WSA

Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

1,005 posts in this topic

Premise: There is presently something  manipulating living trees and constructing crude wooden structures from dead trees and  branches on the N. American continent, and these are broadly consistent and uniform manifestations to an extent not likely to be coincidental.

 

Questions:

 

1. Has any individual given an account of seeing this actually being done, as it was occurring?  

 

2. Has any comprehensive study or survey been done to detect any patterns as to the location of these structures, relative to each another and other topographical features? 

 

3. Has any silva culturist examined any of these features to offer an opinion on the likelihood of them occurring naturally?

 

 

I ask because I find it to be both the least compelling evidence of their existence, but highly intriguing at the same time. If this animal is leaving this number of tangible markers on the landscape, it not only offers an opportunity to track their locations fairly definitively, it also offers an area rife for conjecture on why they find this widespread activity so necessary.  Aside from "It's a territorial thing", what else might there be to it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my knowledge many sasquatch researchers have sought experts in various fields, but I have yet to hear of any silviculturists who have analyzed any of the tree breaks that are suspected to have been made by a sasquatch. Honestly though, many of these "structures" are obviously not natural. I am assuming that the best a tree expert could do is conclude the same thing, but that still will not tell us if sasquatch is the perpetrator.

 

Unfortunately I have never heard of any witnesses actually seeing a sasquatch manipulating trees, aside from breaking them or shaking them in what seems to be a display of intimidation. But, IF sasquatch are creating this many stick structures, it would not surprise me if there are witnesses to this type of behavior. I easily could have forgotten or overlooked such reports, and then there is the possibility that witnesses to such behavior didn't file a report. I suspect that there are more unfiled reports that there are filed reports. I would estimate that definitely less than half of all reports are filed with an organization like the BFRO, and the true percentage is probably around 1/4. That is a little better than a shot in the dark, but not by much.

 

Something that strikes me about many of these structures are, using your term, "crude." It is quite true. I cannot help but think that sasquatch are intelligent, and since they have hands and fingers, they should be able to manipulate their environment to a much greater extent than what we have seen. I have often argued that their culture is not very well developed either, and that to progress beyond the primitive stage they seem to be in, they would have to form larger groups. I have also stated that it is highly unlikely they do not have a language, considering the evidence points to small groups, most likely family units. 

 

I don't really have a point, other than I would think a sasquatch could construct something a bit better than the piles of sticks many have brought forth as evidence. That has no bearing on whether sasquatch is constructing these structures, but is more about their intelligence I suppose, but that is not really what your thread is about, so I will save it for another day.

 

Moving on to question number two, which asks if there has been any research done into noticing patterns in stick structures, I do not think there has been. If so, I wouldn't imagine that it would get us anywhere at this point. I say this because there are likely soooo many of these structures. The majority are probably never even seen, and if they are seen, the person seeing them probably will not know they could have been made by a sasquatch. And then out of those that are found, how many of those are marked on a map? There are some, no doubt, but I would imagine that the data would be so inconclusive and sporadic that conclusions would be useless. But then again, you never know, and I could be wrong.

 

I keep getting sidetracked, lol, because I am watching Law and Order as I type this. So if the thoughts seem a bit broken, that is why. I would agree with you that stick structures are some of the least compelling evidence, in that they actually cannot prove anything. But as you said, they are highly interesting. And as far as circumstantial evidence, they might be pretty good. This is because there are many documented cases of large trees being obviously broken, and a human could not do this, even utilizing leverage. They would need some sort of compound or large simple machine, instead of being able to just jump on it or something. It just seems unlikely that any human would do such a thing, not to mention that these are found all over the US, and elsewhere, suggesting that there would have to be many different people doing the same thing, independently of one another. I find this highly unlikely.

