Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

[roguefooter]

^^ The page prior to your link, post 293 is the first mention of this photo's source.

 

http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=27514.285

 

The post 293 that you linked to states that nothing was noticed at the time when taking pictures. He states that they were randomly taken photos. He only noticed it after he got home and examined said photos.

 

"As soon as I got home I downloaded the five or six photos from the woods to look them over before going to bed. When I looked at the two photos I snapped around the wood formations and magnified them I nearly fell off the chair. Now folks, I never expected to see anything other than trees and vegetation but certainly not a monkey man! Yup, no blob squatch photo.... In one of the random photos I snapped, it appears as though I captured nearly the whole right side (from head down to the upper thigh) of a hairy man looking at us."

 

 

Gumshoeye is telling us here on this forum that he actually saw the creatures, and even has a full description of what he "saw":

 

 

 

Heck, I don't what it was but I know it was no human even though it had human facial features, it was clearly too hairy and not a bear besides bears have snouts this didn't. I know I good observational skills, I've staked my whole career around observing, reporting and testifying before probate, district, circuit, federal and grand juries. What I seen was no piece of wood my friends. Are those things real? Well, there as real you or me but I don't know what they are.     

 

It wasn’t a bear, an opossum or a man. It was standing upright looking at me looking at it. There are indications of bear in the area although, I’ve never one single bear out here however, judging by the scat and scratches or clawing trees there must a few somewhere but no red bears.  These photos posted above were taken about 50 miles north of Monroe, Michigan in southeast Michigan. In that area there have been reports of gray and brown things but no black somethings.

 

 

 

The “it†or “something,†had bright almost red fur or hair from its head down its upper right knees from what I could see. To its  left as you are facing it, was another "it" of the same color in the next tree over but partially obscured. Its face was lighter skinned and somewhat human with less hair, clearly not like any human I’ve ever seen.

 

 

Are these reports from the same person?

Edited April 9, 2015 by roguefooter

[roguefooter]

 Those who insist on offering unsolicited opinions do nothing more than stifle that sharing, as we've seen over and over. 

 

Do you consider ItsAsquatch's opinions on this page to be "stifling"? Nobody seems to have made any beef about his comments. Why do you think that is WSA?

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41129-tree-manipulation-wood-structures-what-is-the-evidence/page-21

 

To me this is just more anti-criticism banter. Opinions are okay as long as they're supportive and biased.

 

So, I guess it comes down to this (again) do you want to promote the sharing of information like this, or do you not? So far, this board has done a remarkable job of keeping lots of very intriguing photos from seeing the light of day. Would you like to change that, or are you instead more interested in pointing out how foolish, nearsighted or dishonest the poster of the photo is?

 

 

You seem to think that sharing is more important that honesty- I totally disagree. Without honesty this entire field is nothing.

 

I'm sure Rick Dyer can come here and share more than you can stomach if honesty is irrelevant to you.

[Bonehead74]

The post 293 that you linked to states that nothing was noticed at the time when taking pictures. He states that they were randomly taken photos. He only noticed it after he got home and examined said photos.

"As soon as I got home I downloaded the five or six photos from the woods to look them over before going to bed. When I looked at the two photos I snapped around the wood formations and magnified them I nearly fell off the chair. Now folks, I never expected to see anything other than trees and vegetation but certainly not a monkey man! Yup, no blob squatch photo.... In one of the random photos I snapped, it appears as though I captured nearly the whole right side (from head down to the upper thigh) of a hairy man looking at us."

Gumshoeye is telling us here on this forum that he actually saw the creatures, and even has a full description of what he "saw":

Are these reports from the same person?

Plussed. Pretty much verbatim what I came to post. Edited April 9, 2015 by Bonehead74

[steenburg]

I just did a short video for my blog site, I will try to post it here. this just my opinion on the subject.

 

Thomas Steenburg

 

 

I hope this works?

 

Thomas Steenburg

 

P.S. Well it kind of worked? I got a link at lest but this is not what I thought would happen.

When it comes to computers I still really don't know what i am doing!

Edited April 13, 2015 by chelefoot
Fix link

[WSA]

Roguefooter...I guess it comes down to what you want to see: More, or less possible evidence posted. We have the ability to choose which it will be.  Me, I want more, and I'm very capable of coming to my own conclusions and see no overwhelming need to make sure everyone knows how savvy I am and to be the first to cry "hoax!" Because, below some bar of authenticity that is almost always exceeded around here, I really can't say with any confidence that I know what is shown in photos and videos I see. Those who say that they know are kidding themselves, but not me, and all it serves to do is send the person with an inclination to share their possible evidence running in the opposite direction. Too, unless you are going to undertake an examination of the photo/film/video at a level equivalent to Bill Munns' analysis of the PGF, you are peeing up a rope. (and even then we have some who want to substitute their lay opinion for that of an expert...talk about an inflated sense of self) And that is only if you have access to the original file/film/tape. And you're going to have to have the experience, training and education to render a competent, meaningful opinion.   Do you have that level of expertise? I sure don't, and I know maybe one or two...Bill being one of those...who do. 

   

So, again, if all you want to do is appear clever and turn away possible good evidence with the bad, you are going about it in exactly the right way. Keep it up.  

[WSA]

Thomas...thanks for that. Actually, there is a least one eyewitness account of a young man who did surprise a Sasquatch inside a structure...for what that is worth. I think I've probably read a couple of other, similar accounts. Your point about them being inadequate shelter from the elements is well taken. If that is the purpose of putative BF "shelters" then, yeah, that seems a fly in the ointment. What, though, if they have another purpose we've not been able to discern? That keeps me wondering.  

