ioyza Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 LCB, I understand where you're coming from with the suburban/semi-urban sasquatch, it is hard to wrap one's head around how they pull it off. I think I benefited from the semi-suburban experiences I had in Colorado to prepare me for the Chicagoland situation. In that area, they were just behind the front range, hanging out in a canyon on the back side of a popular trail system. It was perhaps easier to accept, because you really only had civilization on one side, and easy access to vast wilderness on the other, but I don't think these were just little people-watching vacations for them. Similar to your situation, they would show up (I surmised) twice annually, once in June, once sometime in the Fall. If you put that alongside the Arrowhead Golf Course sighting, you can start to envision a group moving up and down the front range seasonally, and using the Platte River a lot. That's not so different from what you (I think correctly) surmised about your group: they do laps around the forest preserves along the Des Plaines River, up to Fox Lake, down the Fox River out to the Seneca area. Don't forget the newspaper article on sightings along the Des Plaines from 1890 - these are not new routes, they are well-established. All that said, I'm finding myself extremely dubious of the theory I was so excited about in the Spring: that they shortcut through the city somehow, that the odd little teepee structures that appeared overnight a few times on University of Chicago campus were them passing through. It's been a long time now since I've seen anything like that, and I'm back to thinking I was probably overly excited about nothing, but on the other hand, it's not something they'd do in the summer anyway. Also, I'm not at all dubious of my findings at Sidney Yates in the early summer, and if that's not somehow a through-route, it's puzzling why they'd go so far south on the North Chicago River if it's a dead-end. Anyway, sorry if that was a bit rambling, but I guess I'm trying to say I empathize with the particulars of your frustration. It's an especially puzzling situation in Chicagoland. If you actually start stomping around off trail in these preserves though, you realize they're not as small as they seem. You'll also realize they're often swampy and gross, and you're the only one doing such a thing. Avoid the urge to underestimate them. And as you've said, you need to be ok with things being uncertain, even unknowable. That can be frustrating; it can also be enthralling. Also meant to add, you should check out Chris Noel's "In the Micro-Forest" series on youtube if you have time 1
ShadowBorn Posted October 2, 2017 Moderator Posted October 2, 2017 LCB You have to remember that they choose where to hide from us . That they have the control of watching us and on how they will hide. So for us to go out looking for them when they do not want to be found is next to impossible. They are very watchfull of their surroundings and unless you have others who can help you in following you . You will never see them unless you have a way of using a decoy that they themselves will follow that will allow you to follow them. But even then they might even out smart you at that game as well. I do think that they can live in small domains and still be undetected. They might even choose who they are willing to reveal them selves too as well when the time is right. As long as there is a food source and water the theory of them living in confined areas is true. 1
starchunk Posted October 2, 2017 Posted October 2, 2017 It's weird thing because proof, not belief will solve this mystery. That said, I had given up almost until I came across a trackway in 2013. It was hard to deny. Since then I've a rock throwing incident and a possible sighting in the early spring this year. I attribute the off and on nature of activity at least local to winter patterns.
georgerm Posted October 3, 2017 Posted October 3, 2017 On 10/2/2017 at 8:27 AM, ioyza said: i0yza: That's not so different from what you (I think correctly) surmised about your group: they do laps around the forest preserves along the Des Plaines River, up to Fox Lake, down the Fox River out to the Seneca area. Don't forget the newspaper article on sightings along the Des Plaines from 1890 - these are not new routes, they are well-established. from the newspaper article: In the crowd that kept close to the Northwestern railroad bridge, between River Forest and Maywood, was a party of young people from North Clark street. Charles Gardner, a clerk on the Board of Trade, was one of the number, and as he was anxious not to miss the next train he went ashore below the railroad bridge, removed his skates and commenced to pick his way a small path which led toward the Maywood Park. This was through a very thick undergrowth, and led directly to a small bridge on First avenue, spanning a ravine which runs the entire length of the park, running into the river about two hundred feet from the small bridge. As Gardner approached the bridge he was startled by hearing what sounded to him like a moan or a growl. Looking up he saw at the foot of one of the piers of the bridge something which he first took to be a man. The figure was seated on a projecting rock and was partially concealed behind the thick weed that surround the spot. It was peering through the tops of the weeds, and the face, as the startled man saw it, was that of a monster. It had a low heavy brow, over which hung hair that was coarse and matted. Its eyebrows were heavy and long, and the head seemed to be set low down on the chest, so high and massive were the huge shoulders. The entire face was covered with bushy hair, and as Gardiner looked in fright and wonder, a huge arm was lifted to grasp the wall as the creature rose. That was all the young man wanted to see. He tore his way up the steep bank, rushed to the depot nearly half a mile away, and boarded his train just as it was about to leave. If you look at the map, Maywood is next to a good BF travel route along a swamp and river. My thoughts are BFs are risk takers and like to fool human so they travel at night and hide all day. They may be well beyond human intelligence. They are also very confident with their methods of concealment so this may be a good travel route for them providing it leads back to a larger wilderness. Quote this map shows BFs possible travel routes. The map is not uploading so go to google maps and find Maywood near Chicago. maywood map chicago 3.jpg.docx
ioyza Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 Yeah absolutely, that's the same Des Plaines River corridor I'm referring to. Look how close to O'Hare it runs - talk about risk takers. I think in general, they'd rather remain in areas and keep using routes they've been in for hundreds of years if they can. 1
BobbyO Posted October 6, 2017 SSR Team Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/2/2017 at 4:42 PM, ShadowBorn said: LCB You have to remember that they choose where to hide from us . That they have the control of watching us and on how they will hide. So for us to go out looking for them when they do not want to be found is next to impossible. They are very watchfull of their surroundings and unless you have others who can help you in following you . You will never see them unless you have a way of using a decoy that they themselves will follow that will allow you to follow them. But even then they might even out smart you at that game as well. I do think that they can live in small domains and still be undetected. They might even choose who they are willing to reveal them selves too as well when the time is right. As long as there is a food source and water the theory of them living in confined areas is true. I agree with a lot if not all of this post, think you've got a lot of it nailed here SB.. On 10/4/2017 at 9:38 PM, ioyza said: Yeah absolutely, that's the same Des Plaines River corridor I'm referring to. Look how close to O'Hare it runs - talk about risk takers. I think in general, they'd rather remain in areas and keep using routes they've been in for hundreds of years if they can. There is a lot of habitat for the Des Plaine's River Drainage area though, that's the thing. I have history with Chicagoland and like so many i always raise an eyebrow where this subject is concerned and the area but............................... I've also seen how much habitat is there and not just even in pockets, but enough for an animal like this to move under the cover of darkness pretty easy. Bobcat, Coyote and probably the occasional WI Bear or six are in the general vicinity, tonnes of food too. As tough as it is to accept, i do believe it's possible. Cook County and bordering Counties have set aside around 144,000 of forest preserves in total. 78,000 miles of Rivers and Streams in the State too. Forest Preserves of Cook County, over 69,000 acres. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, over 23, 000 acreas. Lake County Forest Preserves, 30,100 acres. Then you look a little north to WI and it's all supersized..