 

What I find really interesting are the obvious domiciles that are crudely built, although some are a bit more intricate. Many of the tepee like structures do not seem to be adequate enough to provide any kind of shelter, and then there are lots of structures that are unlikely to be shelters. The hypothesis that these are territorial markers, or indicators of some type seems to be plausible in my opinion. It seems that these more sturdily-built structures are not found very often at all, which makes them more likely to have been made by a human, possibly a camper or something. 

 

Someone made the point the other day about looking for hair samples in possible structures, which is a good idea. However, like I said, I doubt that a sasquatch would actually lay down under these stick structures, as they are probably not shelters. So finding hair is unlikely. But the more sturdy structures are likely to have hair or other evidence inside, if they were built by a sasquatch. It is likely that all that work would be for some purpose, and obviously these types of structures are designed to hold occupants. Unfortunately, I remember seeing a video depicting one of these structures, but those who found it did not go inside. I can understand someone who is not a researcher just letting the structure be, but a researcher needs to go inside, or begin to deconstruct the structure if they do not wish to go inside.

 

I suppose I can understand not wanting to crawl into such a place, lol. Anyway, going back to your opening statement, I agree that something is manipulating trees and branches, whether alive or dead...The branches, not whoever is manipulating them, lol. If that were the case, I would be done with bigfoot research altogether. And it is true that the orientation of these manipulated branches are highly consistent. Did anyone watch the Joe Rogan show about sasquatch the other day? The structures that he was shown indicated manipulated branches that were not only broken off, but were broken relatively high off the ground. That makes it even more difficult to accomplish. But a sasquatch, being tall and strong, could easily accomplish such a feat. 

 

So we know there is something going on that is not a natural phenomenon. And I think it is fairly obvious that there are two possibilities to explain what is happening...Either there are humans creating such structures and manipulating trees and branches in the way we are seeing, or sasquatch is doing it. I say this because there is no other animal in the forests of North America that could accomplish such a task.

 

I imagine then that those who do not believe in sasquatch will conclude that these structures are being created by humans. But let's think about just how unlikely that is. As we've pointed out already, there is much consistency in these formations despite the large distances between them. And these structures seem to be fairly common as well. And as we've also established, working out whether natural phenomena are responsible is fairly straightforward. When thick trees are not only broken, but moved and turned upside down and set up again, obviously nature cannot do such a thing. If there are people doing these things, they must be using tools, first of all. And not only that, but there must be a whole lot of people in on it. And there is no other reason I can think of except they would be attempting to fake sasquatch evidence. 

 

But for all that work, where is the payoff? Many of these structures are likely never found, and there is little guarantee that the hoaxer's work will ever be found. And if it is, the hoaxer is not going to get anything from it. At least if they witnessed someone finding it they might get something out of the whole thing, but this is not likely in the majority of instances. So it seems to me that the idea that many different humans are doing these things across North America is preposterous. 

 

Someone is bound to say that the idea of bigfoot itself is preposterous, but I know they are wrong, because I've seen one of these animals. But let's say that was not the case. The idea of bigfoots' existence is still fairly strong, just from the circumstantial evidence alone. We have all of these manipulations in what is said to be sasquatch habitat, which could only have been done by a human or a sasquatch. Then there are all of the tracks, which are great evidence in my opinion. And most importantly, there are the sighting reports. And there is much more evidence than that, as we all probably know. So the idea of bigfoots' existence is definitely NOT "out there" by any stretch of the imagination. And to think that so much evidence, found in so many different locations, could be the result of humans only is ridiculous...And then there is the fact that it is unlikely there are enough people traipsing about through the woods in sasquatch suits to account for all of the eyewitness reports. I would actually say it is impossible, especially considering there are sightings in places where no one in their right mind would attempt to hoax a sasquatch.

