Leaderboard

No. Maybe hoax, maybe not, but not trolling. What you do is trolling. From Merriam-Webster: Definition of troll. 2 :a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content. Internet trolls. You have not offered a single thing of value, you just run around belittling others, derailing discussions. You don't even ask intelligent questions, you just accuse. Look in the mirror: you're the troll, not ioyza. MIB

Eh, I can't say I really take offense, though I'm not quite sure where OS arrived at the conclusion I'm messing with anyone. It's not "low" so much as paranoid/delusional. Well, shall we get back to the usual business of analyzing the PGF and arguing about what probabilistic reasoning says about the non-existence of bigfoot? I'll keep you posted if I find anything else and you can all re-regurgitate your gifs and witticisms.

Well, if nothing else I suppose it's been interesting seeing how a calm explanation of detailed observations and some original thoughts about them trigger folks' egos and paranoias.

WHEN THE BFF JUMPED THE SHARK. Or, When The BFF rode the Metra past Soldier Field, Shedd Aquarium, & disembarked on the Midway Plaisance, before swimming the Chicago River.

Your 'observations' come across as trolling mate. You're the second person to claim a BF in Chicago. Good luck with that. No publications, no proof, goodbye

Eh, don't let em get to you. That's the MO they pull. Basically flood the thread with that 'stuff' until folks lose interest. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the BF in Chicago stuff. What you have is pretty interesting and I'd be interested in hearing if you come up with anything else. In SE Wisconsin, there are some pretty crazy reports, covering many decades outside of populated areas. (Not only BF, but dogmen as well) Not to derail, but it won't be long before alien life forms are proven..... Hard to believe? Yes. Far fetched? Well...it's a big ol' goofy world dmaker......

That's pretty low, OS. I've defended you in the past, but this is beyond the pale. Onto ignore for you, too! Yes, extremely interesting........... Very, very instructive.

Not seeing you have any kind of overall picture here, Night Walker. But AAWA sure seems to. She sure seems to think that Bigfoot is not real. "My instinct tells me, there is a real world explanation for [tracks], as well”. Really? What "Native American Understanding" does complete mistrust of evidence point to? AAWA may be Native American, but she's also human, and apparently, she's a human who wants to look like an "advanced", "modern" human. "Today, it is not acceptable to see the two worlds as one; inner and ordinary. We understand the differences." We do?????? Who is the "we" she is talking about? It is not I she's talking about; nor is it the thousands and thousands of people who "understand" that BF is a flesh-and-blood being with abilities that his cousin has forgotten how to use. By her own admission, AAWA is deviating from Native American understandings, in a way that is completely, head-shakingly sad. Worse, she is, in a very devious way, trying to look "sympathetic" to the idea of BF, while slamming people who actually know what they're talking about: "Who would believe that a 1000 lb creature which speaks telepathically, transforms into trees and teleports, actually exists in ordinary reality? Not you; not me. And I am pretty sure even “they” don’t believe it. To tell you, sadly, would end their notoriety and small pocket of fame. Even more sad is their next step; to have conferences based on their experiences or better, based on themselves, and how awesome they are that they can do these things or see these things or hear these things." This person is slamming people for having a "different view" from hers. Slamming someone else is not.....persuasive. I would say, it is the exact opposite of persuasive.

