Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

States with Most Bigfoot Sightings in 2020

139 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Still Waters
Quote

To prevent COVID-19 exposure, people are either staying inside or going out into nature to avoid the masses. And who knows more about hiding from the herd than Bigfoot? 

Some deny that Bigfoot is real, but with so many reported sightings, maybe he’s not only real but not alone. Could there be bigfoots all over the country? (Or is it bigfeet? It’s definitely not bigfeets—unless it’s used as a term of endearment.

So, where do you think you can see one of these big beasts with your own two eyes? We dug into reports from The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization and compared it against state population data to see where people have the best chance of befriending a bigfoot.

https://www.satelliteinternet.com/resources/states-with-the-most-bigfoot-sightings/

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

I don't like that chart coloration. I'm conditioned by weather charts to go lightest to darkest, not the other way around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I wonder what the numbers are in British Columbia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1

This brings home the point of the incredible alleged range of this creature. It is really hard to imagine another huge sized animal species having this kind of range without it being a 'known' species with plenty of specimens.

This tends to lend weight to my theory that Bigfoot is something more mysterious than the two main theories of all hoax/misidentification or another undocumented species. The mystery is in attributes we would call paranormal, live dimension shifting, to keep us from ever nailing it down (kind of like ghosts).

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

but it happens to correlate better than I expected to the black bear geographic range:

No it doesn't.

Look at the areas that don't match up, instead of the ones that do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

LoL . . I'm delighted to see that California leads the nation in sightings...   but not surprised. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
14 minutes ago, lightly said:

LoL . . I'm delighted to see that California leads the nation in sightings...   but not surprised. :P

Washington does, not California. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
39 minutes ago, acute said:

No it doesn't.

Ha, because you know how well 'I expected it to' correlate?  You're telepathic?

Quote

Look at the areas that don't match up, instead of the ones that do.

I did, I even noted them...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

This brings home the point of the incredible alleged range of this creature. It is really hard to imagine another huge sized animal species having this kind of range without it being a 'known' species with plenty of specimens.

This tends to lend weight to my theory that Bigfoot is something more mysterious than the two main theories of all hoax/misidentification or another undocumented species. The mystery is in attributes we would call paranormal, live dimension shifting, to keep us from ever nailing it down (kind of like ghosts).

You should like this.  A local native guy told me that in his culture if you see the Sasquatch it is a sign that there is either something wrong in nature or in the nature of the person who sees it. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
3 hours ago, lightly said:

LoL . . I'm delighted to see that California leads the nation in sightings...   but not surprised. :P

Washington leads not CA.  That probably shouldn't surprise you either :)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Interesting.  It's not perfect and there are some outliers like Texas and Ohio and northern New England, but it happens to correlate better than I expected to the black bear geographic range:

Another point is if they both like deep undisturbed nature there should be a correlation,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Bigfoot is a multidimensional being that exist within the memetic thought-space of humanity. True story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Another point is if they both like deep undisturbed nature there should be a correlation,

Another point is that even if black bears did like 'deep undisturbed nature' there are an astounding number of sightings of them regardless.  Tough to hide when you require such a large amount of food to maintain your size.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Another point is that even if black bears did like 'deep undisturbed nature' there are an astounding number of sightings of them regardless.  Tough to hide when you require such a large amount of food to maintain your size.

Maybe I'm missing your point. Obviously black bears are a type of 'regular' fully physical plane animal not all that hard to find. Bigfoots suggest something different and more mysterious is going on is my view but they both like undisturbed forested nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
42 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Maybe I'm missing your point. Obviously black bears are a type of 'regular' fully physical plane animal not all that hard to find. Bigfoots suggest something different and more mysterious is going on is my view but they both like undisturbed forested nature.

My point originally with posting the bear's range obviously was that perhaps bears are being misidentified as Bigfoot.  You noted that maybe bears just like the same deep remote habitats as Bigfoot, which is a totally rational and logical point; likewise we would probably see that the range of foxes overlaps that of bears.  Since your response was within the boundaries of currently accepted science (you have to admit this is not always the case), I then noted that the affinity or sharing of the same habitat doesn't explain why we have countless sightings of black bears but not of Bigfoots, which is also an argument against the existence of Bigfoot (and there are several other biology-based arguments against Bigfoot), again within those boundaries.