 

To end this post I would like to reiterate to WSA that the idea of tracking this data could prove beneficial, although I did state that it is possible this sporadic data will be useless as well. But just because it "might" be useless does not mean we shouldn't try. That would be illogical. This is one of those field where every single rock needs to be overturned. I do know that attempting to locate all the reports of stick structures, and then plotting them, would be difficult. Especially since only a small percentage of reports would have accompanying pictures of the structures. So trying to envision what these things look like would be tough, and then there is the problem of attempting to place them into a category when you don't know exactly what they look like. I can only imagine how many of those "U" shaped tree bends there are in the forests of North America that haven't been documented. I think it is highly unlikely for such a shape to occur naturally, as most of them involve the tree pulled down with great force, and then tucked under something like another tree or branch. It just wouldn't happen naturally the majority of the time. And this is probably one of the structures, if they are indeed made by sasquatch, that are created most often.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found finely crafted Euclidean geometric layouts (equilateral triangles employed in constructions).  I find this to be endemic to and symptomatic of the presence of Sasquatch.  Whether they are territorial or simply woodcraft is beyond me.  But I know both Billy Willard and myself have taken vectors into account with some of the "pointers" and they oftentimes will lead up a mountain or to a significant "other" structure.  Whether they demarcate communications, geographic markers, planful Sasquatch hobbyist woodcraft or wayward scout troops or hoaxers I couldn't tell you.  

 

But I have found the planful structures in mass in areas of known Sasquatch habitation that resulted in sightings. 

 

Some of the constructions were added to with fresh green "breaks" and additions overnight......   some appeared altogether novel over brief periods of time.  

 

There is no doubt who is doing the crafting you just have to be crafty enough to find some of the smaller and more interesting constructions.   They will lead you along the road if they suspect you are astute enough to pick up on these products. 

 

I believe certain of them are left to test the affinity of your average woodsmen and  to lead you to question how some of them came to be.  Some I have seen were certainly in the form of "toys" (perhaps for their juveniles, perhaps for themselves out of boredom or both) as they were made to balance on tree limbs .....   of course it is all eye of the beholder, YMMV stuff to those doubters that take these finds to evaluate out of context. 

Edited by bipedalist
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jiggy, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment that there is no knowledge to be gained from close examination of these structural anomolies.

 

My claim of a hunting blind may be viewed as "sensationalist" by some within the community, and no doubt flat out dismissed amongst the skeptics. But rest assured I only went where the evidence led me and I have documented the evidence to back up my conclusions. I've been in possession of new/novel knowledge as a result of my studying such a structure. And in spite of one's stance, on the subject of BF, new knowledge is learned (albeit from an unknown source). So it's a win win for all.

 

I attempted, once, to go public with it on the forums here but was discouraged from doing so out of fear it would become an accepted fact, amongst certain circles, as my evidence is strong and the concept is sound. I do understand the ramifications, so I'll have to pardon myself from going any further than I already have at this time.

 

bipedalist, I have recently joined Billy Willards Sasaquatch Watch of Virginia Facebook group. I've only spoken with him twice on the phone and he seems like a fine person. I've been contemplating sending Billy all the information and evidences I've compiled for safe keeping and review. You know him better than I, so my question is, would it be a good idea to send what I have to him to add to his existing database? Just looking for a second opinion from someone who knows him well before I pull the trigger on this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jiggy...thanks for the comments. I'm thinking that if somebody would take the time and effort to plot any structures or tree-bows with a GPS and overlay them on a topo, there might be some very interesting patterns or alignments, as bipedalist suggested. That would take a tremendous effort to do it for even a small tract of forest, granted. I'm still wondering if somebody out there has done it, and would be interested in sharing their data.

 

The pinned tree-bows I feel are the most likely to occur naturally.  I would have to see the surrounding woods to say for sure about any particular one, and this theory is just now getting on my personal radar to consider examining next time I might see anything similar.  I had seen more than one comment from posters about how these were flags for activity in a given area, and that intrigues me. My alternate theory is that any standing dead tree that falls only has to catch on one limb of a standing sapling in order to pin it down. How often this truly happens is what I really don't know, and can't predict with any certainty. You'd just about have to witness it happening to be sure. I've felled a few trees in my time, and I know they do get hung-up (the proverbial widow maker) but how often could you expec that to happen randomly just due to forest entropy at work? If someone would describre an incident where they saw purported BF activity at an location, and then found a new tree-bow shortly after that, I'd be very interested to hear that described.     

