salubrious Posted May 29, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 29, 2012 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. Fair enough- and we are on the same page with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I gave you a thread to read in the Premium Access section concerning Fahrenbach's talk at a TBRC convention. Go read it and tell me what you think. By the way, I attended that particular TBRC convention. I sat there and heard what Fahrenbach said. Just so you won't think that I am nit-picking what I read from just a thread from the BFF 1.0. What year was this? The 2009 TBRC didn't seem to have any presentation from Fahrenbach from what I could gather in a quick read through one thread. Perhaps you could PM a link? Update I found that he did make a presentation in 2008, but the thread makes no mention of anything out of sorts and only notes that he gave a summation of putative BF behaviors based on his personal experience, sighting reports, and interviews with witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I PM'ed you the link. Also, for anyone reading this, it is really fun and informative reading the old BFF 1.0 discussions in the Premium Access section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Well, you wanted to know what I thought. Special Forces involved in a BF report always sends up flags for some folks. As it does with me. However, I am kind of intrigued with that report. The manner of team oranization is correct for that time period and that and a couple of other things do tell me the reporter was involved with a SF or SF capable unit. However, a couple other things make me scratch my head so I just dont know about the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Why it's as plain as the nose on your face who made ^^^that^^^ stick structure. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted May 30, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted May 30, 2012 Busted! But got an out.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Bipedalist, ordinarily I'm not a fan of any significance to stick structures, but there might be an exception in this case. I recently corresponded with a lady who had a lot of definite squatch activity around her house. They kept finding triangular shaped stones on their front steps pointed toward the house. Finally their daughter visited, then they found TWO triangle shaped rocks side by side, just like your stick picture. I don't know what it means, if anything. Do you think it is meant to be a simulacrum of female breasts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted May 30, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) In actuality, triangularity or multiple, overlapping A-shaped forms of layouts were endemic to a small area..... I have a dozen or more of these photographed in a small area. It took me many months of research to locate clues which directed me to this area and then I nearly tripped over these before recognizing them..... though many of these were constructed months before I photographed them, after discovery some were added to overnight with smaller branches with fresh green breaks. There were also some highly difficult to explain interactions involving some broken branches that became a game for several weeks. I was not able to derive much significance re: the integrity of multiple layouts except a couple. They were big on equilateral triangularity.... it rarely deviated by millimeters. Largely, it was "their" playground..... for some period of time especially before discovery, less so afterwards. I didn't find any triangular rocks in this area..... and you got me if they could be representations of mammaries.... I did find an abundance of palm-sized, tetrahedral shaped rocks which started to blaze a trail into this area at times, which were novel to the area (for me) and were assumed to be a type of gift.... large quantities of feathers became noticeable as well and thought to be gifting as well.... I think the sticks and rocks are a form of representation.... whether artistic, representational or communicative.... I could not tell you. Neanderthals were into representational creations way back when though. If it was a form of attention-getting, it certainly got me locked-in. Apparently, there are many that experience the complex layouts but I don't how many get technically studied, photographed, measured, etc. I have not experienced rock stacks such as those seen by kbhunter in his thread he posted up recently. Some smaller stick asterisks such as those that some document at higher limb levels made with downed dead saplings were also seen. Some formations were not so subtle, others so unusual that it would be nearly impossible for anyone or any BF to find them..... in those cases it seemed to be strictly a playful activity. Edited May 30, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 And for some folks military or special forces training sightings are well received. Do you have a particular problem with Dr. Fahrenbach and his examination of this report? Please share. Because this is a very misleading statement: Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Dr. Wolf H. Fahrenbach. Dr. Farenbach did not do anything remotely resembling an investigation and if that is not self evident to anybody reading it then I am afraid that our standards for plausible evidence is so far removed from each other that any further discussion may be moot. It is this type of behaviour that separates us from proper scientific objectivity because to hear a story like this without any sort of verification or investigation and then rely on it as some kind of evidence is just mind boggling. Where does one draw the line in reports like this? Is it good spelling or the claimed (not investigated or proven) credentials or occupation of the reporter or is it the location or is it the fact that it sounds good and fits in with preconceived patterns that we like to think we know? Why should anybody believe any story without verification much less start using it as some sort of data or claiming it as some sort of fact? That is my opinion anyway. BRSleuth why do think that this story is factual or useful? Please share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) nm... Edited May 31, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 My main question about twig huts for every stick structure thread has still not been answered after all of these years; Where is all of the other supporting evidence? People find supposed bigfoot hairs, footprints, handprints, body-prints, scat, partially consumed animal carcases with twisted leg breaks and such. Not to mention their horrific body odor that never seems to get left behind (which would be hard to prove anyway, so I should have skipped it). This stuff is never found at or near a twig hut (as far as I know). Not one log futon has ever snagged one gnarly bigfoot hair. The stick structure isn't going anywhere. It's not going to run away all out of focus. People can spend all the time they like to get the subject into focus. Where is all of the other evidence that should be there? Does the weather wash away all of it, all of the time, for every stick structure? Even the more freshly found ones? And doesn't wash away the evidence for other animals? Does bigfoot hover over the hut? I've gone hunting with hunters that really know their stuff. They amaze me with their knowledge of the surroundings. Biologists are good at it too. People here are as well. They point out a nest or a lay of different types of animals and tell me, then show me what animal was there, using the available evidence. Why can't this be done for bigfoot? What else could have made it?...... is not evidence of bigfoot. Not in the least. I can't believe I waited to page 3 to rant. Great thread. I hope nobody makes me take my camera to Central Park to get a shot of one of the dozens of bigfoot houses there. Would that solve the mystery once and for all, if I did that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Furious, maybe you just have to be there to see all that stuff, or perhaps the various other sign just doesn't present itself in such proximity. Not to defend stick structures here, but it has never been claimed that someone found all that sign in one place. Maybe broken limbs and hairs, maybe tracks and a structure, or tracks and a twisted limb. I find the teepees interesting, and maybe some lean to's but personally don't go for the one or two sticks propped up to mean much. Mostly because I can't be there often enough to see if it is being added to or changed in any way. In the end the best structures will tell you a pair of hands made it, and you'll need some DNA to know a squatch did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toejam Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I've found many structures in an area where I've experience several instances over a period of time, 2 vocal and very close. There's nothing else that could vocalize what I experienced. It's not often (in fact only once) that a vocalization can change the course of someone's life. I showed this structure recently to John Bindernagel who I was very fortunate to spend a day with earlier this month. I believe this just might be related to BF considering my experiences in the area. It helps to be persistent in one area and notice the nuances and subtle changes. Trying to establish a pattern is very difficult but new structures tend to pop up every year. Can't say for sure they're made by BF but it's definitely a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Communicating via trail sign, such as rock and stick formations is elementary native american field craft. If Sasquatch are proto-human there is no reason not to attribute some of these structures to be within their collective abilities. I have witnessed some seeming constructs in some pretty far out places that certainly made me scratch my head; but we just don't know for sure and may not ever know. You have to kick yourself out of your own head, turn off the confirmation bias and honestly allow Occam's Razor to do it's work. Having said that my own rule of thumb is that stick and rock constructs/structures/crazy geometry or what have you could certainly be and indicator that there COULD be Sasquatch active in the area but it doesn't in any way confirm that there ARE/WERE/IS Sasquatch activity in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 1, 2012 So- what about this video then?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXX6eUAJFlc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts