Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

[WSA]

To answer your question though RF, let me ask you one back: Why wouldn't it?  But that answer doesn't disguise the reality of it being equally inconclusive, as it is only one report. The evidence is cumulative, and if there is a scratched record being played here by me and some others, that is probably it.  Endlessly chasing after the next hoax perpetrator is certainly exhilarating for some of us, but it accomplishes exactly bupkiss for advancing the general knowledge in this field. You won't see any serious researcher spending much time doing it. They are too busy looking at the much bigger picture. Try it, it is pretty fun. Instead, if you want to burn up your time staffing the Hoax Police, by all means go with your flow, but my point was only it serves mostly to keep those from sharing interesting stuff on this site.  

[MIB]

Tradeoffs here.  

 

I agree and plus WSA.  There are more interesting things to do than just run around yelling "hoax" at everyone who doesn't produce PROOF that satisfies your demands.   

 

On the other hand, the seeming change over time in gumshoeye's story and the comparison of the original picture and the cropped version which removes context needed for accurate assessment raises orange, if not red, flags.   I posted in support of its validity recently but I have doubts now after comparing the versions of the story told the and now and comparing the two pictures.   I'm not really convinced it is a hoax, either, but the "eyebrow of doubt" is rising.

 

MIB

[1980squatch]

How did hoax ever come up?  Are we not just disagreeing on what is in Gum's photo??

[WSA]

Right. Back on topic we go....

[roguefooter]

How did hoax ever come up?  Are we not just disagreeing on what is in Gum's photo??

 

Because this is about honesty, and hoaxers are just an example of people being dishonest. Nobody has called Gumshoeye a hoaxer, but I will be the first to say that I think he's being dishonest.

 

Without honesty then this field is nothing. The evidence adds up to exactly nothing because the potential of deceit is behind it. Was it a deliberately set up photo or story to make people believe something was there? That equation comes into play with evidence provided by a dishonest person.

 

 

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

 

Considering that I never stated any such thing, your canned assumptions are getting old. The question you should be asking is: Why are you allowing this garbage to fester into this field?

 

 

Endlessly chasing after the next hoax perpetrator is certainly exhilarating for some of us, but it accomplishes exactly bupkiss for advancing the general knowledge in this field. You won't see any serious researcher spending much time doing it. They are too busy looking at the much bigger picture. Try it, it is pretty fun. Instead, if you want to burn up your time staffing the Hoax Police, by all means go with your flow, but my point was only it serves mostly to keep those from sharing interesting stuff on this site.  

 

You aren't going to ever advance anything unless you know that person behind the evidence is being honest. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

 

You don't seem to understand that all of it- the bigger picture, the "serious research", all of it is based on honesty. To ignore that critical detail and let it slide because "it's fun" as you say is nothing but self-defeating.

 

Need an example?

 

Here's a good one. It has your "interesting stuff" being shared, it has your 'serious researchers not spending the time' as you say, it has loads of people having fun and coming to conclusions of it's authenticity. You call it "advancing the general knowledge in this field" by ignoring everything.

 

But then it all gets ruined when somebody decided to "accomplish exactly bupkiss" by looking into the honesty of the report.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/33928-the-elbe-track-line-saga-from-a-to-z/page-1

 

I'm sure the Elbe trackway would be regarded as "the bigger picture" today had people gone by your logic. Had everybody questioned the honesty from the get go it probably could have avoided a lot of embarrassment.

Edited April 11, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest]

Skeptic questioning whether something is real or not is their own problem not mine, not yours anyone else and they will not define who I am or what anyone says about this thing. As I opined before this is the only place from which anybody can make a stand despite the all-consuming maw of a few here but as these photos prove once again, you do at you at your risk and know there are some that do not want know about this thing.  When this balloon was first floated the first Rembrandt hurled at me the poster was a piece of wood, somehow painting a picture of a photo that appeared to be a piece of wood. When that met resistance they come back something else hoping to undermine me or my character with every grunt from the cow shed and whether or not I seen what I say I saw.  So to clear up any “confusion†they may have caused the answer to that mystery rests with me not you.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[WSA]

I'll just say this about that....I started the thread to try and accumulate evidence of tree manipulations and wood structures. To the extent I contributed to derailing that, I atone. Gumshoe's contribution is evidence to me. If some don't consider it to be, that is their prerogative. Let's move on please. 

[roguefooter]

Skeptic questioning whether something is real or not is their own problem not mine, not yours anyone else and they will not define who I am or what anyone says about this thing. As I opined before this is the only place from which anybody can make a stand despite the all-consuming maw of a few here but as these photos prove once again, you do at you at your risk and know there are some that do not want know about this thing.  When this balloon was first floated the first Rembrandt hurled at me the poster was a piece of wood, somehow painting a picture of a photo that appeared to be a piece of wood. When that met resistance they come back something else hoping to undermine me or my character with every grunt from the cow shed and whether or not I seen what I say I saw.  So to clear up any “confusion†they may have caused the answer to that mystery rests with me not you.

 

Gumshoeye the only thing that you've done is show that you told a phony Bigfoot encounter story. This was not by the hand of anybody else here, this is by what you yourself wrote.  The only "hurdles" that you're facing is your own lack of honesty and lack of taking responsibility for it.

 

People on this site have spent a lot of time arguing that their personal experiences were 100% legitimate.  All you did was provide a solid example of why these 'experiences' could just be completely fabricated. Like I said before- honesty is everything in this field.

