Structures Of Different Kinds

[Guest]

It is the time of year, here in California, that leaves are coming off the trees, finally. Elsewhere, deciduous trees are already bare. Now is the time to look up, look into areas normally hidden by leaves, look into the now-bare bushes for markers or sign of bigfoot. Before too much snow piles up in the north and in spring when it melts off, we can get out and see what we normally can't.

Maybe you have seen stick structures, arches, x's or other signs, too. Tell us what you saw or post pictures if you have some and can load them up for us.

[BobbyO]

Enjoy..

http://www.bigfootphenomena.webs.com/

[Guest]

Very nice. Thanks for the great tip off.

[Guest mxav]

I've never understood why stick structures get the attention they do, it's just too easy to explain them away as normal natural circumstances.

[bipedalist]

Depends on the type of stick structure, location, age, etc. though really.......doesn't it........?

[Guest krakatoa]

Depends on the type of stick structure, location, age, etc. though really.......doesn't it........?

I have yet to see a "structure" that can't be explained by natural, non-bigfoot phenomena.

If anyone has anything they are certain is created by 'foot, this seems to be the thread to post it. I'd love to see it.

My pet peeve with the various proclamations of proof like found on the web link posted up-thread is that even if you grant that bigfoot exists, it by no means validates a "structure" as evidence of 'foot unless there is evidence that 'foot actually created the structure.

My peeve is aggravated when people take such ephemeral evidence and "deduce" all sorts of sociological constructs about those things that must have created them.

Doing this isn't even bad science. It is fiction.

It is fascinating to me how people invested in a proposition will tend to bend all manner of data to fit their proposition. Indeed, actual data isn't even necessary, as some go so far to say that the lack of proof in and of itself is proof of 'foot.

I prefer to let the data speak for itself, absent the influence of my own or others' biases.

While that leaves the applicable data-set concerning the prospect of 'foot much smaller than what appears to be usual for many proponents, it also allows one to focus on defensible data, rather than wasting time arguing in defense of pure speculation.

Edited December 5, 2011 by krakatoa

[bipedalist]

Your fiction/speculation is someone else's reality and correlated data-set. What data do you collect krakatoa if I may ask?

[Guest Jodie]

If you came into your home and found your dresser drawers torn apart, clothes scattered everywhere, who did it if the door remained locked with no sign of forced entry and no prints were left at the scene?

1. Your child

2. Someone with a key

2. A poltergeist

3. A house elf with an attitude

You investigate, during the time this happened, your child was at soft ball practice. Everyone with a key has an alibi,no one lent the key to anyone else, and no one's key is missing. That means either a poltergeist or a house elf did it. Since there are more reports of poltergeist activity than there are of house elves, you settle on poltergeist as the culprit.

Bigfoot research is about the same way. If the stick structures are new and there were no storms in between the time you were there before and when you found them, then you think about the chances of it being caused by a human, if that isn't possible, then what is left? Bigfoot or gnomes? People report seeing bigfoot, so you go with bigfoot.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest krakatoa]

Your fiction/speculation is someone else's reality and correlated data-set.

It's not my fiction/speculation, as I thought I made clear. This is pure speculation made by other people. It is most definitely not "correlated" in a scientific sense, as no supporting evidence is given.

It may be their reality, but that reality is not terribly supportable sans good evidence a "structure" has been built by a 'foot.

Most everything is possible, including a truck-driving, chain-smoking squatch. Evidence should be used to distinguish the probable from the improbable.

So if I find on a logging trail an abandoned Mack truck filled cigarette butts and with a few strands of unidentifiable hair in, my first 100 theories should not include a truck-driving, chain-smoking squatch.

If I can look at a wood structure and come up with at least one viable and mundane non-'foot explanation for it, the probability of it being constructed by 'foot drops precipitously.

What data do you collect krakatoa if I may ask?

I do not "collect" data. I avidly review what data is presented here and on other sites.

And as an aside -- I was still on the site, so I saw your response.

Please click on the "reply" button in the future, as I have email notifications set up alerting me if someone has responded to my comments. Otherwise I may not see a response for days, if at all.

[bipedalist]

Bigfoot research is about the same way. If the stick structures are new and there were no storms in between the time you were there before and when you found them, then you think about the chances of it being caused by a human, if that isn't possible, then what is left? Bigfoot or gnomes? People report seeing bigfoot, so you go with bigfoot.