... in a "participation trophy" sort of way perhaps. MIB

Thank you to those who replied to my post. Your comments were very enlightening… On “tripping in the woods”: Norse: Do people walk around in the woods hallicinating cryptic animals into existence? Heck no. Not without the help of magic shrooms! Norse seems to be unaware (or is simply discounting the fact) that people have always claimed to have subjectively seen a wide variety of cryptic animals (amongst other things) that are not objectively there and that these experiences often occur while out in nature. Moreover, certain places do seem to favour certain “cryptic animals”. So, “tripping in the woods” can, does, and will continue to happen without the aid of psychotropic substances… While Norse, personally, may not “walk around in the woods hallucinating cryptic animals” he has never actually seen Bigfoot for himself unlike the author of the article. Some people may not be able to see Bigfoot. So, rather than dismiss these insights out of hand it may well be worth at least considering a different perspective. It can’t hurt, can it? Perception and reality don’t always match up. People CAN BE excellent at observation but, on the flip side, there are times when we can also be very bad at it (while thinking we are still excellent). How does one check the accuracy of any observation? Simply by comparing the subjective claim against the objective evidence and, as we all should know by now, Bigfoot doesn’t cut the mustard. Like it or not, AAWA offers a legitimate Native American’s perspective as to why that is so… On Alyssa Adisi Waya Alexandria (AAWA) and her article: MIB: It seems consistent with SOME Native American beliefs. Norse: I think its a load of crap sold to people by skeptics and I do not find your post (ie her article) credible SWWASAS pooh-poohed AAWA’s explanation as akin to fantasy (telekinesis) while OS railed against “skeptics” who biasedly overlooked critical evidence in favor of their personally under-questioned theory that the phenomenon is “entirely social” while, ironically, biasedly dismissing the contents of AAWA’a article in favour of his own under-questioned theory… I hate to point out the obvious but AAWA is not a “skeptic” – she is a Native American brought up within her cultural traditions who has seen Bigfoot herself. The view presented is not mine, nor those of anyone connected with the skeptical community, but her own which related her own cultural insights into what Bigfoot actually is (which just so happens to be the topic of this discussion). AAWA is also clearly not saying that Bigfoot was “entirely social”… I’d be interested to learn which Native American beliefs about Bigfoot are inconsistent with AAWA’s? Is anyone able to provide any links or references for further reading or most here simply relating what they believe Native Americans believe or what they once heard a Native American say? On footprints, etc: MIB: delusions and illusions do not leave castable footprints nor produce recordable vocalizations. SWWASAS: I have yet to have it explained to me how an encounter that is the result of altered states, imagination, or hallucination can at the same time leave large footprints. While altered states, imagination, and hallucination is always at play in the human mind, when an event leaves physical traces like footprints, or broken off trees intended to frighten off the human, only a ardent skeptic can conclude it is not a physical event. Norse provided a simple solution: Do they (people) lie or hoax others? Absolutely. MIB acknowledges there is no proof that Bigfoot made any alleged Bigfoot track (since there is no proof of Bigfoot)… OS disagreed, stating that while most tracks CAN be explained by misidentification and hoaxing there are some (perhaps only a small percentage) that seem to defy those mundane explanations. That implies that, whether or not Bigfoot is a real creature, there is and has indeed been a massive social undertaking to fool others (combined with a social willingness to misperceive tracks in the name of Bigfoot) taking place across the globe and over a great span of years by a series of unconnected individuals. In his own unusual way, OS acknowledges the reality of that social phenomenon while at the same time ridiculing it and those nasty “skeptics” who support it. Fortunately for all of us, only OS is ostensibly able to discern the difference due to his secret (or should that be “$ekret”?) research… However, this topic of discussion happens to be “Native American Understandings” so what do Native Americans have to say about Bigfoot tracks, etc.? AAWA: “I can say I have seen many photos, hundreds of them, which are misidentified as Bigfoot or Little People prints when they are Bear and Raccoon. Yet, there are some prints and trackways which leave us scratching our heads. My instinct tells me, there is a real world explanation for them, as well.” She seems to suggest that, in her experience, most supposed Bigfoot tracks are misidentified Bear tracks and racoon tracks misidentified as those of Little People (whatever they are). Of the few prints (again, perhaps only a small percentage) she/they* cannot readily identify they scratch their heads – she/they don’t know and, furthermore, she/they do not jump to conclusions. AAWA does not speculate further than “My instinct tells me, there is a real world explanation for them, as well” -- hinting at human fabrication… * – AAWA uses the terms “us” and “we” which seems to refer to her people rather than just herself. So, it seems that while AAWA would agree with MIB that “something” made them she would perhaps replace MIB’s Something-is-out-there with Something-is-going-on which is not quite the same thing… SWWASAS’s assertion that “only a ardent skeptic can conclude it is not a physical event”, then, is obviously self-serving and incorrect. It is evident that at least some Native Americans have a very different understanding of the nature of the Bigfoot phenomenon to some of the more vocal proponents on this forum. Whether anyone here is actually interested in exactly what Native Americans actually have to say about the nature of Bigfoot, however, appears questionable… But how to objectively identify suspicious prints? Nowadays, it is possible to extract DNA from footprints and other environmental samples (perhaps even the limbs of trees supposedly broken off by Bigfoot). AAWA is right not to speculate on suspicious tracks – if anyone really want to know what made any supposed fresh Bigfoot track they can get it eDNA tested (like the recent SASquatch Nests eDNA Study (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sasquatch-nests-edna-study-science#/). No results as yet but get enough samples tested and over time a clearer picture will surely emerge. The question is whether people really want to know or if they prefer their own particular brand of assumption-passed-off-as-fact… I have not yet been able to find anything documented on Native American understandings of supposed Bigfoot vocalisations… If Midnight Owl is still following this discussion then I’d be interested to learn his own opinion on AAWA’s insight on Bigfoot. How it is similar or how it differs from that of his own insights and/or perhaps whether it is something that he could/would be interested in following-up on… Of course, we could always invite AAWA here to this forum for further insights and to answer questions… Next week I will provide further other referenced quotes on this subject…

Occam weeps.

I love how observant you are, ioyza. And your conclusion seems dead-on, to me. Great pics, great find, and great job presenting your findings! And Twist, who knows why they do things? If you can't get into their minds (which very few of us can), you won't ever know the reasons behind what they do. That does NOT mean, however, that they did not do them. Ioyza has been observing carefully over a looooong period of time, and knows -- from being on the scene, in the actual environment -- what the options are. That's the way you gain knowledge: by being in the location where these things are occurring.

There are a number of us on the forum (myself included) who do have NA linage who have also had encounters. In my case you would never know from looking because of my blond hair. So BF would have no idea either and I reject that my NA heritage is a factor. I doubt that the sample is large enough with forum members to conclude anything. It would be interesting to do some sort of nation polling of NA to find out how many have experiences compared with the general population. The Tribal Leaders in the Western tribes I have heard speak, say that the younger generation in general does not believe in many of the older traditions or legends, which include BF. Many report changes of mind when they do have experiences. Other factors may be at play, in that I would imagine that NA spend more time in the woods than the general population at large, hunting, and gathering wild berries which is traditional in many Western tribes. Exposure certainly increases the likelihood of an encounter, and hunters and berry pickers have more exposure than most with resulting sightings fairly common. Hunters and berry pickers also spend more time off trail than recreational hikers. The only other groups with a lot of time in the woods, are loggers, and we are unlikely to learn anything from them. The last thing loggers want is to enable a discovery of an endangered species, in woods they want to log.