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

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Where Are All the Bigfoot Roadkills? An Updated Analysis Using Mammal Roadkill Data

In a previous analysis of Bigfoot population estimates by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO), I used human pedestrian car accident data to predict how many "Bigfoot roadkills" we might have expected to find over the last 60 years, if the BFRO estimates are accurate. I was able to conclude that at least dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of Bigfoots should have been hit and/or killed by cars by now, if indeed they do exist. However, there are several potentially valid criticisms that could make the use of human data for that comparison questionable: (1) humans are more often struck in urban or suburban areas, whereas Bigfoots supposedly live primarily in rural areas; (2) a disproportionate number of pedestrian accidents involve alcohol, either relating to drunk drivers or inebriated pedestrians, which probably doesn't really apply to Bigfoot vehicle strikes.

To alleviate these concerns, and to show that my human-based estimates were still extremely conservative and the conclusions valid, in this post I re-analyzed the Bigfoot population estimates using comparably-sized mammals' vehicle strike data, and have found even more compelling evidence that Bigfoot doesn't exist...

Roadkills in the U.S. - Some Raw Numbers:
Over the last sixty years, there have been about 20 billion animal roadkills in the U.S. alone (40 million annually), consisting of basically every single species of animal on the continent, and not just mammals but also reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Even fish can sometimes be found on roadways! Mammals in general account for 81% of roadkills. Large mammals specifically make up about 26% of all these reported animal deaths, suggesting that there are 10 million large mammals killed each year on U.S. roadways, so in total over the last 60 years, about 5 billion large mammals were killed by vehicle strikes in the U.S. Large animals are struck and/or killed in Canada at the rate of 4 to 8 per hour.

These raw numbers are mind-bogglingly large, and right away makes one curious about how a supposed large mammal (Bigfoot), with an estimated population in the thousands, could possibly have not a single vehicle strike anywhere in the world, throughout all of modern history, in which a body could be recovered as physical proof. It sounds real fishy already.

But let's take this analysis further, and be more exact using data on large mammal roadkill rates as a percentage of their populations. These are as comparable populations as we could ever hope to get, short of having actual non-human primates living in North America that are not Bigfoots. They are often of the same size, living in the same wildlife areas, sharing the same food types and habitats and water sources, etc. Taking this real-world data, we will then apply our estimated large mammal annual roadkill rate to Bigfoot's hypothetical population of 2,000 to 6,000 creatures in North America, to see how many Bigfoot roadkills we should expect to have found over the last 60 years.

In 2007, 15 Florida panthers were killed by vehicle strikes, out of an estimated population of 80 to 100 panthers, giving a road kill rate of 15 to 19% for that single year. The previous year (2006), 11 were killed by vehicles, giving an annual rate of 11 to 14%. Before 1991, these panthers had estimated annual roadkills rates per population of 10%. Recent mitigation efforts have reduced this number recently to as low as 2%.

Over a two year period (1993-1994) in Ohio, there were 25,636 reported deer collisions with vehicles out of a population of about 500,000. This gives deer an annual roadkill rate, at least in Ohio, of about 2.6%. In Florida, there are about 300 Key deer of which about one is killed by car strikes each and every week, giving an annual roadkill rate for this species of 17.3%. Across the U.S., there are up to 1 million reported deer  collisions per year (with about 350,000 resulting in the animals' death), out of a population of about 25 million, giving a nationwide annual roadkill rate for deer of 1.4%.

North American Black Bears:
There are about 1500 black bears in Florida, of which about 150 were killed each year over a recent five year period, giving a road kill rate of around 10% for these creatures in that region. Another estimate of black bear vehicle strikes in Florida suggests 50 are killed each year, suggesting a 3.3% annual roadkill rate.

