Hilltop Structure 1/2 Mile South of Teepee structure.

[norseman]

*No name calling please*

[Trogluddite]

On 3/26/2025 at 4:41 PM, norseman said:

I think the most prudent approach right now is to note these things. But not put too much stock in them.

Here are some reasons not to leap to the conclusion that a structure encountered in the woods = "Bigfoot."

 

1) The Great Hill Recreation Area, where this was filmed, is a postage-stamp sized park of 203 acres surrounded by suburbia and typical urban sprawl development.  See https://www.trails.actonma.gov/great-hill/ size of the park and your map program of choice for a wider view of the area. 

 

2) No one knows how how much range 1 Bigfoot needs to support itself, but an average New York black bear weighing from 160 to 300 lbs. needs 35 lbs of food per day to sustain itself.  The average home range for black bears are 1-15 square miles (female) and 8-60 square miles (male) or 640 to 9600 acres for a female black bear.  Thus, this park doesn't have the necessary area to support a (presumably) smaller animal.  (I gathered this information some time ago from www.wikipedia.com and the links provided therein, and species-specific preservation/hunting websites; the entire chart of 13 large animals and human hunter/gatherers is uploaded somewhere on the forums.)

3) The branch structure looks to be only 20-30 yards of a trail (a blue trail marker is visible from 12:01 to 12:07, right before the camera pans to the left and first shows the branch structure, and again at 13:22.  This is consistent with the Great Hill trail map, available at the website above.  Even within the park, this is not a remote area. 

 

4) Dead trees that fall between the forks of trees, like the ones that form the main supports on the right (looking at the mouth of the structure) are not that uncommon in nature.  Kids (define loosely at 10-16 years old) making secret hideouts from their parents is also not unheard of.  Its a great place to hangout and drink beers snuck out of the home frig or to neck (or so I've been told).  This also could be a community hangout (again, look at the dense suburbs in the area) where people added to the "shelter" over time. 

 

5) Setting aside the Hockamock swamp area to the southeast, this area of Massachusetts is a void as far as reported encounters go.  There are 63 reported encounters in the state between 1861 and 2016 if you add up the reports from 9 different organizations/books/researchers.*  Middlesex County, where this park is located, has zero reported encounters.  The closest encounter to this park was in the 1960s, over 15 miles away.  * Numbers subject to change as more research is done. 

 

Not claiming that this structure is natural.  However, nothing supports bypassing more likely explanations (human action) to leap to the more unlikely explanation.

 

That being said, nothing here should dissuade anyone from spending time in the woods and enjoying the fresh air and off chance that you'll encounter Bigfoot.

 

[7.62]

23 hours ago, norseman said:

*No name calling please*

shut up poopy head 

 

 

 

[NorCalWitness]

15 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

Here are some reasons not to leap to the conclusion that a structure encountered in the woods = "Bigfoot."

 

1) The Great Hill Recreation Area, where this was filmed, is a postage-stamp sized park of 203 acres surrounded by suburbia and typical urban sprawl development.  See https://www.trails.actonma.gov/great-hill/ size of the park and your map program of choice for a wider view of the area. 

 

2) No one knows how how much range 1 Bigfoot needs to support itself, but an average New York black bear weighing from 160 to 300 lbs. needs 35 lbs of food per day to sustain itself.  The average home range for black bears are 1-15 square miles (female) and 8-60 square miles (male) or 640 to 9600 acres for a female black bear.  Thus, this park doesn't have the necessary area to support a (presumably) smaller animal.  (I gathered this information some time ago from www.wikipedia.com and the links provided therein, and species-specific preservation/hunting websites; the entire chart of 13 large animals and human hunter/gatherers is uploaded somewhere on the forums.)

 

 

3) The branch structure looks to be only 20-30 yards of a trail (a blue trail marker is visible from 12:01 to 12:07, right before the camera pans to the left and first shows the branch structure, and again at 13:22.  This is consistent with the Great Hill trail map, available at the website above.  Even within the park, this is not a remote area. 

 

4) Dead trees that fall between the forks of trees, like the ones that form the main supports on the right (looking at the mouth of the structure) are not that uncommon in nature.  Kids (define loosely at 10-16 years old) making secret hideouts from their parents is also not unheard of.  Its a great place to hangout and drink beers snuck out of the home frig or to neck (or so I've been told).  This also could be a community hangout (again, look at the dense suburbs in the area) where people added to the "shelter" over time. 

 

5) Setting aside the Hockamock swamp area to the southeast, this area of Massachusetts is a void as far as reported encounters go.  There are 63 reported encounters in the state between 1861 and 2016 if you add up the reports from 9 different organizations/books/researchers.*  Middlesex County, where this park is located, has zero reported encounters.  The closest encounter to this park was in the 1960s, over 15 miles away.  * Numbers subject to change as more research is done. 

