Does Bigfoot Exist? Further Statistical Analysis

 

In a previous post, I used human pedestrian car accident data and animal roadkill data to show that Bigfoot could not possibly exist in the numbers estimated by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), making it extremely unlikely the mythical creatures exist at all. In this post I provide further statistical analysis to support this claim.

For this analysis, let's look at human hunting accident data and apply it to the hypothetical Bigfoot population estimates given by the BFRO. The thinking here is to take hunting accident rates from a comparable population (human primates wandering around the woods in hunting areas), and apply it to our hypothesized primate population (Bigfoots) that are also supposedly wandering around these same areas. This will allow us to predict how many Bigfoots should have been accidentally shot and/or killed over the last several decades, if indeed they do exist.

In terms of human hunting accident rates, we are excluding self-inflicted wounds (which apparently are the majority) and cases in which nearby persons moved into a line-of-fire or were swung upon with a weapon, and focusing only on cases in which victims were shot out of the line-of-sight of the shooter or when victims were mistaken for game (the way a Bigfoot might be accidentally shot). There are currently about 60 fatalities a year that fit this criteria, with non-fatal accidents outnumbering fatal ones by a factor of eight, giving a total of 540 accidents per year (fatal plus non-fatal) that qualify for our purposes. We are including non-fatal accidents together with fatal ones because Bigfoots do not have the benefit of modern medicine or technology, and so severely wounding one would be effectively the same as maiming or killing one, allowing a body to presumably be recovered. These are current estimates, with previous decades seeing two to three times as many accidents per year. So if we multiply this rate of 540 by 1.5, we can get a rough rate of 810 human hunting accidents per year over the last 60 years. Divide this number by the number of human hunters in the woods each year (approximately 14 million), and the accidental shooting rate for humans in the woods on a per population basis is about 0.00579%.

If we apply this same accidental shooting rate to the hypothetical Bigfoot population estimates given by the BFRO (between 2,000 and 6,000), then somewhere between 7 and 21 Bigfoots should have been accidentally shot and/or killed by hunters in North America over the last 60 years. And this is just in North America, nevermind globally. Remember, too, that this analysis covers only accidental shootings and does not account for the possibility of purposeful Bigfoot shootings, which could raise these estimates. Also, keep in mind that humans are often wearing colorful, noticeable gear so as to specifically avoid getting shot, so a big hairy naturally-camouflaged creature would likely have considerably higher odds of getting accidentally shot in comparison to humans. So our conservative estimate predicts that over the last six decades, in the woods in North America, at least 7 to 21 or more Bigfoots should have been shot, maimed, and/or killed accidentally by hunters.

How many Bigfoots have ever been shot and/or killed by hunters? Obviously, no Bigfoot bodies have ever been recovered, due to hunting accidents or otherwise. And apparently none have been wounded or even shot at, unless the BFRO has neglected to mention such incidences in their lengthy FAQ that painfully attempts to explain away this lack of evidence by endlessly blabbing about poaching laws and other irrelevant nonsense. Their primary explanation for why no Bigfoots have ever been recovered by hunters? No Bigfoot has ever been shot by a hunter "because human hunters don't hunt for these animals". Seriously? OK, well human hunters typically don't hunt for other humans either, but that hasn't stopped thousands and thousands of people from being accidentally shot while in the woods.

Again, like our previous analysis, we found clear statistical evidence that Bigfoots could not possibly exist in the numbers suggested by the BFRO, or there would certainly be actual, irrefutable physical evidence of such a creature by now. Even if such creatures existed in much much smaller numbers than suggested, then the BFRO would be forced to admit that a truly massive number of sightings and footprints are mis-identifications, hoaxes, or hallucinations. And if something like 90 or 95 or 99% of sightings and footprint evidence isn't actually good evidence, what is stopping us from concluding that 100% are questionable? The numbers just don't add up. We are forced to conclude, yet again, that the Bigfoot myth is just that, a myth.