Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Tree structures are right up there with wood knocks and camera avoidance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 28, 2012 SSR Team Share 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? Saskeptic is qualified to give his opinion as the professional that he is, which is in Birdwatching i believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Tree structures are right up there with wood knocks and camera avoidance. I'd say they have more value in that there is a chance to find hair, skat or something for DNA evidence. Otherwise they're just more questions that lead to nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted May 28, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Every time I have found structures, I have never found just one. I have only found 3 places that have them so far, but the last place had dozens. I find them to be compelling ,especially when found while I'm investigating sightings. I agree. Of course humans access much of the planet and have been known to play with sticks, branches, deadfall, etc. It is when such structures are found in nonpublic areas that arouses the most suspicion. Multiple examples CAN be found in close proximity when an exhaustive investigation is completed. I don't think it is common but yes I believe they are findable and I still find them compelling when "other" explanations are controlled for and I've never seen teepees as anything other than some expressive form of constructive activity by a thinking biped. Doesn't mean some of them don't have some other purpose. I just don't see it. Attribute it to artistic expression if you like or some form of creative streak. They may have some function as to navigational, landmark informational or directional purpose. I am not big on stick breaks, twists or large canopy pileups or deadfall collations especially those elevated ones. That said, I have seen several posted up by others that defy explanation. There are certain forms of ground layout geometries involving branches, sticks, twigs some of which are added to with fresh green over time. I do believe they are in a form of construction found only by the most astute observers or more perceptive ground-truthers, those that are lucky and in some of these cases I wonder if they are not left to be discovered as a calling card. Whether they are constructed and left for other Sasquatch or for humans that intrude (or those humans that are "on-to" them and who they tease) who knows. I see them as a playful form of expression many times, nothing more and nothing less. Just because you personally have not seen them or found similar things despite "looking" for them does not mean you have not stepped right in the middle of them or walked right by them unknowingly. Many of the formations you would have to be zeroed-in to detect their presence or be extremely lucky in your sightlines or gaze at an opportune time. I do know I have followed "pointers" leading to multiple structures and then verified by compass bearing at a later time that they were in alignment. In that regard I'd be interested in whether BF navigation or path integration could ever be proven since the organism has proven so elusive and dens or domiciles so difficult to pinpoint reliably over days, weeks, months and years. I'm wondering if the below quote about the matter might give some clues as to some of the "pointers" and other structures as compass bearings can sometimes be reliably plotted from some of these formations to other ones in particular. I believe it was Billy Willard (SasquatchWatch of Virginia) that did an investigation that found a similar set of affairs in central Virginia in an outing some time ago as well. In studies of animal navigation, dead reckoning is more commonly (though not exclusively) known as path integration, and animals use it to estimate their current location based on the movements they made since their last known location. Animals such as ants, rodents, and geese have also been shown to continuously keep track of their locations relative to a starting point and return to it, an important skill to have for creatures that forage for food and then return to a fixed home.[1][2] I also wonder if perhaps obscure game movement patterns are somehow marked in this format. I'm not a big BF makes these structures to live in or as a blind to ambush or birth-in fiend. I think they serve a recreational and sometimes informational/navigational purpose; but, above all, they serve as a test to see who is looking and how good they are looking.... works as good as any other theories.... since I've seen the architects in the general area of the architecture. I appended a picture to the post as an example of one of many smaller layouts encountered (about a 3ft. by 3ft. field of view represented in picture, base of sapling about 4 inches around; dated Jan. 27, 2007 in a most-of-the-time dry drainage below steeper mtns.) over the course of an extended period of time in an area closely observed. One of many differing forms and constructions documented some of which changed slightly overnight with additions; relocations, etc. Edited May 28, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Oh goody we're back to who's the most qualified to discuss a creature that hasn't been proven to exist! +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted May 28, 2012 Share 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. Such, nest have been discovered in Australia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Saskeptic is qualified to give his opinion as the professional that he is, which is in Birdwatching i believe. Wow, I'm not sure if you intended it this way BobbyO but that's quite a demeaning statement. Plus one if that was your intent. JohnC, if you're going to hold me to the standard of Ian Redmond, i.e., I'd have to trump his experience with mountain gorillas to be taken seriously about alleged bigfoot "stick structures," then you win. For your prize you get an embossed certificate with the words "The argument from authority is a logical fallacy." In other words, it doesn't matter how experienced Dr. Redmond might be, he's still perfectly capable of being wrong. Has he made some statements about being able to tell the "real" stick structures from the ones that humans and ice storms make? If so, can you please direct me to the information that proves his conviction on that? If not, then I'm afraid you're sliding down into another logical fallacy, a variant of the strawman argument. In other words, if Dr. Redmond has not put his stamp of approval on the authenticity of alleged stick structures, then why mention him as the gold standard on which you base your argument from authority? My opinion re: the silliness of stick structures does not derive from my