Roadkill Rates for Large Mammals in Yellowstone Park:
Researchers have conducted a comprehensive and extremely thorough analysis of animal roadkill rates in Yellowstone from the period of 1989-1996. This is exactly the type of data we need. Here are their results for annual roadkill rates on a population basis, per animal (I am including only large mammals):
  • Antelope (1.1%)
  • Bighorn Sheep (0.2% to 0.3%)
  • Bison (0.5%)
  • Black Bear (0.1%)
  • Coyote (0.8 to 1.0%)
  • Elk (0.2%)
  • Grizzley Bear (0.05% to 0.12%)
  • Moose (0.95%)
  • Mule Deer (1.8%)
  • Wolf (1.6%)
Even for exceedingly rare, uncommon, and elusive species, for which no good population estimate existed at the time, roadkills were still found (for instance 2 bobcats, 9 Whitetail deer, and 1 raccoon). And these estimates may be low as applied to the entire United States because the speed limits in Yellowstone only go up to 45 and sometimes 55 miles per hour, and this study (among others) shows that speed limits have an effect on roadkill rates (higher speeds resulting in more hits, presumably because people are less able or likely to swerve out of the way to avoid an animal collision). In contrast, U.S. speed limits are usually 65 to 70 mph on most major roadways, increasing the likelihood of collisions with animals.

It should also be noted that according to this study, an animal's raw population size has no discernible effect on the proportion of animals killed by vehicles, meaning that if Bigfoot populations are big OR small, we would still expect them to have comparable hit rates (on an annual proportional basis) relative to other similarly sized mammals living in similar areas. So the BFRO's claim that "Every other large mammal in North America is far more abundant than bigfoots" does not explain away the lack of Bigfoot roadstrikes, as they suggest.

Estimating Bigfoot Annual Roadkill Rates:
If we take the median value for all of the above annual roadkill rates per population (19 independent estimates for large mammals), what do we find? [Note that I am using the median (middle) instead of the traditional average so that extreme values do not unfairly pull the estimate too high or too low]. An overall estimated median for a large land-mammal roadkill rate, per year, as a percentage of population = 1.6%. For those interested, the average value came out to 4.4%, which was noticeably higher due to the several high numbers of panthers killed. So let's move forward with our calculation using the more conservative median estimate of 1.6% annual roadkill rate for large mammals in the U.S.

If we apply this median rate to the hypothetical Bigfoot population estimates given by the BFRO of 2,000 to 6,000 creatures in North America, then here is what we should observe:
  • roughly 32 to 96 Bigfoots should be killed by vehicle strikes every single year in North America.
  • roughly 1,920 to 5,760 Bigfoots in total should have been killed by vehicles in North America over the last 60 years.
But guess what? Not a single Bigfoot body has ever been recovered, from any cause of death, anywhere in the world, throughout all of modern history. Not one. How many non-fatal collisions with Bigfoot have been reported? Again, according to the BFRO, zero. How many near-misses with vehicles have been reported? Dozens, hundreds, thousands? Nope, just a few, according to the BFRO. The conclusion here is obvious: there is no Bigfoot, or else there would be compelling physical proof (a dead or injured Bigfoot) by now.


  1. If bigfoots travel in small groups , is it possible that they are a sentinent being and they are gathering their wounded and dead ?

    1. To say "yes" to this, I would have to (1) assume Bigfoots exist, (2) assume they are sentient (and by this I think you mean they have human-like intelligence), (3) assume they travel and/or live in small groups, and (4) assume they gather their wounded and dead. There is basically no evidence or any real reason to suggest that any one of these four assumptions are true, so I would guess NO. Thanks for reading, and for your comments.

    2. Also note that even if Bigfoots were gathering their wounded or dead, there would still be hundreds or even thousands of reported vehicle strikes of human-like creatures. But according to the BFRO, there are no reported collisions, and only a few reported near-misses. This is just nowhere near enough to be even slightly compelling.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. The BFRO is not the final word and they are sometimes not a reliable source of information.

      I've read stories of sasquatches being struck by vehicles, and sometimes killed. When people return with means to remove the body the body is gone. There are numerous accounts of sasquatches removing their dead and burying them. Even in the late 1800's a train struck and killed a sasquatch one night. It took six men to load it onto a flat car, and while they were fixing the cattle catcher damaged in the collision other sasquatches apparently stole the body off of the flat car. I wrote an article on this subject. You can read it at the following link. If the link does not work paste it to an address bar or search engine.


    5. The statistics for how frequently sasquatches should be hit by cars is flawed. You do note the urban pedestrian accidents would not apply to them, but additionally they are often extremely rural as they avoid humans. They have an aversion to lights shined their way. The best way to keep one away is shine a flashlight into the woods. They would naturally avoid car headlights.

      They are a lot smarter and perhaps less numerous than the large animals struck by cars in your study. Statistical studies of family tracks in habituation sites suggest they give birth about once every five years. I'm a bigfoot researcher and I've seen it (around 8 ft. tall) and cast footprints of it (17 in. long), and I've heard one speak. Most of us believe they are relict hominids. They are people, just not Homo sapiens, and you can't use rates of dumb animals killed as a good comparison, like 15 Florida panthers killed out of a population of 80-100. Are 15 out of every 100 people killed by vehicle strikes, people who live in the midst of cars.

      The running speed of a sasquatch was estimated at 35-40 miles an hour after it ran after a car that had hit it, and kept pace with the car at those speeds. There have been a number of reports of car strikes, you're just reading bad info and have limited knowledge of this subject.

      For a more compelling case for sasquatch existence here is another article I wrote that you can copy and paste to an address bar.


  2. Why would a forest dwelling people have a high rate of road-kill accidents?

    1. Thanks for reading and commenting. We expect basically any creature that moves above ground on the entire continent of North America (including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and even humans) to wind up as road kill eventually, simply due to the truly massive amount of roads and the extent of human encroachment into wildlife habitats.

      We don't expect Bigfoots to just stay in the woods without crossing any roads because they are large mammals, and supposedly fairly intelligent, who both hunt and forage, thus requiring large amounts of regular food and access to freshwater in order to survive. This requires lots and lots of moving around. If they really existed numbering in the thousands, there is no way they could have avoided all attempts at detection by now.

      And we don't need to assume that Bigfoots have "high rates" of roadkill accidents. They could have moderate or even low rates compared to other mammals (even comparable to humans, see my first article) and there should still be SOME Bigfoot roadkills observed by now, somewhere in the world, since the advent of motorized vehicles. But there aren't any Bigfoot roadkills. There are no dead Bigfoot bodies anywhere, due to any cause. See the problem?

  3. I appreciate the analysis. Some tips to make an easier experience for your blogging audience: the blue font makes it very difficult to read. I'm not sure which color would be best but I know it strains my eyes. Also, I realized after I had to log in that I found a blog I started five years ago. Who knew? Apparently I didn't find my blog that exciting. Looking forward to more posts. Love, Anne

  4. Not suggesting that I'm a true-believer, but... You are forgetting that several large mammals live in North America that have never been hit by a motorized vehicle. The jaguar, native to southern AZ and NM, is one example. Maybe that's because a large part of their brain (maybe like a sasquatch) is used to process information from their senses. That, combined with reflexes quick enough to avoid a collision with a speeding car, makes them hard to hit and hard to see in general.

    Another thing to think about - How many escaped primates have been hit by a vehicle? I suspect that the answer is few, if any.

    1. Thanks for reading and commenting. The jaguar (Panthera onca) has been
      essentially eliminated from the U.S., so only a handful remain and we might
      not expect to see any jaguar roadkills at least in the U.S., but there have
      been some reported elsewhere in the Americas (see page 149, bottom of third
      q&f=false ). Even if there were no jaguar roadkills, we still have other
      compelling physical evidence proving without a doubt that they exist...the
      same cannot be said of Bigfoots.

