southernyahoo Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Well as soon as I find a Bigfoot trail I'll look for the markings they are leaving behind I bet you can't do it without noting some broken sticks/limbs , and smudged impressions on the ground. 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? Perhaps if they didn't , they might not find each other, since they float above the ground and never knock, whoop or otherwise bump into a tree. (sarcasm)
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I think I tend to agree with you. There just haven't been, that I know of, many accounts of sasquatch associated with stick structures. I mentioned that I took a walk into the woods where I live, where I know no sasquatch live, and noted what I observed. This area is extremely thick, with very few clearings, so my view was limited, but I saw a number of small to medium sized trees broken in half, broken limbs, and just a lot of broken stuff. I even saw a large diameter cedar tree broken in half about 3 feet or more from the ground. There were some other trees that were larger, but they looked as if they had been dead for a while, and all that remained were big logs. I did not notice anything that looked like a structure of any kind, but as I said the woods were thick. But I still know that branches come off of trees pretty easily, therefore patterns will occur in forested regions to a decent extent. Many of the structures that have been posted online are not impressive in the least. It doesn't take much to make an X shape for instance. Now actual shelters are another matter. It is extremely likely that sasquatch, due to what is known about their behavior, would rather be dry as opposed to wet...Although some of the shelters I have seen photos of do not look like they would keep the water out very well, lol. I think that people are correct in dismissing shelters that are built on land that is not restricted, and frequented by random people, because they may have built it. On private property, the smaller the better, the chances of finding a man-made shelter go down, but it is not impossible. Just less likely. Honestly, I don't think many people build shelters in the woods for actual camping. I know some do, but most people use a tent. Hunters are more likely to use them. If the land is owned by someone who leases it, more information could probably be gleaned from that person about who hunts there, and it may be possible to discern whether they built one of these shelters. Really it doesn't matter though, and here is why. All we can do is tell whether the chances of a shelter having been built by a sasquatch are higher or lower. The only definitive way to tell is to either see a sasquatch building or utilizing one of these shelters, or find sasquatch evidence in its interior. One of the stick structures that sometimes stumps me have a U shape, and consist of the end of one tree planted in the ground, with the end of the other pulled down and secured in some fashion. I am not saying this couldn't happen naturally, but it would seem like the chances are extremely slim. There may be something to those...But if there is, then that supports the idea of the other structures being made by sasquatch as well. If I had to put in a vote, I would elect to dismiss stick structures from now on, not even bring them up, unless there is some evidence of them possibly having been created by a sasquatch. This only goes for simple structures that could easily have occurred naturally, and not for more elaborate groupings. I mean if I saw 5 broken tree branches stripped of any limbs, turned and driven into the ground in a line, I would say that isn't natural by any means...But not necessarily squatchy either. I know sasquatch exist, but having never seen one build a structure, nor seen sufficient evidence to suggest they build structures, there is not enough evidence to take the stick structures on faith. I will leave it at this: they probably make structures of different types, but it is not right of a researcher to see two sticks crossed somewhere and assume it came from a sasquatch. Even if it did, it is better to dismiss it at this point. Once they are proven to exist to the world, and they are getting studied like other animals, we will have our answer. Until then, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. If you get evidence of sasquatch building a structure, then you have gotten evidence of sasquatch itself. No need for the structures in proving their existence.
salubrious Posted May 29, 2012 Moderator Posted May 29, 2012 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. Correct- I have nothing to prove to you. So- just to be clear- are you saying a creature that has hidden successfully for centuries does not bother to hide its existence?
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) 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? 1) Sometimes they DO leave trails. We find them, after all, esp in winter when it's harder to conceal a trail. 2) Other primates are documented to either leave or sometimes conceal trails depending on what the situation. The use of makers by bonobos, for example is well documented, and Dr Meldrum has personally observed chimpanzees deliberately obliterating traces of their passing. No fallacies, no "malarky", just facts. 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! Obviously you don't know much about tracking. I don't either, but I know enough to know that there is far more activity going on in the woods than "very easy to follow" trails would suggest. It takes a lot of traffic over a significant period of time following one path to wear a trail. Most such trails are worn by the cyclical movements of large game animals moving to and from water and/or feeding areas. Most other animals use those trails because it's easier travel than "blazing your own". Same reason WE use game trails in the forrests, by the way. That said, even on a trail, finding an individual track can be a challenge, depending on the substrate. Clear open dirt trails make it easy to spot sign, esp if it is loose soil. Hardpack soil is less impressionable, and debris/leaf litter covered areas may well not show a single track of any kind, as the spongy material rebounds after being stepped on. The situation vis a vis tracks and tracking is nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it out to be, just like many other things you posit as being easy to understand, "open and shut" cases. Oh goody we're back to who's the most qualified to discuss a creature that hasn't been proven to exist! Oh goody, we're back to the logical fallacy of "no one can discuss anything that isn't already known about"... 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!! "Counter-tracking" as you put it is a documented primate behavior (in chimpanzees, for example). I would also point you in the direction of the report by Special Forces soldiers in Alaska who cut the trail of one in the snow and followed it for some time. The soldiers noted that it was using good Escape and Evasion tactics, such as staying below ridgelines and not passing through open clearings, just as they would do if not wanting to be spotted. Next failed argument? Edited May 29, 2012 by Mulder
Guest Darrell Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I would also point you in the direction of the report by Special Forces soldiers in Alaska who cut the trail of one in the snow and followed it for some time. The soldiers noted that it was using good Escape and Evasion tactics, such as staying below ridgelines and not passing through open clearings, just as they would do if not wanting to be spotted. Next failed argument? Id like you point me to that report. Since I was one of them guys about 20 yrs ago I'd like to read that. BTW, we did'nt do much training in Alaska.
