BobbyO Posted May 28, 2012 SSR Team Posted May 28, 2012 Trail marking is known as a primate behavior in other non-human primates (bonobo chimpanzee for certain, others possibly). http://articles.lati...2/news/mn-21722 So there is no reason to exclude trail makers as potential BF/Yowie evidence. Absolutely, i'd be amazed if they didn't use their surroundings to their advantage, it's just down to us to work out how..
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Absolutely, i'd be amazed if they didn't use their surroundings to their advantage, it's just down to us to work out how.. you mean breaking maybe a simple code that humans complicate?
Guest Cervelo Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Well as soon as I find a Bigfoot trail I'll look for the markings they are leaving behind It's this type of misapplied logic that is marlarkey. Why the heck would the master of the forest who is all but invisible leave signs when they don't even leave a trail? Is this not one of those logical fallacies we hear about so often?
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Hi everyone!! I think there are Bigfoot fan researchers that like to document these purported structures...and I think they have lots of fun by searching for them actively on the forest!! Nevertheless, we have to be conscious that some of these structures could be naturally made by wind, water, storms, or man made (boyscouts, campers, hunters). I find more interesting, the stories of Bigfoot blocking trails with branches...or Bigfoot fabricating nests to spent the night (or to spend the day?)....I hope that some researcher will be able to find a Bigfoot den or nest (without their occupiers, I do not think they will be happy to be discovered)... Greetings. K. Adam.
Guest Darrell Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Well as soon as I find a Bigfoot trail I'll look for the markings they are leaving behind It's this type of misapplied logic that is marlarkey. Why the heck would the master of the forest who is all but invisible leave signs when they don't even leave a trail? Is this not one of those logical fallacies we hear about so often? I cant agree more.
BobbyO Posted May 28, 2012 SSR Team Posted May 28, 2012 you mean breaking maybe a simple code that humans complicate? Yeah possibly, i think we maybe complicate things, i also think Humans are very over rated, especially in the environments that we're talking about. I also think maybe that Humans haven't always got their eyes wide open, due to, in defence, maybe not knowing what they're looking at or for where " sign " and this subject is concerned maybe anyway.
salubrious Posted May 28, 2012 Moderator Posted May 28, 2012 Why the heck would the master of the forest who is all but invisible leave signs when they don't even leave a trail? Is this not one of those logical fallacies we hear about so often? Not in this case, like all other creatures, they most definitely leave a trail. Whether or not we are good enough trackers to actually detect and follow them is another matter. The logical fallacy here is a sort of Strawman, we can't find the track therefore it does not exist. The fact of the matter is we *have* found trackways. They of course become a matter of debate, but FWIW anyone actually trained in tracking such that they know the meaning of pressure releases can tell you if the track is real or not. That is a matter of training.
Guest Cervelo Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Sorry Sal not buying the "I'm not good enough to track Bigfoot", go peddle that with the "I'm not good enough to see Bigfoot in the crappy vids crowd"! If you trying to tell me an 800lbs/8' tall creature moves thru the woods without leaving a very easy to follow trail just like all the other critters in the woods, but leaves half built roofless shelters for us to find and lament over, ain't buying what your selling my friend!
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 As I've noted in prior threads about stick structures, there are two things that would be most helpful in establishing whether they are natural or not. The first is to carefully document the origin of the limbs or trees in the structure. For example, if it can be established with certainty that a 6" diameter broken off oak limb originated 100 yards away, then it begins to be interesting. The second is to document a research area over time. If you have a research try mapping the entire area by video, and use an actual map to plot locations and types of structures. Then document the area at regular intervals over time to see what changes happen to the existing structures or what new structures appear and correlate this to wind or other weather events. If you then can document that no weather events have happened to create the structures and can document that elements of the structures come from trees that are some distance away then it becomes interesting. This isn't conclusive evidence, but becomes interesting. As noted above the only way we could nail down whether these structures are indeed made by BF we need to have video documentation. The structure that was built overnight with an audio recorder going becomes interesting, but we really need video evidence. Perhaps the best method for trying to get this would be to set up several cameras with ongoing video (as opposed to triggered video) a la the series of "Whitey" videos being posted by MK Davis. If BF is able to hear or otherwise sense when a camera is activating then simply have continuous video.
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 For example, if it can be established with certainty that a 6" diameter broken off oak limb originated 100 yards away, then it begins to be interesting. So a bigfoot breaks off a mighty oak limb and carries it 100 yards to leave in an ambiguous pile with the other limbs and small trees from the immediate vicinity that exactly match the kind of evidence we see all the time from wind/ice damage? "I don't know how this branch got here" does not lead to "therefore, bigfoot is a plausible explanation for how it got here." If I was a bigfoot and could make sense of stuff posted on the BFF, I'd be laughing my hairy saggy-diaper butt off reading about "stick structures." "HOO-HOO!! HA-HA!! Silly humans thinkum me make sign from trees. What they come up next?!"
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Some tree structures are obvioously the result of wind, dead fall, etc, but many others are interesting. They might not be proof that Bigfoot excist, or that Bigfoot did it, but lets face it, there are QUALIFIED scientist out there who have taken interest and noticed. I always thought you where a bird guy Sas, I did not realize you where qualified to present such ridicule, do you feel that your more qualified than Dr Ian Redman? If so, would you mind listing your credentials and primate related field studies? I am intereseted in your knowledge of other primates use sticks, and how it could possibly relate to an unknown primate in north america.
Guest Cervelo Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Oh goody we're back to who's the most qualified to discuss a creature that hasn't been proven to exist! Edited May 28, 2012 by Cervelo
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Saskeptic, I think the idea of my post is to document over time whether or not wind events are creating changes in a research area in regards to "stick structures". I absolutely agree that wind events can create some bizarre looking structures. The idea is that for BF researchers to establish stick structures as having anything to do with BF they must first of all rule out natural or manmade causes. I think we can safely assume that bears or other known large animals in North America aren't capable of carrying 200 lb branches and inserting them into a structure. Wind can do that, but if the researcher in a research area is logging wind direction and speed and finds new structures or changes in structures that aren't associated with any wind event then it becomes interesting. Not definitive, but interesting. Definitive would be to videotape the structure being made.
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 No Cervelo, I am just wondering about a few peoples qualifications around here, especially when they present themselves as something, or attempt to speak as though they are an authority. I am no authority, and make no claim to be. Nor would I let anyone assume I am, and run with it. I am just trying to understand who is really qualified to ridicule, or make certain claims, who is worth listening to, and who is not. Is there something wrong with that? Should I take skeptics at face value? Then just question the proponents?
Guest Cervelo Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Do whatever works for you! I could careless The only suggestion I have is remember where you are for goodness sakes LOL!! Edited May 28, 2012 by Cervelo
Recommended Posts