gigantor Posted October 7, 2017 Admin Posted October 7, 2017 The only thing that keeps me interested now, after years of study, is some of the wilderness in the Pacific NW that is untouched by human encroachment. It's shrinking every year though. There are very few such tracts of land in the East, West Virginia gives a slight glimmer of hope and that's where we focus, but I'm not optimistic about it. 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) My interest comes from fascination with the unknown and mysterious events and such. I enjoy the readings and the claims. I have friends,colleagues and family members on both sides of the fence. I enjoy the beautiful outdoors and have many interests. I am fascinated as I said. I do accept the reality of it all. The creature will never be documented for the simple fact it does not exist in the modern world. I am okay with that. It does not deter my interest. Edited October 14, 2017 by Patterson-Gimlin
MIB Posted October 14, 2017 Moderator Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) Even if I were to discount the existence of bigfoot and if I were to omit a couple sightings from consideration, I would be left with occasional track finds I've photographed and audio of something or other I have not been able to identify. Minus bigfoot, those pieces of evidence exist here in the room with me as photos and recordings. They need explanation, identification. Truth is, they still do. The tracks I'm comfortable with calling bigfoot tracks, the audio I'm much less sure of. Unknown is unknown. P-G ... you have it exactly right. It is a beautiful blue-sky day here, a bit chilly. I'm going to pack a jacket, camera, pistol, lunch, and a couple fishing rods in my truck and head towards Crater Lake National Park and see what my camera can find. The vines maple have turned colors. It's going to be awesome! MIB Edited October 14, 2017 by MIB 1
SWWASAS Posted October 14, 2017 BFF Patron Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) On 10/7/2017 at 0:54 AM, gigantor said: The only thing that keeps me interested now, after years of study, is some of the wilderness in the Pacific NW that is untouched by human encroachment. It's shrinking every year though. I have to disagree with your assessment of the PNW. It is becoming less and and less accessible. The Forest Service is systematically not maintaining and blocking off forest roads.. At one time they were content to just gate them but now they dig moat like ditches and drag in huge boulders to prevent any vehicle traffic. Getting even a mountain bike past the moats takes some doing. The blocked logging roads are gradually are becoming overgrown due to lack of traffic. Soon many will not even allow foot traffic. Some still open and not blocked or gated, have large washouts, and are to the point where a 4 wheel drive vehicle can barely traverse them because they are not maintained. If a bridge washes out, they are rarely replaced. Then there is the proliferation of wilderness areas. Many new ones in the last few years. Vehicles are prohibited in these areas. So lack of logging in National forests is severely limiting access for every one else. Some areas I would love to get into are now so remote, because of lack of road access, I have no idea how to get there without 20 mile trek off trail from the nearest road that might be closed too. Edited October 14, 2017 by SWWASAS 1
hiflier Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 8 hours ago, MIB said: Even if I were to discount the existence of bigfoot and if I were to omit a couple sightings from consideration, I would be left with occasional track finds I've photographed and audio of something or other I have not been able to identify. Minus bigfoot, those pieces of evidence exist here in the room with me as photos and recordings. They need explanation How true that is, MIB. Like footprints that run for a great distance in which the impressions are in line and 4-6 feet apart. It's one of the chief mysteries in my book.
wiiawiwb Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, SWWASAS said: Some areas I would love to get into are now so remote, because of lack of road access, I have no idea how to get there without 20 mile trek off trail from the nearest road that might be closed too. The good news is the more remote, the more inaccessible the wilderness becomes, the more it is conducive for sasquatch. Let's face it, those of us who backpack into areas for squatching purposes are fewer and more far between. For that matter, most hikers stick to trails and never venture of the beaten path. Go off trail to find nature's hidden treasures. Edited October 15, 2017 by wiiawiwb
MIB Posted October 15, 2017 Moderator Posted October 15, 2017 I don't find the wilderness ares of the Pac NW to be that remote or inhospitable ... but that reflects MY comfort zone. I don't suspect sasquatches live in places truly inhospitable to humans though they might pass through them. Like us, they need food. If there's nothing to eat, there are better places to be. The hurdle for most people is psychological, not physiological. MIB 2
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) A lot of honest reports are dismissed because the location of the alleged experience isn’t remote enough to be properly explained by the theory that Sasquatch are an endangered species of ape. Based on my own research, some of the PNW reports help build a stronger case for some of the non-PNW reports, and vice versa. This is because of genuine (and overlooked) patterns and trends that exist across these reports. These overlooked patterns couldn’t have been faked by so many. Edited October 15, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
norseman Posted October 17, 2017 Admin Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/14/2017 at 8:39 AM, MIB said: Even if I were to discount the existence of bigfoot and if I were to omit a couple sightings from consideration, I would be left with occasional track finds I've photographed and audio of something or other I have not been able to identify. Minus bigfoot, those pieces of evidence exist here in the room with me as photos and recordings. They need explanation, identification. Truth is, they still do. The tracks I'm comfortable with calling bigfoot tracks, the audio I'm much less sure of. Unknown is unknown. P-G ... you have it exactly right. It is a beautiful blue-sky day here, a bit chilly. I'm going to pack a jacket, camera, pistol, lunch, and a couple fishing rods in my truck and head towards Crater Lake National Park and see what my camera can find. The vines maple have turned colors. It's going to be awesome! MIB Bingo! Enjoyment of the outing should be first and foremost. Everything else over and above should be gravy.
Recommended Posts