The night drive is a common bigfoot research activity that I, and many of the people I know, use in our efforts to find bigfoot. One of the most important factors in determining where to drive is the history of reports and alleged activity in any given area, or what would be considered a “hot spot” based on available data over a period of years. For our purposes, my partner and I have chosen the thumb area of Michigan, particularly Tuscola County and the surrounding region. By the mid-1990s, Tuscola County has had over thirty reported sightings and at least seven reports in the surrounding counties.

Over the last four weekends we spent a total of over 14 hours driving the area looking for evidence, hoping to simply round a corner at any given moment and catch a glimpse of a bigfoot, in a field or treeline, and end the mystery at least for ourselves. The hope would also naturally be to capture a photograph to share among our colleagues. Unfortunately we failed miserably, with nothing bigfoot-related being seen, heard or even hinted at.

One thing to consider when pondering the failure rate of obtaining photographic evidence is the “guestimated” overall population of sasquatch, both nationwide and in any specific area. Population estimates vary widely depending on the source, but most suggest that in any given area there would have to be a viable breeding population to sustain any activty, ranging from a few dozen to possibly as many as 10,000 animals nationwide.

Consider this: During our drives we counted, in those 14 hours of time, 22 deer, 3 rabbits, 3 raccoons and one coyote, all very common animals in the state which number into the millions. The difficulty in seeing a sasquatch becomes apparent when realizing the number of deer in Michigan, estimated to be 1,700,000 (number given by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.) Those 22 deer represent 0.00129% of the overall deer population.

Using these figures, and assuming that there are 100 sasquatch in Michigan, you would come to a figure of 1 bigfoot per 193,000 acres of forested land. When compared to deer, would come to 1 deer per 11.35 acres of forested land.

If you figure there are 640 acres in a square mile, you come to 30,156 square miles of forested land in Michigan. Using these figures, and assuming that there are 100 sasquatch in Michigan, you would come to a figure of 1 bigfoot every 310.56 square miles of forested land.

Compare this to deer, which would come to 56.37 deer every square mile of forested land.

Considering, as well, the 14 hours and 350 miles covered to see those same 22 deer, the possible equivalent to seeing just one of those 100 alleged sasquatches would take driving 300 miles per day for 24 years.

Other factors which can influence your ability to obtain photographic evidence good enough for anyone other than yourself, can be road conditions, reaction times, and the distances involved in attempting to get anything more than the latest “blobsquatch” photos despite any level of preparedness on your part.

Most sightings from a vehicle occur at night. While not having the actual numbers nationwide, I believe they fall into the category of sixty plus percent of them. And those for the most part last less than ten seconds.

In running some “tests” of our own, these numbers become important for a very simple reason: Even being prepared and fully ready to time the test, and knowing exactly what would take place, it took from a driving speed of only twenty-five miles per hour, eighteen seconds to stop, get out of the vehicle, run up twenty feet to the spot where the “sighting” occurred, and snap the picture. There was no shock or awe factored in as would be expected from someone not out specifically looking for sasquatch, no fumbling of camera equipment, no hesitation, because of the fact that it was indeed only a test. Eighteen seconds with us completely prepared,that does tend to help show why there aren’t more photos taken by the Average Joe out for a leisurely drive in the country.

One reason I chose to leave the vehicle and run to the spot of our test sighting, was to illustrate another part of the time factor; to move the car forward after slamming on the brakes and then re-attempt to exit for the photo can add an additional 3 to 5 seconds to the amount of time you have for the photo opportunity. Even when attempting to take a photo of some of the deer that were seen, it took between 13 and 15 seconds to take the photo, and that was with camera in hand and a finger on the power button.

Some other numbers taken into consideration for our “bigfoot” photo attempt: The road used in the test is twenty-seven feet across. I am six feet tall and my stride is 50 inches in a normal, relaxed gait. At that pace I can cover about ninety feet in eighteen seconds. Elongating my stride to between 65 and 75 inches, while attemping to maintain the same cadence, I can stretch that distance out to about one hundred and sixteen feet. That is a lot of distance covered in eighteen seconds if your subject is moving away as you are trying to photograph it.

The following photos are used to show the clarity of the photos at varying distances. We ranged the distance from between 10 and 50 feet. Depending on the camera used (in this case a Hewlett-Packard 3.2 megapixel digital) and the screen resolution of your computer, there is a slight variation in what can and cannot be seen at the distances involved.

The general area where pictures were taken.

Reflector seen at 10 feet.

Reflector seen at 20 feet.

Reflector seen at 30 feet.

Reflector seen at 40 feet.

Reflector seen at 50 feet.

These factors do not account for all of the problems associated with photographing a sasquatch; they are only a few among many. I hope this illustrates at least part of what we are up against in attempting to prove through photography that sasquatch does indeed exist.