Exactly and I've had them added to between dusk and dawn (with fresh green snaps) when able to investigate an area and have access to the posted no hunting/no trespassing zone.

Please click on the "reply" button in the future, as I have email notifications set up alerting me if someone has responded to my comments. Otherwise I may not see a response for days, if at all.

As an fyi, we refrain from quoting immediately preceding posts (but sometimes clip a quote) so reply sometimes is inadvisable when the respondent knows the other party is on the site, but thanks for the advice.

As to evidence, because some researchers do not go into depth in regards to their search techniques and discovery of stick formations with defined geometry and such it does not bother me that some don't make the connections or correlations. Yep, on the "you see what you wish to with the lenses that you wear" observation. Works both ways doesn't it.

[Guest krakatoa]

If you came into your home and found your dresser drawers torn apart, clothes scattered everywhere, who did it if the door remained locked with no sign of forced entry and no prints were left at the scene?

1. Your child

2. Someone with a key

2. A poltergeist

3. A house elf with an attitude

You investigate, during the time this happened, your child was at soft ball practice. Everyone with a key has an alibi,no one lent the key to anyone else, and no one's key is missing. That means either a poltergeist or a house elf did it. Since there are more reports of poltergeist activity than there are of house elves, you settle on poltergeist as the culprit.

Bigfoot research is about the same way. If the stick structures are new and there were no storms in between the time you were there before and when you found them, then you think about the chances of it being caused by a human, if that isn't possible, then what is left? Bigfoot or gnomes? People report seeing bigfoot, so you go with bigfoot.

But you don't know what you don't know.

• Someone briefly lifted one of your house keys and made a copy, then used it when they knew everyone would be gone.
  
• You left a door unlocked, and someone ransacked your house and locked up on the way out.
  

etc...

Yes a poltergeist may be possible. It is unlikely however, and a ransacked house isn't proof in and of itself, unless you have video of it happening.

Exactly and I've had them added to between dusk and dawn (with fresh green snaps) when able to investigate an area and have access to the posted no hunting/no trespassing zone.

Well that does make it more interesting. However, without physical evidence of a squatch making the structure, you really have only speculation.

As to evidence, because some researchers do not go into depth in regards to their search techniques and discovery of stick formations with defined geometry and such it does not bother me that some don't make the connections or correlations. Yep, on the "you see what you wish to with the lenses that you wear" observation. Works both ways doesn't it.

Certainly it does. This is why I strive to be as objective as possible when reviewing evidence when it is offered.

So even if had a 'foot in my back 40, a pile of bear poop by the berry patch is still a pile of bear poop, 'foot's presence notwithstanding.

[Guest]

Krakatoa, how unscientific of you. Examine the evidence and reach your own conclusion and let others reach theirs. Relax. Telling if anything is formed by the hand of the hairy man is ALL speculation unless you saw him in the act, eh? Some may be natural, true, You decide AFTER you saw the evidence, not before, and I dare say you have not seen it all.

[Guest krakatoa]

Krakatoa, how unscientific of you. Examine the evidence and reach your own conclusion and let others reach theirs. Relax. Telling if anything is formed by the hand of the hairy man is ALL speculation unless you saw him in the act, eh? Some may be natural, true, You decide AFTER you saw the evidence, not before, and I dare say you have not seen it all.

There is so much presumption within this short statement of yours that it is no mystery at all how you manage to see 'foot in pictures so many others see only trees, grasses and bushes.

You are inclined to see 'foot. Therefore you do.

I, on the other hand, am inclined to be objective, despite what I might like to see.

You were inclined to see in my up-thread posts an implacable skeptic, so you believed you had caught me in a logical inconsistency and proceeded to summarize my comments in a manner that mischaracterize what I clearly typed.

I have no doubt that you believe what you wrote to be true at the time. If you re-read in full, I hope you might see your error. I further hope that you might take to heart how one's biases can cause one to see things inaccurately.

[Guest]

Edited December 6, 2011 by Kings Canyon

[Guest]

Yea! One loaded.

Here is a big picture with a little window way up in a big tree. On the left. Hope pic is not too small to see it.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Kings Canyon