"Some say they see poetry in my paintings; I see only science." -Georges Seurat

Friday, November 23, 2012

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.


  1. an awesome article--finally someone with clear, analytical and critical thinking skills

  2. Compelling Physical Evidence has now been produced by the University of Texas DNA Laboratory at Dallas Texas. This highly accredited Laboratory, which specializes in Human Genome Research, received Three DNA samples from Dr. Melba Ketchum, that had come from three different animals, that were from three different regions, (Two from the USA and one from Canada), and were had been collected by three different researchers, using forensic procedures.
    These three samples, one Blood, one Saliva, and one Subcutaneous Flesh, were then sequenced on the Next-Generation Illumina HiSeq 2000 Platform (At the University of Texas DNA Laboratory) and produced three complete Nuclear Genomes.
    The submitted samples were determined to be of very high quality, as evidenced by their Q30 Scores of 88.6, 88.4, and 88.7. These scores indicated that they consisted of highly-purified, single-source DNA, that had no contamination. The Q30 score is the percent of reads that have the statistical probability greater than 1:1000 of being correctly sequenced.
    According to the manufacturer, Illumina, a pure single source sample would have a Q30 score of 80 or greater, with an average Q30 score of 85. Contaminated or multiple source samples would have Q30 scores of 40 to 50, which was definitely not the case with these three samples.
    These three samples, one Blood, one Saliva, and one Subcutaneous Flesh, were then sequenced on the Next-Generation Illumina HiSeq 2000 Platform (At the University of Texas DNA Laboratory) and produced three complete Nuclear Genomes. Each Genome consisted of 3 Billion base pairs.
    The amazing fact is that these three Genomes, from widely separated samples, nonetheless definitely possessed consistent homology. This constitutes more than adequate proof of a new species to my way of thinking.
    There are at least 3 living, breathing, creatures that are unclassified by science.
    Now that the University of Texas DNA Laboratory has sequenced no less than three Nuclear Genomes, it will be absolutely impossible for anyone to truthfully say that there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of Bigfoot. Just one Nuclear Genome would be very adequate proof of a new Species. Three complete Nuclear Genomes, that possess consistent homology, is gross overkill. I do not think that anyone will have the nerve to dispute the work done by the University of Texas at Dallas. It is HARD evidence. It is repeatable, and it will stand the test of time.
    Nuff Said! Go to the Sasquatch Genome Project at http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/ and see for yourself. Bigfoot DNA Believer

    1. OK, as soon as they publish in an ACTUAL scientific journal that is peer-reviewed by relevant experts that know what they are doing, then I will listen. Until then, it's just a whole lot of talking. This isn't the first time such claims have been made, I just wish it could be the last (although I fear it isn't).

      I'm not a DNA or genetics or biochemist expert, and I suspect you aren't either, but I can already tell you where the problem is probably going to lie: how do you know you have Sasquatch DNA that was sampled? How do you know for sure it isn't some other animal or human (degraded or otherwise)? You have to eliminate all other non-magical, non-mystical possibilities before defaulting to Squatches. I'm not hearing that this was done.