 

Not claiming that this structure is natural.  However, nothing supports bypassing more likely explanations (human action) to leap to the more unlikely explanation.

 

That being said, nothing here should dissuade anyone from spending time in the woods and enjoying the fresh air and off chance that you'll encounter Bigfoot.

 

1. Because we don't know their diet, we can't infer their range. Using a bear is probably less accurate than using a silverback as an example. A silverback has a range of 15 square miles. By many accounts, Sasquatch may be double the size, so call it 30. However, I tend to think they are nomadic and don't stay in one place for too long. If you travel at night, along creeks and rivers, using forest as cover, you can get across massive parts of the US. We've heard many stories of seasonal activity in specific areas, so that lends credit to the nomadic theory. I don't think we should measure the likelihood of these creatures being in an area based on long term habitat viability. 

 

2. Thank you for the background on the area. Makes me change my perspective here, slightly

 

3. Sure, kids can and do build this stuff. Human signs would be easy to spot. This might be human made, but there are many structures that people find far from the population needed to write this off as human, with size that generally excludes human as well. 

 

4. 15 miles away is the closest report, which, if the nomadic theory is correct, is well within range. I've checked out the area on google earth and it seems to be a massive forested area, with some people sprinkled in here and there. Totally viable habitat for these creatures who don't know about part boundaries. 

 

I appreciate your post. Its nice to have a real post from someone who isn't rude and who is well thought out. Thank you. 

[norseman]

Here is my thought experiment on caloric intake some while back.

 

 

[Trogluddite]

3 hours ago, NorCalWitness said:

1. Because we don't know their diet, we can't infer their range. Using a bear is probably less accurate than using a silverback as an example. A silverback has a range of 15 square miles. By many accounts, Sasquatch may be double the size, so call it 30. However, I tend to think they are nomadic and don't stay in one place for too long. If you travel at night, along creeks and rivers, using forest as cover, you can get across massive parts of the US. We've heard many stories of seasonal activity in specific areas, so that lends credit to the nomadic theory. I don't think we should measure the likelihood of these creatures being in an area based on long term habitat viability. 

 

2. Thank you for the background on the area. Makes me change my perspective here, slightly

 

3. Sure, kids can and do build this stuff. Human signs would be easy to spot. This might be human made, but there are many structures that people find far from the population needed to write this off as human, with size that generally excludes human as well. 

 

4. 15 miles away is the closest report, which, if the nomadic theory is correct, is well within range. I've checked out the area on google earth and it seems to be a massive forested area, with some people sprinkled in here and there. Totally viable habitat for these creatures who don't know about part boundaries. 

 

I appreciate your post. Its nice to have a real post from someone who isn't rude and who is well thought out. Thank you. 

 

Much obliged for the comments; to expound upon them,

 

1a) When I was looking up the other animals to educate myself, I was merely looking for a space for a similarly suited animal - i.e., a large omnivore.  I also had a gorilla on the chart, chose black bear for this one fairly randomly.  As to what Bigfoot is eating, approximately 180 reports out of slightly over 1200 indicate (or suggest) that the Bigfoot was foraging for food when encountered. The likely food includes the logical items - apples, berries, corn, 15 fine hens, chickens, cattle, dumpster diving, campsite raiding, and deer among others. 

 

1b) I agree that Sasquatch have a daily range (how much they might move in one day) and a home range (how much they move about in one week, month, or year).  I also agree that they don't stay in one place; the patterns I've seen when mapping encounters make me think of slash and burn farming rather than strict nomads, but that might be tomato/tomayto.

 

3) I'm not completely excluding any and all stick structures, nests, shelters, etc.  I just think that mere existence of same =/= Sasquatch automatically.

 

5) (by my original count) 15 miles away and now 50 years ago.  I would describe the area as more a massive peopled area with some forest in between, although I wholly agree with your observation that Sasquatch can move about in some areas easier than us.  For example, I think even I could cammo up and on a decent night cover five miles in that area without being seen (barring FLIR, dogs, etc.), so I have no doubt that there could be one or two transients there.

[Trogluddite]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

Here is my thought experiment on caloric intake some while back.

 

 

I like it.  the volume of food matches what I found and I think that a group of bigfoot (adult male, adult female, one juvenile and maybe one infant) would similarly strip mine and area.  That's why I think they then shift their habitat be 50-100 miles and start working a new region for a while.  The only think I can think of that doesn't match is that you would expect farmers/ranchers/orchard operators to notice that much loss to animals.