 

Hunting blinds? Now there is something I had not considered WesT. Who's to say for sure, but a very intriguing theory. Not sure I follow you about "ramifications" though.  If you have sound evidence, I for one would encourage you to post it for us to look at.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some tree's just bow over naturally without even being pinned. so you have to dismiss alot of them. I would stop and look closely at any large log or tree that has fallen across a road or trail to see if it indeed did fall or was moved there. Aside from that, structures in the form of lean- to's or teepees would be of interest as they are less likely to occur by pure chance. Small cedar saplings with numerous limbs broken or with tops broken over have been an interest to my group as they've been observed in several places of sighting reports. Cattle seem to use them for grazing or scratching an itch, so they have to be considered along with any other large mammal. Never the less, one such cedar break did produce a hair sample, and a lean-to teepee produced another for Scott Carpenter. Another hair sample was obtained from a downed tree by Alton Higgins detailed in bipcast 4.

 

Bottom line is that physical interaction with the environment has to happen in some way or another.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, a tree just bent over is not going to qualify in my book. I'd want to see someting on top of it, pinning it down. Which raises another question: Why only other trees placed on top of bent saplings? Why not a large rock, if those are handy? Is there any evidence of that happening? If so, that rules out a natural occurrence in my book, absent a cliff nearby. If Sasquatch are making these, is there something significant in the choice of what weight to use, rock vs. log?

 

And I do think wildlife favor certain kinds of trees to mark boundaries, and I'd be a little suspicious of cedar trees being used as Sasquatch markers. Bucks are notoriously fond of cedar trees to make their "rubs." Some cedars have withstood this trauma for years and you can sometimes see a huge scar on one side of the trunk if you know what to look for. As well, deer antlers can get entangled with treelimbs, and when that happens I imagine the deer will twist violently until it either becomes disengaged, or the limbs break. If it does break off and hook on an antler, the animal has no choice but to carry it until it falls off. Then again, if bucks favor them, why not a Sasquatch?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WSA, 

 

I've researched it and it seems to be a local phenomenon. I can only speculate on it's origin. The best conclusion that I can come up with is, because of the teepee shape, and the method used to kill, that it might have been a collaboration between the local native tribe and whatever built it and used it. It's quite an effective and efficient deer killing machine. Part of me wants to share, the other part say's don't go there. So let me think about it.

 

Inconclusive at best I know, but the strangest part (to me) is, I learned something new and quite novel. And I don't hunt and never have.

 

Tree bows don't get my attention unless they don't have limbs on them. If the tree bow has been stripped of limbs down to the main body of the tree, I take notice. Otherwise, no dice. Most of the ones I've seen, that get my attention, are pinned down by 2 logs. I've only seen one instance of a tree bow that met the criteria where a single log was pinning down the top. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plausible explanations Drew, and as I said, I view the tree manipulation evidence to be of a lower grade....but still...the photos of those tepees are a a lot more refined than the photos I've seen purporting to be of BF construction. Also, Upper Montclair N.J. (Where I took banjo lessons at the Academy of Music when I was 11) ain't exactly The Bob. As always, context, context, context...  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, a tree just bent over is not going to qualify in my book. I'd want to see someting on top of it, pinning it down. Which raises another question: Why only other trees placed on top of bent saplings? Why not a large rock, if those are handy? Is there any evidence of that happening? If so, that rules out a natural occurrence in my book, absent a cliff nearby. If Sasquatch are making these, is there something significant in the choice of what weight to use, rock vs. log?

 

And I do think wildlife favor certain kinds of trees to mark boundaries, and I'd be a little suspicious of cedar trees being used as Sasquatch markers. Bucks are notoriously fond of cedar trees to make their "rubs." Some cedars have withstood this trauma for years and you can sometimes see a huge scar on one side of the trunk if you know what to look for. As well, deer antlers can get entangled with treelimbs, and when that happens I imagine the deer will twist violently until it either becomes disengaged, or the limbs break. If it does break off and hook on an antler, the animal has no choice but to carry it until it falls off. Then again, if bucks favor them, why not a Sasquatch?

 

I've seen the buck rubs, and wouldn't confuse that with what I've observed, especially when long wavy dark hairs can be associated with the damage. The eastern red cedars in my area are bushy all the way to the ground. Most limbs on the samplings are too flexible to scrub felt off a bucks horns and the rubs are more often seen on bare sapling trunks of other types of trees. What I've seen could be better explained by the actions of a bear, though they would have been reportedly seen more so than Sasquatch in those places and certainly a greater nuisance to near by residents, assuming trash cans would be raided relentlessly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like something different to me too Southernyahoo.

 

I will say though I had a juniper in my backyard that was maybe three feet high, spindly and brushy, and I'll be danged if a buck didn't come and rub off one of the little branches no thicker than a pencil. I was pissed at the kids for doing that until I looked closer at it. I've found that a lone cedar, like the kind that typically hangs on in the understory of woods that have taken over a formerly open field? They are always going to attract a buck. I have to say too, E. juniper is one of my favorite trees and I always take notice of them, whenever I spot one.   This leads me to conclude it is more than about just rubbing the velvet off, but maybe about the scent. or texture of the branches and bark?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well:

 

1.  Tree-knocking *has* been witnessed (I'm aware of at least three reports), so we have some admittedly anecdotal visual evidence that it's them doing that.

2.  Other apes do similar things...and also make crude shelters. 

3.  What's been reported in this vein frequently in my view goes over the top.  There still are, however, records of finds that don't sound like a known animal did them; don't sound like a human copycat did them; and do sound similar to the things known apes do, with some deviances from form that sound reasonable for a temperate-zone primate.  Read Raincoast Sasquatch by Alley for a number of these.  I find the Klawock find - discussed in Murphy's Meet the Sasquatch, and I believe in Allley's book as well - particularly compelling.

 

Different chimp cultures do different things; different sasquatch groups might as well.  I think this is one of many questions on which we won't get serious traction until an animal is confirmed and longitudinal studies done of wild populations.  Like, well, you know, the one NAWAC is doing in Area X.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like something different to me too Southernyahoo.

 

I will say though I had a juniper in my backyard that was maybe three feet high, spindly and brushy, and I'll be danged if a buck didn't come and rub off one of the little branches no thicker than a pencil. I was pissed at the kids for doing that until I looked closer at it. I've found that a lone cedar, like the kind that typically hangs on in the understory of woods that have taken over a formerly open field? They are always going to attract a buck. I have to say too, E. juniper is one of my favorite trees and I always take notice of them, whenever I spot one.   This leads me to conclude it is more than about just rubbing the velvet off, but maybe about the scent. or texture of the branches and bark?

 

Something that one might find in addition to tree manipulation or tops broken over is bones in trees. This was found about 100 yards from a mangled Cedar and the hairs I collected.

 

post-215-0-79382700-1377142728_thumb.jpg

 

post-215-0-85729500-1377142805_thumb.jpg

 

This one shows two pieces of bone fitted together. One from the tree and the other found at the base of it on the ground. Note the Cedar limbs in the background, they were collected off the ground near this Cedar pictured below which produced the hair sample.

 

post-215-0-12243300-1377143267_thumb.jpg

post-215-0-13016200-1377142908_thumb.jpg

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How interesting.  Makes a body go "Hmmmmm...", don't it? Thanks for posting those. I am always eager to see what you have. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites