Jump to content
BobbyO

State with the most Class A's ?

State with the most Class A's ?  

25 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

BobbyO
SSR Team

Ok Guys and Girls, we have a fully functional SSR again so let's have a quick poll..

 

We have 2,834 Class A Reports in our Database, but what State has the most (without looking of course), and why ?

 

In a week, i'll chime back in and look further in depth of that State, and focus in on its most popular counties for reports.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team

It's cheating for me because I can look up the answers, but the County in that state with the most Class A sighting has them because of the terrain, a heavily forested river bottom. I won't vote in the poll.

This question helped me identify an error in one SSR report because there was an 'altitude' anomaly in the search results that stood out. I have corrected that error.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

I didn’t cheat, either in an SSR query or reading the thread first. 

 

I chose Washington just because my past reading made me do so, but I admit that California came in a close second in my mind. 

 

And I could easily be wrong. Hell, it could be Ohio, for all I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

I won't cheat either. I say California just because of its size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

I voted Washington based upon habitat and number of forest visitors. Washington is the Switzerland of America with the highest peak. We can go from sea level to 5,000 feet above sea level in a couple of hours.

 

Hawaii was an option? Funny. How about throwing in Central Park?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team
4 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

Hawaii was an option? Funny. How about throwing in Central Park?

I think it's not Hawaii... :)

I actually refused to watch the Hawaii episode of Finding Bigfoot because it seemed silly to go there at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I myself wondered that about the Finding Bigfoot format.     If you wanted to find BF you would go to the states where you are most likely to have an encounter.    They seemed to be on a public interest tour trying to conjure up interest in as many states as they could.  It reminded me of a political campaign in a lot of ways.    I know answer because I looked it up a long time ago out of curiosity.  

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team

Did FB actually go to Hawaii then ? I didn’t know that.

 

Paid for vacation, stuff from heaven ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David NC
BFF Donor

https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/menhune-hawaii-ancient-race-or-fictional-fairytale-001741 

 

It was most likely to look into the Menehune legends of Hawaii . The Menehune were supposed to be small people though, and not many tales of them being hairy.

Some scholars believe the name came from Polynesian and meant lowly/small socially speaking, so in other words they where lowly peasants not small people

Kewaunee Lapseritis  could have had something to do with it. One of his books he tells about going to Hawaii and meeting with 2 Sasquatch that live there.

I believe they used as an excuse to have a paid vacation in a very beautiful place to see. The TV people are paying for it so why not :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, David NC said:

.........The Menehune were supposed to be small people though, and not many tales of them being hairy.

Some scholars believe the name came from Polynesian and meant lowly/small socially speaking, so in other words they where lowly peasants not small people.........

 

Possibly. But, then, we have the recent Homo floresiensis fossil finds that should have breathed new life into hominids living with Homo sapiens at least until recently, and which whose existence very easily could have been at least carried forward in tribal oral histories, even if it’s argued that they died out in the date of the most recent fossil finds. 

 

If even fossils don’t prove past existence and support legend, then Darwinism has no teeth whatsoever, and only fresh carcasses prove existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Seems like I saw something not long ago that moved homo florensiensis  into the last 10,000 years.     So many things like the Menehune in Hawaii  that are considered myth or oral history end up being found eventually.     Tropical climates are not likely to preserve remains when the native surface is in a constant state of rot but if you have something like an oxygen free bog, remains can be preserved.     They just found the oldest ship ever found in the bottom of the Black Sea because it was in an bottom layer completely devoid of oxygen.    It was remarkably intact.  

 

Fossils of any kind are very rare.    They are the result of some sort of rapid oxygen free burial followed by a minimum of hundreds of thousands of years of bone and flesh being slowly replaced by silicates in a watery media.    Rare events and conditions coming together to produce the fossil.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Washington seems like a pretty safe answer and the one I gave. Having said that, other more populated states, such as Ohio and Florida, do have a fair amount of sightings as well. I think Washington State would have the most dedicated number of researchers but the terrain and density of forest might make it more difficult to get a Class A sighting.  Florida, being as flat as a pancake,  would allow a visual more easily I believe.

 

Washington is my answer and I'm sticking to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Part of what skews sighting reports from actual bigfoot population density is people density.    Washington for example has nearly twice as many people as Oregon.    (2018  4 million Oregon vs 7.4 million Washington)    It takes people in the woods to have a sighting.      For all we know Oregon has more BF than Washington even though Washington has more sighting reports.     I think California has a artificially high amount of sighting reports relative to actual BF numbers just because of the hoards of people in California.     Rather than flatness I think that timber density and elevation might be more of a player in sighting reports.    In Washington State,  West of the Cascades you often cannot see 100 yards in the woods.     In the Sierra Nevada,  there is a high snow load, timber is not very dense and stunted,   so the less dense timber and more people may actually make sightings more common.      Another factor in sightings is bigfoots awareness of being observed.     With many sightings the BF has no idea someone is watching it.   Their fanatical desire to hide makes them very unlike most woodland animals.    If they know you are there, they are very unlikely to expose themselves to being observed.   So while one would think flat ground would promote sightings,    ridgelines and mountain sides actually expose BF to being observed from a greater distance because they might not know you are there to see them.          Until some sort of demographic BF count is performed in a state, we can never know what the relationship of BF sighting reports to numbers of bigfoot or numbers of people.     There are simply too many variables and not enough hard data.   

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team

Good post ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Yeah. He’s hit it. Makes me want to go camping/hunting in Oregon. :hunter:

  • Upvote 1

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

×