skeptics don't want to touch it? :w00t:

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

skeptics don't want to touch it? :w00t:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:nw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some thoughts about Ohio:

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some thoughts about Ohio:

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 :w00t:)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :w00t:)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints_membership_statistics_(United_States)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

I don't know. Religion and politics are laregely off-limits for discussion with many Bigfoot-folk. However, the two best-credentialed academics (and lets face it - there aren't many) to advocate for the existence of Bigfoot are Latter Day Saints. Coincidence?

Of course my position here is satirical — these are lies, damn lies, and statistics. My stats, while just as reasonable-sounding as those of EoT's, are also just as bogus. What they do reveal, however, is Bigfoot exists subjectively in how one chooses to look at it (like the Sasquatch-fossil guy) rather than in any tangible objective sense...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same thought crossed my mind as well. The passage in Genisis "and there were giants on the earth in those days, men of old, men of renown". On the surface it seems to be a somewhat accurate description. This passage may be the crux of thier conviction to the said creatures existance. Melba K seems to have latched onto it.

Connecting dots isn't the most reliable way of obtaining the "big picture" with any kind of accuracy. So I do my best to stay away from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. Religion and politics are laregely off-limits for discussion with many Bigfoot-folk. However, the two best-credentialed academics (and lets face it - there aren't many) to advocate for the existence of Bigfoot are Latter Day Saints. Coincidence?

Of course my position here is satirical — these are lies, damn lies, and statistics. My stats, while just as reasonable-sounding as those of EoT's, are also just as bogus. What they do reveal, however, is Bigfoot exists subjectively in how one chooses to look at it (like the Sasquatch-fossil guy) rather than in any tangible objective sense...

I debated where you were going with this, but I erred on the side of a more serious post. Mainly because I have heard two bf experts Mormon religion brought up on several occassions and never knew why it seemed to matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same thought crossed my mind as well. The passage in Genisis "and there were giants on the earth in those days, men of old, men of renown". On the surface it seems to be a somewhat accurate description. This passage may be the crux of thier conviction to the said creatures existance. Melba K seems to have latched onto it.

Accurate isn't the word I'd use for the description in that Bible quote. It's about as vague a description as possible.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accurate isn't the word I'd use for the description in that Bible quote. It's about as vague a description as possible.

Yeah, that's why I said somewhat......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my continued opinion that Bigfoot is driven by belief and NOT that belief is driven by Bigfoot, so your analysis of other factors that might predispose a person to hold mystical beliefs (such as mormonism - not knocking mormons, mind you - their religion makes as much sense to me as any other.....which is to say not at all, but my point is that I'm not picking on them) would augment the statistical reporting of Bigfoot sightings.

I'd like to see an analyses of Bigfoot sightings in relation to the population density of people who would consider themselves "counter-culture" in general and therefore more likely to accept and believe in Woo in general.

How about an analyses of population density of bigfoot sightings in states where there are more accounts of paranormal or ET reports overall? It seems to me that when a person believes in one of these things, they are likely to believe in all of them.

The bottom line for me is that if you believe in Bigfoot, ghosts, aliens, etc......you raise your likelihood of thinking you have seen one by some indeterminate "Nth" degree. It would be fascinating to try and suss out how other more socialogical or demographic factors help to bump or lower these numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is my continued opinion that Bigfoot is driven by belief and NOT that belief is driven by Bigfoot, ...

*snip*

I've always said a more thorough questioning of witnesses and others who know them, such as the background of their paranormal/cryptid beliefs and encounters would be helpful. (Among many other things (such as influences) that should be asked, imo)

Edited by QuiteContrary
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Why doubt the dataset?

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/default.asp

Or is it because you doubt any sightings period? It is my whole point that if people lied (intentionally or otherwise) the sightings per 100 square miles of area in which population density is the same, will be more homogeneous in count. that did not happen here. far from it.

Interstingly, Insanity messaged me and said he found that states that have similar bear populations can have very different BF sighings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Have not done other states.

I'd like to have a relative number for every state and provuinces in Canada but right now, I have no time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

I am trying to say that it is impossible for the data to be splayed out like that when you assume all BF reports are lies.

If so, then you must now assume some of the reports are true.

And it only takes one true report and BF exists

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.