Leaderboard

Question: are you sure it is a through-route and not a destination? I've got a spot where I've had quite a bit of activity, one time of year only, with some reports from the west and a big gap in them to the east where they should, if continuing onward, have to cross a major interstate. I've been exploring a 5-6 mile chunk of interstate looking for underpasses or big, unblocked drain pipes. There are none. They're either crossing OVER the freeway using a railroad bridge in a series of corners that point car headlights away from the bridge 'til they're too far under to see what is happening overhead, OR they're simply not going any further, the spot I've run into them is end of the trip ... for some purpose or other. Just a consideration ... MIB

^^ Don't disagree in the least, Bi. And arguably, everyone who hikes any serious amount of time should probably take both the American Red Cross basic first aid course and a first aid course oriented on wilderness injuries. (Speaking as the hiker with the broken arm), you don't want to be the group that's just had a fellow hiker break an arm and have everyone else standing around looking panicked.

A little update from Chicagoland. I got out to the forest preserves a couple times this weekend, Edgebrook Woods on Friday and Sidney Yates Flatwoods on Sunday (basically the same patch of woods). I found some wood sign at Edgebrook of the more subtle type, but it encouraged me to return: e.g. (sorry for poor photography skills throughout) So returning yesterday to the larger patch of woods, I took a deer trail off the main path and immediately found this: (side view) (view from below) There were some other interesting things along this path, I can post pics if there's interest but I don't want to go too crazy with embedded images here. Suffice to say, arches pinned by downed trees in ways that would be hard to occur naturally, as well as line drawing in the mud of the river bank: an X intersecting a + forming a triangle. I didn't actually photograph that because I was hesitant to associate it, but now I kind of regret it... Anyway, a little walk further down the main path, found this guy: I know there's varying degrees of skepticism over this kind of sign here, but for me these are a pretty good indicator of a stop on a travel route. Have you looked at where I was on a map yet? The BFRO Chicago sightings show a route up and down the Des Plaines River, but this is further East along the North branch of the Chicago River. Let me back up a little further and remind you of those teepees that appeared mysteriously overnight in the rain on UoC campus. I didn't get pics because I was late for a conference, but on Saturday May 6, there were two small stick structures in a similar location; a four-stick free-standing teepee, and a mini-lean-to, both maybe 2-3 ft high, right next to each other. These were across from the elementary school, so it's easy enough that it's kids playing around, I know.... it's also a stone's throw from the Metra tracks. Now, what about this: Sorry it's small, I took this sitting in morning traffic on Lakeshore Drive near the Lawrence exit. This was end of March. Sorry, but.... more homeless making a tent frame for their tarp...?? The location of this makes it audacious for Sasquatch, even moreso than UoC, but.... this thing stood there for probably 2 weeks through some serious wind and weather. I just don't know anymore. The slightly crazy, audacious idea that's still kind of kicking around my head that connects all of these things is that they use the North Chicago River forest preserves as a travel route, and actually get up there from the South directly through the heart of Chicago, using a combination of the Metra tracks, lake front, and river corridors.

If you set aside the anecdotes, you are left with evidence that has multiple potential sources. None of it is conclusive, and of the potential sources, the only ones ever proven are fabrication or error. Not once has the coin landed on the side of " this could only have come from an undocumented ape". Never. It is no wonder you focus on the anecdotes. Your approach is unscientific in that it is steeped in the unfalsifiable. You prefer to focus on that which cannot be proven or disproven. This provides you with all the wiggle room you want to make your grand, but ultimately empty, proclamations. You're not fooling anyone who examines this phenomenon with a hard skeptical and scientific eye. I don't believe that bigfoot exists simply because of the gap between the thousands of reports and the utter lack of conclusive hard evidence. That gap just gets bigger the more the reports march in and no supporting evidence is provided. That you see this as a strong point belies your lack of understanding.