 

As for tree twists, I think you are correct....proximity in time and place to other activity is a close as it comes. Still, if these trees are not manipulated, what explains it?  Those that interest me the most don't have an obvious weather related causation.  I'm fine with "unknown" causes if that is as far as we can go, for now. Still, those that clearly would require a strength well beyond what a man/men could or even have a need to do? Again, it keeps me wondering.

[1980squatch]

WSA, I do understand your point, and kudos to Gum for taking to the field and investigating and taking some photos.  SE MI is not as crazy of an area to investigate as one might think, BF at least move through the area at times for some reason (It has more than its fair share of reports for the type of area it is, and is where I had my clear visual encounter).

 

But having said all that, this pic is clearly pareidolia. It is quite fair to point that out, and by doing so visitors to this forum can see that this is a serious place that allows real discussion of evidence.  Critical to forum health IMHO.

[WSA]

Your choice 1980, as I said.

 

My $.02 is the words "clearly" and "pareidolia" don't belong in the same sentence together, usually, and especially not in one discussing this cryptid.  Seeing, or not seeing, or interpreting what one sees is always a subjective experience when you get outside of the commonly accepted phenomena in this world.. We seem to excel at substituting our judgment for others around here. Very bad habit, in my opinion, and about as far from a scientific approach to evidence as you can get. In my opinion. 

[Guest WesT]

My 2 cents on the photo in question is this. It's interesting, pertains to the discussion at hand, and imo inconclusive. But I do appreciate Gum coming forward and sharing. I know I was very apprehensive about doing so myself at first. But as the thread progressed I realized that it was a good group of people, that share a common interest, and they wouldn't take the character assassination route to "silence" me.

 

I don't know for a fact who or what is responsible for the things I've shared on this board.  However I do personally know someone who has a good idea of what/whom is behind it.  He's the reason I looked into these anomalies for myself. And If someone wants to pop in from time to time to state the usual that's fine by me. The thread is entitled Tree Manipulation/Wood Structures: What is The Evidence? There is no proof of Sasquatch. You do the math.

 

[WSA]

Plussed WesT.

 

Thomas, I recall now the account I was thinking about I posted a link to, up-thread, at #383. You might be interested.

Edited April 9, 2015 by WSA

[roguefooter]

Roguefooter...I guess it comes down to what you want to see: More, or less possible evidence posted. We have the ability to choose which it will be.  Me, I want more, and I'm very capable of coming to my own conclusions and see no overwhelming need to make sure everyone knows how savvy I am and to be the first to cry "hoax!" Because, below some bar of authenticity that is almost always exceeded around here, I really can't say with any confidence that I know what is shown in photos and videos I see. Those who say that they know are kidding themselves, but not me, and all it serves to do is send the person with an inclination to share their possible evidence running in the opposite direction  

 

First off, I didn't say that "I know" what it is. If you would have read my posts you would see that I said "it's not absolute". You guys always seem to complain about the same thing over and over again even when it's not the case, like we're dealing with a canned response.

 

People here always take the story behind the photos as part of determining their conclusion. Rick Dyer is a known hoaxer- nobody is taking any of his evidence into consideration anymore. Why do you think that is? Do you think it was wrong to run him and his evidence off? If there's dishonesty behind the evidence then I could care less if they run in the opposite direction. Quantity of evidence means nothing to me- the only evidence worth looking at is honest evidence.

 

I would like Gumshoeye to explain how his story went from 'I didn't see anything' and taking random pictures, to seeing a Bigfoot looking right at him and having a full blown encounter.

Edited April 9, 2015 by roguefooter

[steenburg]

Plussed WesT.

 

Thomas, I recall now the account I was thinking about I posted a link to, up-thread, at #383. You might be interested.

 

 

Thank you for the link, i will give the show a listen.

 

Thomas Steenburg

[WSA]

Like I said, i don't have an urge to pronounce any

evidence legit, or not,Dyer included. I can draw my own conclusions, and if that helps others share their own stuff, then I think it is the right call. Better to have the possibility of a hundred hoaxes if that promotes better sharing of other, better things. Jokers like Dyer are exposed soon enough without anyone's help. If shooting rain barrel fish like him cranks your jitney, you might want to seriously reevaluate.

[roguefooter]

^Which is exactly why the field is fast becoming a big joke in comparison to the early days- the lack of accountability.

 

Before we had people like Dahinden and Byrne putting everybody to the microscope and weeding out the bad eggs. Now we have the welcome wagon for hundreds of hoaxers as long as it maintains a steady stream of entertainment and makes people feel good about contributing even more potential hoaxes.

 

Of course we won't ever know that they're hoaxes because we don't want to question their stories- let the fantasy override honesty. We might as well call this the Bigfoot RPG forum.

 

You don't even have to look beyond this one thread to see the problem being created.

 

 

Well, I have no reason to doubt the person on the ground who took this shot knew very well what he was shooting at.  Those who would substitute their judgment for Gumshoe's have really about zero standing on this point with me.

 

 

Tell me WSA, do you feel that Gumshoeye's story of encountering a Bigfoot that day has more standing than anyone else, because he was there? 

Edited April 10, 2015 by roguefooter

[WSA]

Really? You are the only one standing between somebody perping a hoax, or not? Impressive.