academic training, it derives from common sense and years of reading about bigfoot here on the BFF. If you agree with me, fine. If you don't, fine. My academic training should have nothing to do with your opinion of the things I write here. When I think it should, I'll preface my comments that way, e.g, in the Ketchum thread I've mentioned my experience as a reviewer for multiple journals when that became relevant to the opinion I was offering. For the record, I am a vertebrate ecologist who works primarily with North American birds, but I have also conducted research on mammals, reptiles, and insects. My specialty is how animals interact with their habitats, so I have had to spend a lot of time studying trees, forests, streams and watersheds, prairies, beaches, wetlands, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted May 28, 2012 Moderator Share 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! I have no idea why you responded in this manner, nor exactly what it is you are trying to say. Best I can make out here is that you did not understand my post (since it addresses things that I neither mentioned or alluded to), which was in response to this: 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? All I was saying is they *do* leave a trail, even if most people can't find it because they don't have any tracking skills. I'm not saying they are easy to follow either; its quite clear to me that they know and understand counter-tracking as a skill, see the '3-mile trackway in Northern Minnesota' video for confirmation of that. Its also apparent to me that these 'structures' if made by them are not made for purposes of shelter- they don't seem to need that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I think your post shows exactly why I responded in that way....counter tracking skills attributed to an unknown, bi-pedal, near human/ape whew thats a good one hadn't heard that before!!! More behavioral malarkey based on nothing, but yet you stated it as if it were fact! Absolutely ridiculous assumptions!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted May 28, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 28, 2012 All I was saying is they *do* leave a trail, even if most people can't find it because they don't have any tracking skills. I'm not saying they are easy to follow either; its quite clear to me that they know and understand counter-tracking as a skill, see the '3-mile trackway in Northern Minnesota' video for confirmation of that. Its also apparent to me that these 'structures' if made by them are not made for purposes of shelter- they don't seem to need that. That is what I have been saying that they can be tracked, but they are hard too. As far as those tree formations in my opinion they leave those markers for us to let us know that they are there. Art I know that it is hard to believe that a creature like Bigfoot could be doing this and it was hard for me to accept . But I have tried to disprove this on the ones that I have found and can not. What has me so convince is knowing that they are there,hearing them and that feeling. I think is going in with disbelief and coming out believing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 http://instagr.am/p/LMEbCsQGXt/ This thing is pretty cool, and shows how we do random things way off of the beaten path, even though this is probably an elk blind. I found this one day while I was out hunting the timber above a clear-cut. It has quite a few elements of what people would attribute to a Sasquatch stick-structure....Big snapped branches, branches that were carried in and don't match the surrounding trees, woven branches, criss-crossed branches, etc., but was made by a couple of hunters, IMO. Even the way it was put together is strange. On the left side(backside)you can kind of see it. It is comprised of mainly small woven branches, and they are packed with mud. The rest of it is mainly big, tall branches and are linked between two trees tee-pee style. It has two openings in the front, separated by branches, for what I'd imagine are shooting lanes for two hunters.(This area is one of the best elk areas in state of Wa) I'm 6'1, 220 lbs, and can easily fit three of us in it. There are also woven branches in the roof, to keep water out. Bottom line...People do random things out in the woods. If you are standing there, more than likely, so has somebody else. I agree with a lot of people on this post about natural phenomena, and humans being responsible for a vast majority of them, but also don't see why a BF wouldn't fashion things out of sticks, and branches, either. When we lived primitively we made things like this all the time, so I don't see why something as allegedly as smart as Sasquatches wouldn't implement that sort of engineering too, although to lesser degree than us. They have opposable thumbs for a reason, right? For all the time I've ever spent in the woods, I've never seen anything that couldn't be explained, though. Good topic, Art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Without tree markers, tee pee formations, tree knocking, eerie feelings of being watched etc. etc. bigfoot research would be a lot less rewarding for average researcher. You can find evidence nearly anywhere and anytime you go out looking. It makes it a lot more fun for Joe researcher to go out and find some kind of "evidence'' followed by incredible amounts of confirmation bias when it's reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted May 29, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) I think your post shows exactly why I responded in that way....counter tracking skills attributed to an unknown, bi-pedal, near human/ape whew thats a good one hadn't heard that before!!! More behavioral malarkey based on nothing, but yet you stated it as if it were fact! Absolutely ridiculous assumptions!! 'Unknown' to you.... I had a close encounter so that is not an issue for me. With regards to the video, look it up (its obvious right now that you either did not, or the behaviors of counter tracking were lost on you). IOW, the tendency to walk sideways on logs is done for a reason. I've pointed this out before; this video also points to one reason why we've not found a body. But on a more fundamental level, consider the idea that our 'unknown biped' is in fact that *on account* of its ability to hide its presence on the landscape. IOW, its far from ridiculous , rather it would be ridiculous to assume otherwise Edited May 29, 2012 by salubrious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Believe what've you want Sal you got nothing to prove to me. But attributing behavior to Bigfoot as fact is going to require a little more than your word or anyone else's until the bigman is a scientific fact. Edited May 29, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts