TD-40

Tree structures? My experience from yesterday.

27 posts in this topic

Birthing place? I have to admit that is something I had not considered.  I guess that theory holds as much validity as any other at this point though. I will say, if anyone stumbles on a recent birth site, they will have hit the DNA jackpot!

 

Obviously, it these are created for that purpose, my thought is it serves more a ritualistic, rather than protective, sheltering function. It would also require a creature to either be able to construct them quickly when it is clear birth labor has begun, or to create them  ahead of time with the belief the mother would be nearby when the time came. Of course, the second scenario is the one preferred by modern man.  

 

I also have to say that mammals are not known for advertising birthing locations, given the incapacity of the mother during labor, and the newborn's lack of defenses. Offering yourself and your progeny as a buffet lunch for a predator is decidedly mal-adaptive.  Most species seek out a hidden refuge for the purpose...deep grass, heavy bush, rocky alcoves, etc.   I certainly am not ruling it out, but it seems sort of counter-intuitive to me.

 

So, I'd be really interested to know your reasons for thinking this Joe.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was one location in my former research area that kept the family unit of at least three nearby for several years.     It was two adults and a small juvenile based on one sighting and several footprint finds.    Someone also suggested a birthing or nursery location when I wondered on line,  why they seemed to hang around this area.    There was however an artesian spring and it was protected by the State DNR,   which may have been part of the attractiveness of the location.    As I write this, this area is an island surrounded by clear cut.   When the last clear cut happened, the BF left.     This sign was prominently posted all around the circumference of the area.    Other than the artesian spring and the continued presence of BF I did not find anything special about the area.  

IMG_1047.JPG

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no basis in thinking tree structures are Bigfoot caused.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, starchunk said:

There's no basis in thinking tree structures are Bigfoot caused.

Because....?????

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WSA said:

Because....?????

 

 

Deadfall is common, and I have yet to see any photo of a big hairy monkey manipulating sticks, and in the absence of compelling evidence, it just seems like assigning the mundane deadfall on the forest floor to bigfoot is just easier or maybe just lazier. Or self delusion/wishful thinking.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just offer an observation...correct me if I'm wrong, and my apologies if so...you might not have spent much time around deadfall, likely? Beacause if you have, you 'd appreciate that natural events are essentially chaotic, and the physical evidence of them reflects that. Symmetrical structures are just not a natural result of wind and ice events. When you see that, you need to look harder for the agency behind it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2017 at 9:27 PM, WSA said:

I would just offer an observation...correct me if I'm wrong, and my apologies if so...you might not have spent much time around deadfall, likely? Beacause if you have, you 'd appreciate that natural events are essentially chaotic, and the physical evidence of them reflects that. Symmetrical structures are just not a natural result of wind and ice events. When you see that, you need to look harder for the agency behind it.

 

I live in an area where there is logging, deadfall, storm and snow damage as well as hunters using the terrain for camouflage as well as bushcrafters, etc, etc. The point is in the absence of serious evidence, tracks, dna sources or the proverbial body, there is NOTHING to suggest that debree in a given area unless it's incredibly odd, is anything that bigfoot did. Someone got impatient with a lack of good evidence and posited this crap theory only to have it imitated on the internet. The "agency" behind it is still not going to be bigfoot 99.99999999999999 (keep going) percent of the time. so please....

Edited by starchunk
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this stuff is just appearing,  due to... well... you're not really able to say, are you, very well? 

 

Point being, stuff like this just doesn't happen. If it is put up by humans, a lot of it was done in some very remote areas, where the ability of using necessary mechanical assistance would be very limited, extremely unlikely and not at all supported by the evidence. So "please", back atcha.

 

Looking forward to your contributions on the Forum, and welcome. Emphasis on "contributions". Many have come and gone having contributed nothing more than a giant raspberry or a wave of the hand at the evidence. If you come here only to do that, from a premise that all evidence is manufactured or fictional, I'm predicting you will go the way of those others before too long, or at least find out nobody will be very interested in your opinions. If that matters to you.

 

   

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny, you wagging your finger and lecturing someone about substantive contributions.  Why is expressing an opinion that all evidence is most likely manufactured, fictional, or mistaken tantamount to a "giant raspberry"? It's simply a different opinion. Why must you berate and belittle  it so?

 

Edited by dmaker
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dmaker said:

That's funny, you wagging your finger and lecturing someone about substantive contributions.  Why is expressing an opinion that all evidence is most likely manufactured, fictional, or mistaken tantamount to a "giant raspberry"? It's simply a different opinion. Why must you berate and belittle  it so?

 

 

When did I berate anyone? I offered my opinion. There has been no "hard" evidence in some time so people's impatience has led to a trend to attribute mundane forest deadfall etc into more than what it is. Wishful thinking is a whole lot of current offered evidence whether that offends someone's belief system or not. A simple bent over tree in the middle of nowhere brings no reason for me to think it must have been done by bigfoot. It's just most self delusion at the point. It's simply a matter of looking at the environment and trying to gauge something against what you know is routinely there. 99% of the time it's routine deadfall.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starchunk, I was talking to WSA. I agree with your position on tree structures. There is no reason to think Bigfoot, if it even exists, would be responsible.

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This tree structure thing has been troubling to me.      Some claim that it is direct evidence of BF activity in an area.   The same ones also mention twist off's as similar evidence.    But in my research area both are rare even when there is BF activity,    and nothing I have seen would indicate any evidence of being anything but natural processes or human activity.      That perhaps suggests that if BF does such things,  it is regional in nature and not universal behavior.     Additionally,   my study of several footprint finds makes me believe that a creature that seems so careful about avoiding leaving footprints and goes to great lengths to do that,   it does not logically follow that the same creature would do things like make structures or twist off tree tops,  and advertise it's presence.  

 

We certainly cannot expect uniform BF behavior given the supposed coast to coast and North South distribution.    Perhaps in secluded areas, where humans simply do not go,  they may do shelters, structures, etc.   I would not be at all surprised if there were not tiny villages of BF deep in the woods tucked up in the mountains.    There are literally places I have seen from the air in Skamania Country WA, that seem to indicate trails and other infrastructure,   where none are found depicted on any government maps.    Additionally looking at these places from the air,   and trying to figure out how to get here,  involves in most cases,  trekking of road and trail for 20 or 30 miles.     Those not familiar with the rain forests of the PNW might not realize the difficulty of doing that.    I know from personal experience,   you can spend 2 hours going a few hundred yards in the dense undergrowth in rain forests West of the Cascades.   A 20 mile off trail trek could a week getting there and back.   

 

Perhaps a studying aerial photos and looking for trails, that should not be there, might be a fruitful method of tracking down BF activity.     That sort of activity is best suited for a young, strong person,  who is comfortable off trail.      

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.