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
Myles

Map of bigfoot sightings

74 posts in this topic

Everywhere yet nowhere.

But again, the BFRO reports are not all sightings! Some are simply alleged sounds or smells or prints or nests, etc. How can a researcher not see that or include that bit of important information.

From a brief data compilation I did on the BFRO database:

*Note* All reports are assigned a classification of A, B or C by the BFRO. However, even though BFRO lists these as “Sightings by Region” on the sidebar menu on it’s main page, a report listing for a state does not necessarily mean it was a sighting report where the witness actually saw the animal clearly.

Some “A” reports listed only refer to footprints even a handprint in one I came across. “B” reports may refer to poor visibility, or sounds, smells, sign, missing livestock, etc.

In the 11 states listed below with the most reports, 50% are B with a few C.

Edited by QuiteContrary
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now overlap the range of bears and you might see a correlation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now overlap the range of bears and you might see a correlation.

Wrong overlay the map of UFO Sightings with A Class Bigfoot Sightings and there you have a correlation. Trust me i have done it on Google Earth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong overlay the map of UFO Sightings with A Class Bigfoot Sightings and there you have a correlation. Trust me i have done it on Google Earth.

So kooks who see crazy **** see all different kinds of crazy ****?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update. I guess they like the eastern side of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are various types of encounters, my only experience, because I don't know if it was a Bigfoot or not, was with a smell. Which was like being down wind from a dozen Frenchmen who'd just finished player volleyball. Which is why I'd be hesitant to even call it an encounter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are various types of encounters, my only experience, because I don't know if it was a Bigfoot or not, was with a smell. Which was like being down wind from a dozen Frenchmen who'd just finished player volleyball. Which is why I'd be hesitant to even call it an encounter.

Exactly, and neither should databases label them "sightings" when they are not.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really the crux of it, isn't it? I suppose I could have screamed that I saw Bigfoot but the truth is what I experienced could be easy explained by something other than a Bigfoot.

Not only that but I would think that an actual sighting would at least be more noteworthy than just getting a whiff of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So kooks who see crazy **** see all different kinds of crazy ****?

I noticed that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty interesting seeing all these encounters gathered together and organised, do you reckon it supports the existence of Bigfoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only once in 100 years has someone reported spotting a Sasquatch in the state of Maine? Looking at that map, that is the place where the sports go hunting and fishing, so likely one of them got all liquored up, sighted a black bear on its hind legs and thought it was a Sasquatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, and neither should databases label them "sightings" when they are not.

Well I this would have frightened me more than the bigfoot, of course they would have all been running in the same direction away from you sacre bleu lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High sitings in southeast Arizona? Maybe they're looking for silver!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, and neither should databases label them "sightings" when they are not.

Not only that, but I think we should really question these sightings lists especially when someone can post anonymously without any follow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that, but I think we should really question these sightings lists especially when someone can post anonymously without any follow up.

I completely agree. I've questioned the authenticity of reports and lack of objectivity by those signing off on these reports for years.

But I was commenting on the researcher in the OP and the databases in general, both using the the very misleading term "sighting" reports. And I responded with what I had found when looking at the most infamous database and taking the reports at face value.

That is the tricky part about bigfoot commentary. Responding to what is out there and offered up. That is, meeting the "evidence" where it's at. Yet at the same time, personally, not being convinced any of it is "evidence" of this creature at all.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not many sightings in Canada by comparison,says it all for me,largely normal down to earth people there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not many sightings in Canada by comparison,says it all for me,largely normal down to earth people there.

The OP article specifically mentioned it was about the United States. "Sightings" correlate with population density maps. Other maps show just how many are alleged in Canada, especially in BC. Check out Mangani's bigfoot map. Again, less people correlates with less dots on the map for both countries.

http://penn.freeserv...om/bigfootmaps/

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we have a right to question this research regarding statistics and methods. But, at the very least, some effort has finally been made to begin to systematize these "interactions." Perhaps in the next phase of review, some methods can be used to more accurately distinguish the type and degree of interaction and provide a much more realistic picture. I think having credible imagining and audio from wildlife biologists would begin to provide the rigor that is required. But, we do seem to be at a loss for it ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now overlap the range of bears and you might see a correlation.

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

Wrong overlay the map of UFO Sightings with A Class Bigfoot Sightings and there you have a correlation. Trust me i have done it on Google Earth.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that too.

Yeah but if there is something in the food or water that makes people loco, mon amis, somebody should *show* that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 websiteexternal-link.png. "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.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

How do you know that the bears in those states haven't just been hiding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that the bears in those states haven't just been hiding?

ROFLMAO!!

cute :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You silly man! Bears are not allowed to hide from anyone.

Must I explain everything around here?

:w00t:

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.