But now you seem to have departed from those boundaries. I'm not familiar with any kind of animal that is not a 'fully physical plane' being.  The Bigfoot phenomenon does suggest something different going on versus every other land mammal that size we are aware of, but the problem is that the Bigfoot 'mystery' is even better explained by the notion that Bigfoot doesn't even exist, and that the evidence is comprised of misidentifications and hoaxes.  That perfectly explains as you noted above why they are so 'hard to find'.  I don't know what you think you know about non fully physical plane animals, but I would dispute it since none are known to exist; for all you know an actual non fully physical plane animal may leave more evidence of its existence, that's the problem when we have no evidence at all surrounding this idea.  Yes, maybe Bigfoot is not fully physical plane, or maybe he's an alien, or maybe he's got an invisibility cloak, or maybe he's a robot, or maybe we're in a computer simulation; there's nothing to support any of those options over any other or argument- or evidence-wise, and that is a very abbreviated list.  That's the problem with trying to make points beyond the boundaries in the paragraph above; not that it's not fun to think about, but if we're just working at the level of 'possibility' then I'm not sure on what grounds you would impose any limits.  Not requiring evidence definitely opens things up, a bit too much I'd argue depending on what the objective is.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
52 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

My point originally with posting the bear's range obviously was that perhaps bears are being misidentified as Bigfoot.  You noted that maybe bears just like the same deep remote habitats as Bigfoot, which is a totally rational and logical point; likewise we would probably see that the range of foxes overlaps that of bears.  Since your response was within the boundaries of currently accepted science (you have to admit this is not always the case), I then noted that the affinity or sharing of the same habitat doesn't explain why we have countless sightings of black bears but not of Bigfoots, which is also an argument against the existence of Bigfoot (and there are several other biology-based arguments against Bigfoot), again within those boundaries.

But now you seem to have departed from those boundaries. I'm not familiar with any kind of animal that is not a 'fully physical plane' being.  The Bigfoot phenomenon does suggest something different going on versus every other land mammal that size we are aware of, but the problem is that the Bigfoot 'mystery' is even better explained by the notion that Bigfoot doesn't even exist, and that the evidence is comprised of misidentifications and hoaxes.  That perfectly explains as you noted above why they are so 'hard to find'.  I don't know what you think you know about non fully physical plane animals, but I would dispute it since none are known to exist; for all you know an actual non fully physical plane animal may leave more evidence of its existence, that's the problem when we have no evidence at all surrounding this idea.  Yes, maybe Bigfoot is not fully physical plane, or maybe he's an alien, or maybe he's got an invisibility cloak, or maybe he's a robot, or maybe we're in a computer simulation; there's nothing to support any of those options over any other or argument- or evidence-wise, and that is a very abbreviated list.  That's the problem with trying to make points beyond the boundaries in the paragraph above; not that it's not fun to think about, but if we're just working at the level of 'possibility' then I'm not sure on what grounds you would impose any limits.  Not requiring evidence definitely opens things up, a bit too much I'd argue depending on what the objective is.

It sounds like you are espousing one of the two mainstream theories I mentioned above: all hoax/misidentification. My problem with that being my leading theory is the quantity, quality and consistency of reported experiences. They clearly see a natural bipedal animal with a head not shaped like a bear's. They consistently report smells, rock throwing, howls not associated with black bears. There is certainly footprint evidence and (controversially) DNA evidence, photo (controversial) evidence, video (controversial) evidence of an unknown primate. All told I respect your theory but it does not appear to be the most likely one in my opinion. Its appeal is to keep things in the box.

I find the more outlandish sounding 'mystery' creature with attributes and abilities not known in the animal kingdom. These attributes/abilities include leaving our field of vision (dimension shifting perhaps). This theory explains the sightings and the lack of bodies that can be displayed or put in a cage. When one accepts the paranormal in general as including a flock of different mysterious things, these abilities become less outlandish. To go even farther out on a limb before a skeptical audience, I will say I also give fair consideration to channeled sources revealing their knowledge such as Bigfoot being an alien created human/ape hybrid originally planned to be a slave race but that plan never worked out. No, I'm not claiming that is true but I consider it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

What a pointless map. It lists sightings by state. Whoopppeee do-dah... bad bad bad.

This is pathetic. It sucks; it is downright useless.

Example: Rhode Island has 5 sightings. That's a sighting for each 243 square miles of RI.

Example: Texas has 246 sightings. That's a sighting for each 1092 square miles.

I'd go to Rhode Island to see a bigfoot. more likely there.

But I'm sure that sightings are not evenly distributed. They are usually more often reported from where people hang out.

Take Ohio. There is a small par there where lots of BF are reported. There are 302 sightings in Ohio or a sighting for every 148 square miles. Forget the rest of the US head to Ohio. Better than Texas or Rhode Island. Screw it. Head to Washington state. There is a sighting there for every 106 square miles.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I have two bear in my backyard. Cuddles is my favorite. Then there is slim. They convert the birdseed meant for the birds into bear sized pinched loaves. Nice to live in a place fit for the bears.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume

Which states have the most actual bigfoots?  I know where I can go and reliably observe bighorn sheep, mountain goat, caribou, moose, wolf, but no one seems to be able to point out a region and say "footies be here."  Seems weird.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
3 minutes ago, Resume said:

Which states have the most actual bigfoots?

All of them. 

They all have 0.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Another point is if they both like deep undisturbed nature there should be a correlation,

Another point would be verifiable proof of the "interdimensional" aspect of the alleged creature.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

My point originally with posting the bear's range obviously was that perhaps bears are being misidentified as Bigfoot.  You noted that maybe bears just like the same deep remote habitats as Bigfoot, which is a totally rational and logical point; likewise we would probably see that the range of foxes overlaps that of bears.  Since your response was within the boundaries of currently accepted science (you have to admit this is not always the case), I then noted that the affinity or sharing of the same habitat doesn't explain why we have countless sightings of black bears but not of Bigfoots, which is also an argument against the existence of Bigfoot (and there are several other biology-based arguments against Bigfoot), again within those boundaries.

But now you seem to have departed from those boundaries. I'm not familiar with any kind of animal that is not a 'fully physical plane' being.  The Bigfoot phenomenon does suggest something different going on versus every other land mammal that size we are aware of, but the problem is that the Bigfoot 'mystery' is even better explained by the notion that Bigfoot doesn't even exist, and that the evidence is comprised of misidentifications and hoaxes.  That perfectly explains as you noted above why they are so 'hard to find'.  I don't know what you think you know about non fully physical plane animals, but I would dispute it since none are known to exist; for all you know an actual non fully physical plane animal may leave more evidence of its existence, that's the problem when we have no evidence at all surrounding this idea.  Yes, maybe Bigfoot is not fully physical plane, or maybe he's an alien, or maybe he's got an invisibility cloak, or maybe he's a robot, or maybe we're in a computer simulation; there's nothing to support any of those options over any other or argument- or evidence-wise, and that is a very abbreviated list.  That's the problem with trying to make points beyond the boundaries in the paragraph above; not that it's not fun to think about, but if we're just working at the level of 'possibility' then I'm not sure on what grounds you would impose any limits.  Not requiring evidence definitely opens things up, a bit too much I'd argue depending on what the objective is.

I am not a believer in Bigfoot, but the theory that what is described as Bigfoot as Bear isn't likely. I lived in Washington, State for many years. I have seen many bears during that time, because I did a lot of hunting and hiking. I spent a lot of time hiking on Mt. Rainer and Mt. St, Helens, and from what I have seen when it comes to Bears is simple, while they will standup, they do not walk like Bigfoot is described as doing, and. A Bears head is nothing like an apes or a humans. Last Bear tracks even in the snow in no way look like a large human foot print, even when they have expanded from melting in the Sun.

But the biggest problem I have with Bigfoot being possible is that at no point in history did great apes inhabit the North American continent, only monkeys and they are concentrated in Central and South America. So if there is a creature that has somehow stayed hidden, in America I have no idea where it could have come from, and sorry I don't beleive in this multidimensional theory so, like I have said I don't beleive he exists.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jethrofloyd

This is why nobody can see a bigfoots.

96c99849e63a59f3eeb62d679023a154.jpg&f=1

  • Like 3
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skulduggery

I will take lots of corporate dollars to go find Bigfoot. Real? Who cares? I will take those corporate television monies and bring some friends with me into the forests and smoke some good weed. We'll have some killer merch for sale.

  • Like 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.