      You mentioned that "A large part of their brain [jaguars and Bigfoots] is
      used to process information from their senses." This is literally true of
      every single organism that has a nervous system. In fact, it's the entire
      point of having a nervous system, to process information from the senses. So
      it's not clear to me how this observation could be used as an argument that
      Bigfoots can dodge cars (and animal traps, and rifles, and cameras) with
      utterly unbelievable skill. Even animals that have fast reflexes,
      intelligence, etc. still get hit by cars (and shot, and captured on film in
      glorious detail) all the time, every day, all over the world.

      In any case, it's kind of pointless speculating about Bigfoot brains and how
      they function since we don't have one to examine.

      I would agree that few escaped primates get hit by cars, simply because
      there are so few escaped primates. If there were thousands of them (like the
      supposed Bigfoot population) then it would be a different story. Even so,
      there are quite a few incidences of escaped primates involving cars. There
      has been an escaped chimpanzee that pounded on several cars, and then jumped
      on a police car and bashed its windshield in, before being tranquilized
      (October 19, 2010, Missouri). Another escaped chimp opened a police
      officer's car door and tried to attack him, before being shot and killed
      (March 30, 2009, Missouri). Two chimps escaped and were reported getting
      into cars and trucks and trying to enter homes (November 10, 2008, Montana).
      Yet another escaped chimp dented a police car with his fists during a
      violent rampage (August 19, 1998, California). And yet another chimp
      attacked a postal truck forcing a crash (July 6, 1998, West Virginia). These
      incidents and many many more are detailed here: (
      http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/pdf/primate-incident-list-us-only.pdf )...an
      entertaining yet disturbing read which shows how spectacularly dangerous
      non-human primates can be.

      Is there any good compelling reason to think some Bigfoot, somewhere in the
      world, throughout all of modern history, wouldn't have been hit by a car by
      now? Or get accidentally (or purposefully) shot? Or trapped? Or a body
      found? Or fossils found? Or a good photograph taken? No, there is no good
      reason why not, so the rational conclusion is: there is no Bigfoot.

    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Clearly the answer then is to run one over to prove they exist...ed.

  6. Very innovative way of studying this issue, however a major problem with your analysis is sasquatch are said to immediately burry their dead. This has been reported over and over again in the sasquatch literature in countless cases where hunters have tried to bring back the bodies of shot sasquatch, only to return to find the body vanished. So unlike other road kill, a near by sasquatch would immediately swoop up the remains before any human could get the help needed to carry such a heavy corpse away. Also sasquatch tend to live in VERY remote regions where there are no roads, so simply describing them as rural is a huge understatement.

    Also, why conclude from your analysis that sasquatch doesn't exist. Wouldn't it be equally reasonable just conclude that sasquatch researchers overestimated its population size?

    Also what about all the other species that were only discovered in the last 60 years? Obviously none of them showed up as roadkill prior to being discovered.

    1. Thanks for reading and commenting. Assuming they bury their dead is just a made-up explanation for why Bigfoot bodies are never discovered. There's no proof they actually bury their dead, it's just an excuse. Do they use shovels? How do they bury their dead so well just by digging with their hands? Why have fresh graves never been discovered? How can they do it so fast? Dragging a huge hairy corpse through the woods to bury it would be noisy and leave obvious trails, making them easy to track.

      Why couldn't hunters remove a hand or a head of a killed Bigfoot? We don't need them to bring a whole corpse, just some unfake-able, actual physical evidence. Why aren't there hundreds or even thousands of reports of Bigfoots getting hit by cars resulting in hundreds or thousands of reports of Bigfoots then dragging these bodies through the woods? This explanation is dubious because there just is no proof for any of it, and it just raises more questions than it answers.

      If the population estimates were any lower than BFRO claims, then the population isn't big enough to be sustainable (and makes it incredibly unlikely they exist at all). Any analysis that suggests there are only a few hundred Bigfoots effectively means there are none. And if the population estimates are way too high, then we are agreeing that a huge number of Bigfoot sightings, reports, and footprints are hoaxes, misinterpretations, hallucinations, etc. If 90 or 95 or 99% are not true, then what's stopping us from concluding 100% are wrong?