steenburg Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 My own 2 cents worth. I have seen a lot of these type of formations some call stick structures. I have also seen a lot of what some cal Sasquatch nests. Also twisted and broken off trees. What I have not seen is any evidence that the Sasquatch has anything to do with any of these. nor Have I ever talked to a alleged witness whom saw a Sasquatch create any of this type of structure or markings. So in my opinion so far the evidence points to a more mundane explanation for such material. Thomas Steenburg
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Saskeptic, I often appreciate, and agree with you, and a lot of that is based on your obvious knowledge, and your familiarity with the academic process. I just sometimes feel the need to review the qualifications, after all, I see very rough treatment of many professionals on here, like Dr. Meldrum, ( or meldum if you prefer), and Dr. Ketchum, and quite a few others who have gone through the process of acquiring a Doctorate, or a PHD in area's that are far more relevant than some of our local skeptical scientist. Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Id like you point me to that report. Since I was one of them guys about 20 yrs ago I'd like to read that. BTW, we did'nt do much training in Alaska. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=6486
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Id like you point me to that report. Since I was one of them guys about 20 yrs ago I'd like to read that. BTW, we did'nt do much training in Alaska. One of my favorite reports and one of the farthest north sighting reports (above the Arctic Circle): http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=6486
BobbyO Posted May 29, 2012 SSR Team Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) 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. 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. Sorry, it wasn't meant to be demeaning, but if i'm reading right i'm not a million miles away from the truth anyway.. And i'll keep the plus one thank you.. Edited May 29, 2012 by BobbyO
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 With all due respect to the various parties involved, I find it incredible that there are those demanding we ignore the credentials of proponent scientists, even when those credentials make them eminently qualified to the question at hand, but accept their credentials in far less germane fields as buttressing the Skeptical case.
Guest Cervelo Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Correct- I have nothing to prove to you. So- just to be clear- are you saying a creature that has hidden successfully for centuries does not bother to hide its existence? I'm saying I don't believe Bigfoot makes stick structures or 99.9 percent of the "evidence", behaviors, ect, that gets regurgitated as fact just because it gets repeated enough times. Edited May 29, 2012 by Cervelo Personal comment removed
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I thought I was clear in my post that my "credentials" should be considered no more relevant than anyone else's. The first person to drive into town with a bigfoot in the truck bed gets to be the authority on bigfoots. The rest of us? Not so much.
Guest Transformer Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 One of my favorite reports and one of the farthest north sighting reports (above the Arctic Circle): http://www.bfro.net/...ort.asp?id=6486 Wasn't that one of the chicken farmer's stories? Anyway there is absolutely no follow up investigation of this report and no evidence that the person who made the report was anywhere near the Arctic Circle nor is there any attempt for corroboration from any other team members or anything else. Useful for lining birdcages but not for anything related to actual real research. That is my opinion.
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Transformer, you took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you. It always amazes me that folks want to base undocumented bigfoot behavior, to base their argument on the behavior of documented primates. As if those documented primates and the learned, educated, and doctorated folks that research them, can be attributed to authority, concerning bigfoot type creatures. You have those that claim they are more ape-like than human, so let's use the chimpanzee or gorilla for our comparisons. You have those that claim they are more human than ape, so let's use what we really don't know about Neanderthals for our comparisons. What we really know is that humans and mother nature makes stick structures. As a side note, I haul oak logs through the woods when I am camping because I don't like cooking with pine. And I take Saskeptics observations over Meldrum's because Saskeptic spends more time in the woods than Meldrum does. Edited May 29, 2012 by Splash7
Recommended Posts