      Species actually discovered in the last 60 years have physical proof supporting their existence, but Bigfoot doesn't. Big difference. We need proof: physical unfake-able, undeniable evidence. Then I'll be a believer.

    2. Dragging a huge hairy corpse through the woods to bury it would be noisy and leave obvious trails, making them easy to track.

      Well by the time anyone finds the tracks and bothers to follow them, the tracks would be largely gone, and the corpse itself consumed by animals. Also, if the sasquatch carried their dead over their shoulders, it would leave fewer tracks than dragging the corpse on the ground.

      Why couldn't hunters remove a hand or a head of a killed Bigfoot? We don't need them to bring a whole corpse, just some unfake-able, actual physical evidence

      It's not that easy to remove a head or hand and what are the odds of a hunter just conveniently having with him the tools to do so? Also, a hunter would fear that while he's busy trying to saw off the corpse's head, the dead sasquatch's grieving relative is probably lurking in the bushes ready to jump out and take revenge. If you shot a sasquatch, you would probably be so freaked out by the experience that you would want to get the hell out of the deep woods as soon as possible and never ever go back, not spend time removing body parts as the sun begins to set.

      Why aren't there hundreds or even thousands of reports of Bigfoots getting hit by cars resulting in hundreds or thousands of reports of Bigfoots then dragging these bodies through the woods?

      Well as the link I provided claims, there are reports of car hittings; not a lot, but that might be because of fear of being ridiculed by skeptics and being condemned by believers and animal lovers for your reckless driving.

      If the population estimates were any lower than BFRO claims, then the population isn't big enough to be sustainable (and makes it incredibly unlikely they exist at all). Any analysis that suggests there are only a few hundred Bigfoots effectively means there are none.

      I'm no expert on population biology, but surely there have been many species that have sustained very low population levels for extended periods of time. And maybe sasquatch isn't sustainable. Indeed if it exists, it's probably on the verge of extinction, just like all the other near-humans went extinct (neanderthals, homo erectus, denisovans)in the face of competition from our species. Maybe the reason sasquatch supposedly lasted as long as it did is that it was lucky enough to occupy North America- a region that humans were very late to colonize, especially in large numbers.

      And if the population estimates are way too high, then we are agreeing that a huge number of Bigfoot sightings, reports, and footprints are hoaxes, misinterpretations, hallucinations, etc. If 90 or 95 or 99% are not true, then what's stopping us from concluding 100% are wrong?

      What stops us from rejecting all the sightings is that the existence of sasquatch is corroborated by other lines of evidence (video footage and footprints) that have been extensively analyzed.

      Species actually discovered in the last 60 years have physical proof supporting their existence

      But there was no proof before they were discovered. My point is that if someone had done your road kill analysis on these species before they were proven to exist, they would have reached the wrong conclusion. By definition it's impossible for an undiscovered species to show up in road-kill statistics because if it did, it would have been discovered.

    3. Thanks for commenting John. The points you are bringing up are possible, but they really just seem to be special pleading (grasping at straws). We can speculate all day about whether Bigfoots can carry corpses and how fast they can bury their dead and whether animals eat their bones and all such silliness. But at the end of the day, we are still left without any proof of Bigfoot, when there should probably be proof by now.

      And by proof, I mean evidence that CANNOT be faked or a misinterpretation or a hoax or a hallucination. Shoddy-looking videos and footprints don't count, because you can't rule out alternative explanations with confidence. If you can't rule out more prosaic possibilities, then you don't have compelling evidence of Bigfoot.

  7. There's no proof they actually bury their dead, it's just an excuse.

    Well there's no proof they exist period, so all we can go by are the claims, and apparently there have been many such claims of burials and burial grounds:


    I do agree though that it sounds a little too convenient; but on the other hand if sasquatch exists it probably has many near-human traits and probably evolved to avoid human detection, so corpse burial fits that profile. If so, it probably can bury its dead very quickly by hand for the same reason a bird can quickly build a nest with its beak; organism evolve efficiency in the things they need to do to survive, and the reason we haven't found their burials is because they are deep in the uncharted woods and rapidly consumed by other animals.

    1. The problem with entertaining these types of explanations is that they are crap piled upon more crap. Someone claims: There is an entire species of thousands of large human-like mammals living undetected in North America (an unsubstantiated, outlandish claim).

      A skeptic then says: Where are all the dead bodies? Some should have been hit by cars or accidentally shot by hunters or trapped or died of natural causes in an open area. Where is the physical proof?

      The reply: Well they bury their dead faster than anyone can ever find a body, then animals eat the bones super fast too. This is just another unsubstantiated, outlandish claim used to support the first silly claim. Crap piled upon crap.

      That's the problem here, people are getting lost in a labrynth of confusing nonsense. It's safer to just stick to basic principles (what we can know for sure) and go with the easier explanation: there isn't a Bigfoot.

  8. We need proof: physical unfake-able, undeniable evidence. Then I'll be a believer.

    I'm not believer either, but I'm also not a believer in its non-existence. I think agnosticism is the most rational position in this case. I think your road-kill analysis is a strong and interesting argument, but more research is needed. I like your idea of doing statistical analysis on this subject, and I wonder if any statistical analysis of eye witness sightings could be useful too. Frequency of eye witness sightings might be correlated with certain variables in ways that allow for hypothesis testing. For example, if sasquatch sightings were the result of hallucinations, we might expect such sightings to be more frequent in places with higher rates of psychosis and substance abuse; however if sasquatch really does exist, we might expect sightings to increase during times of food shortage or habitat destruction. I have heard sighting are correlated with rainfall, make of that what you will.

    1. Thanks for your thoughts. There has been a correlational study between Bigfoot sighting locations and large mammal habitats, specifically the black bear. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_studies_of_Bigfoot

      The overlap between black bear habitats and Sasquatch sightings provide strong evidence that many (and maybe most) Bigfoot sightings are completely understandable mis-identifications of black bears. This seems like the most reasonable explanation.

    2. I think the black bear theory is very plausible. I can totally see how a black bear standing upright could be mistaken for a human-like beast, especially with the influence of substance abuse, psychosis and poor visibility (sasquatch sightings are correlated with rain).

      Still, I haven't researched this topic enough to come to a conclusion. As I stated, explanations can be given for the lack of road kill (though I agree these are a bit of stretch), and there are a few credible people who have analyzed footprints and the Patterson video (one expert claiming the creature in the video was about 7'4" and its fur too realistic to be a costume made in the 1960s etc). Of course you can find an expert to claim anything so this proves little, but until I research it more myself, I'm agnostic. Though if forced to bet, I would bet that there's no such creature.

  9. There now appears to have been confirmation of the validity of the research done by Dr. Melba Ketchum and her colleagues.
    She has received two communications from one of the first Scientists who have reviewed the Article, Novel North American Hominins, published by DeNovo Scientific Publishing.

    Biochemist, David H. Swenson Ph.D, of Green Resources Redux, Inc. wrote:

    "Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties:
    I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics.
    My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences.
    It helped me understand more about the project.
    This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp.
    I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.
    My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported.
    For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.
    Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call.

    Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis".

    This is a very straightforward response from a well qualified Ph.D. Biologist

    A few days later, after he had more time to study the data, using his computer, that has software to assist in the process, David Swenson, Ph.D., made these additional comments, which Dr. Melba Ketchum then posted on her facebook page.

    "I did more blast analyses and came up with the same confusion the independent labs had. The genome has some good human matches and some unknowns."

    "The sequences are not contaminated, near as I can tell.
    I have not searched for open reading frames, but that is beyond the scope of my tools.
    The close matches are gapped with sequences that match nothing.
    AMEL and MY genes match humans in some cases, in others, not.
    If I am wrong, I would like to be shown with data, not uninformed opinion from experts".

    David H. Swenson, Ph.D.

    It appears that this is the first scientific vindication of the Ketchum Study. It is very succinct.
    I am rather sure that there will be many more to come.
    Bigfoot DNA Believer

    1. I'm familiar with the "We found Bigfoot DNA" claim, it's certainly not the first time this has happened. And as far I know it has yet to be vetted by the actual scientific community. Last I heard, the samples haven't been released to other labs for examination by independent, impartial observers (one mysterious Dr. David Swenson, Ph.D., of Green Resources Redux, Biochemist, probably doesn't count).

      It is also my understanding that the "scientific journal" it is being published in is a newly created journal that appears to have been created just to publish this Bigfoot DNA research. Which sounds real fishy, and means it still has yet to be studied by the actual scientific community. I'm not holding my breath on this one.

      I'm not a geneticist or biochemist, so I cannot critique Ketchum's technical work on the DNA. Just googling this topic should give you lots of reviews by reputable and relevant scientists who have looked into this and haven't seen anything spectacular yet (obviously it would be amazing and ground-breaking if true, but the evidence has to be good, undeniable). Already, I can tell you the finding is questionable on the grounds of how do we really know it's Bigfoot DNA as opposed to any other creature? How can you verify it literally came from a Squatch? Your are going to have to rule out alternative explanations.

    2. Dr. Ketchum uses several universities to do all her testing; it's not "her lab" as you commented. The problem is the PC scientific community shuns anything "bigfoot" and avoids her. That's why they purchased a review to publish it. One review was going to publish her research but withdrew after fielding criticism.

      They produced many samples that showed human and something unknown, which according to Dr. Ketchum is what you would expect to find, just like when the entire genomes of Neanderthal and Denisovan man were sequenced we share most of the same DNA, but then there is unknown DNA.

      There have been skeptical scientists who looked at her results and invariably claimed the samples must have been contaminated. It's based on the circular argument that there is no such thing as bigfoot, therefore the samples must have been contaminated. The problem is the university labs does washing techniques to remove contaminants, and a major criticism of these skeptical scientists is to declare so many different samples contaminated.

      There is DNA evidence, but the problem is without a type species to attach it to you cannot use DNA to declare it's existence.

  10. I live in a town of 10000, I'm sure they could exist here because most of the townspeople are boring and you never see anyone outside. They could be watching our TV's while we're at work as long as they vacuum the couch and spray a little fabreeze, noone around here's going to notice unless they gnaw through a cable line.

  11. I have read through your evidence however there are a few things I'd like to hear about from your point of view, however biased it may be.

    We speak of creatures that are only told of in tales and recollections by others, however is this not how many other species were found? If I'm correct in this assumption, many animals were spoken of in forms that were quite artistic to their true appearance. Who are we to say that this creature 'Bigfoot' is actually a large ape? Could this account be wrong and its appearance mearly take on the form of a large ape-like creature from a distance? As you said yourself, eye witness statements are very unreliable at best.

    What I'd also like to hear from, being the researcher that you are, is why you only report on Bigfoot in North America? There are so many literatures and stories told from all over the world of creatures fitting the descriptions of the Bigfoot such as the Yowie of Australia or the Hibagon of Japan, both continents far separated from America, and neither known for being hosts to primates or bears (at least Australia is not).

    The lack of evidence is not the lack of existence. When a cat or dog or family pet is ready to die, quite often they are known to venture further away from the home, deep into recluse, just to die. Even then, between the environment and scavengers, sometimes they are barely recognizable, or passed over, or even misidentified. Species scientists have deemed extinct have been found again, in swelling numbers.

    In essence what the questions are I would like to hear addressed from you with your knowledge is as follows:
    Could the creature of Bigfoot be something else and not in fact a large bipedal ape-man?
    Why does such a creature, who's existence cannot be proved, have stories and reports surrounding the globe, including dwellings where nothing it could be mistaken for (such as bears) are non-existent?
    And finally, how can we determine that the lack of evidence means lack of existence, when this has been proven to be a false statement?

    I apologize for my biased post. I do wish to keep an Open Mind however these questions are what make me believe such a beast could in fact exist.

    1. Thanks for reading and for your questions. Please note that I am trying to specifically avoid being biased by looking at the irrefutable, un-fakeable evidence, by looking at what story the data is telling us. So keeping this in mind, here my answers to your questions:

      "Could the creature of Bigfoot be something else and not in fact a large bipedal ape-man?"

      Notice how your question already assumes that there IS a bigfoot. It doesn't really matter what Bigfoot is, whether an ape-man or a fish or an alien or a ghost. What does matter is that there is basically no good evidence that such a thing called "Bigfoot" exists at all. So arguing over whether he's an ape or a monkey or slime mold or a special type of hairy tree that can move is utterly pointless. Prove he exists, then we can argue over how to classify him.

      "Why does such a creature, who's existence cannot be proved, have stories and reports surrounding the globe, including dwellings where nothing it could be mistaken for (such as bears) are non-existent?"

      There are stories and reports surrounding the globe of witches, aliens, leprechauns, magic, spirits, Zeus, cherubs, etc., etc. But stories are not proof. People believe weird things, they tell crazy-ass unexplainable stories all the time. I am open-minded enougn to say "OK, I'll believe you, just show me some evidence that what you say is actually true and I'll be happy to support you." But the evidence is never offered, or it is crappy evidence. That's the problem.

      "And finally, how can we determine that the lack of evidence means lack of existence, when this has been proven to be a false statement?"

      Logically speaking, lack of evidence does not strictly prove something is untrue. But this is just speaking only from logic. Here in the real world, lack of evidence for Bigfoot is a real problem for someone trying to claim he exists. This is because there should be lots and lots of good evidence by now, especially if we compare him to other similar type of animals (roadkill rates, shooting rates, bodies discovered, footprints, etc.). But there is NO GOOD DATA in support when there should be. The arguers can come up with all sorts of fancy, goofy, after-the-fact explanations about why there isn't any good data, but it all sounds fishy and frankly, like a bunch of bull-dookey.

      Thanks again for reading and your comments.

  12. Interesting! If that is the case, then what are people seeing? Why are many of these people now afraid to go back into the woods. Some have given up hunting and fishing because of fear. I really don't buy the percentage rate probability of road kill sasquatch. These things are said to be very intelligent. So now, lets take the road kill probability of the human. How many humans in North America, outside the city limits, have been struck by cars? What would that percentage rate be? After all, there are many really stupid people out there, no doubt dumber than a sasquatch, taking that into consideration, what kind of percentage rate are we talking about?

    1. Thanks for reading, here are your replies:

      "What are people seeing?" I attempted to answer this in a previous post on eye-witness reports. Short answer: black bears, brown bears, people, elk, honey badgers, trees, rocks, rhinos, horse flies, aliens, angels, and often nothing at all. No evidence of anything mysterious going on, people say and do strange things, even 'normal' people that aren't otherwise crazy, sick, or on drugs.

      I also did a previous post (cited in first sentence of this post) about the annual roadkill rate for humans, and then applied to estimated Sasquatch populations. I came to similar conclusions: there should be overwhelming evidence by now, dozens or even hundreds of dead or injured Bigfoot. The large mammal data cited in this post provides even further evidence in that direction.

      I feel bad that anyone would give up hunting or fishing or enjoying the outdoors for fear of such a thing. But similar behaviors occur out of fear of demons, ghosts, leprechauns, witches, goblins, etc. Some people are afraid to fly, others to drive, still others to go out in public. Hopefully I could convince some of these people that while there might be plenty of things to fear in the deep dark woods, squatches aren't one of them.