[Bonehead74]

Skeptic questioning whether something is real or not is their own problem not mine, not yours anyone else and they will not define who I am or what anyone says about this thing. As I opined before this is the only place from which anybody can make a stand despite the all-consuming maw of a few here but as these photos prove once again, you do at you at your risk and know there are some that do not want know about this thing.  When this balloon was first floated the first Rembrandt hurled at me the poster was a piece of wood, somehow painting a picture of a photo that appeared to be a piece of wood. When that met resistance they come back something else hoping to undermine me or my character with every grunt from the cow shed and whether or not I seen what I say I saw.  So to clear up any “confusion†they may have caused the answer to that mystery rests with me not you.

 

What does any of that actually mean? You write a lot but don't seem to be saying anything that addresses the root problem. All you've done is seemingly deflect (or ignore) the question of why you have given two mutually exclusive accounts of the events surrounding the photo.

 

I have never said you are a hoaxer or that the photo in question is a hoax. It is my opinion that the photo itself is ambiguous and no amount of analysis (of the photo itself) will change that. The image is simply not clear enough to be definitive, but I would venture a guess that you really do see a bigfoot in the picture. No problem there. As you have said yourself:

 

Seeing is believing my friend. If you tell me you see a piece broken wood, I get that.  Who am I tell you any differently? Your eyes will continue to see what it wants to see, just as your ears will hear what it wants to hear and you will believe or disbelieve what you want.

 

 

The stumbling block for me is that you first stated that you took the photo unaware that there were bigfoot in it, only noting "a quick glimpse of something darting from the trees." Three quotes from the Monroe Talks forum by member "whispers":

 

We came upon some very interesting wood formations complete with 8-10 inch round trees maybe 20 feet or longer bent or woven intricately into one another. There was a tepee type structure and it was there that I paused and told Bob, I heard a stick break off to my right. We both listened momentarily but nothing else followed. Usually when this occurs I will snap random photos from left to right. I had the instinctual feeling of being watched, and thought I caught a quick glimpse of something darting from the trees and noted that quietly.

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. 

I will typically set the camera on telephoto settings. I did not see the thing when I snapped the photo but wasted little time calling Bob that night when I found it. The exact location of the figure in the tree is where I pointed out to Bob when I heard a stick break. My camera is not the most expensive one, in fact, it is only a 7.1 pexils model but we do have access to a night IR device and Bob uses a real nice telephoto camera.  

The facial expression on the creature's face is of one of surprise .... It is my guess that when I panned left to right to photograph sweeping an area randomly I caught it just as it leaned out for a peek, and there it is on digital photo forever.  

 

 

Here in this thread you later made these statements which seem to contradict the ones quoted above:

 

Nope not a piece of wood either. It was definitely was a live breathing something... 

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.  

 

 

Which of these two accounts is correct? If it is simply a mistake of grammar, syntax, or vocabulary, why not state that clearly and correct the record? Instead, your responses seem to be those of someone who has chosen to play the victim and then you argue, deflect, ignore, and obfuscate when questions are raised. Either of your accounts I could (and would) consider objectively, but not both together when compared side-by-side. The inherent contradictions won't let me. Much like Fox Mulder, I, in a sense, want to believe. Unfortunately I am unable to because I cannot synthesize your two conflicting narratives. Please throw me (us) a bone and consider clearing up why the two accounts differ.

 

In deference to WSA's request above, I apologize to him for the further derail, and will look forward to your response on this matter (and the thoughts of other interested members) in the appropriate thread found here: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/49226-monroe-monster/

[gigantor]

I'll just say this about that....I started the thread to try and accumulate evidence of tree manipulations and wood structures. To the extent I contributed to derailing that, I atone. Gumshoe's contribution is evidence to me. If some don't consider it to be, that is their prerogative. Let's move on please. 

 

It seems to me that if a BF manipulated a tree by twisting it or breaking it, it would be wise to look for hair and other evidence. There should be footprints right by the tree...

 

IMO, this is the worst kind of "evidence", probably worst than howls and screams.

[bipedalist]

@bonehead74, noted the same conundrum I noted in perusing the other forum discussion, so as not to derail I will say this, when I requested BFRO S.E. tracking team to assist and vet my preliminary loose evidence on the trail to my sighting five months later, I was visited by three members, one of whom used the same technique of panorama digital telephoto shots in the vicinity of putative BF or BF sounds/noises.  I was treated to an example of an enlargement on my dining room table of a similar alleged shot of a "BF" not seen but putatively encountered because of situational awareness anecdotal concerns.  To me I did not see what was pointed out as being anything of a definitive nature.  I will not name names as I did not verbally start an inquisition with said reseacher at the time because "we" had bigger fish to fry and boots on the ground time ahead of us that afternoon/morning......I am not a fan of this technique and have never employed it despite it as being touted as something to do when you have that "feeling",  however unlike gigantor, I have documented enough changeable, predictable and creative stick art that I am not a doubter that it exists, I have never "seen" a BF around it's stick art and never really intend that anyone else will either, I think if that was their intent, they would not be leaving the sign.

 

Some think the sign is directional, communicative, navigational, symbolic, I think it is something restitutional meant for both them as art but mostly for us as a signpost, sort of like "kilroy was here" are you bright enough to pick up on it or are you like 90% of the rest of humanity and do not pay enough attention to the microenvironment of the woodlands to give a  ****?!  

 

Either way, exploring the woodland environment seeking this anecdotal evidence is worthy as is the topic of the thread.  

[Guest]

It seems to me that if a BF manipulated a tree by twisting it or breaking it, it would be wise to look for hair and other evidence. There should be footprints right by the tree...

 

IMO, this is the worst kind of "evidence", probably worst than howls and screams.

 

Have you ever collected foot tracks from leaves, sticks or trees? Short of taking a rake or leaf blower into the woods and blowing or removing generations thick of leaves and sticks off the floor, how would you propose this be accomplished?  Exactly how would you collect foot tracks in that environment pray tell?  Leave your phone number and we’ll call you the next time we go out and you can demonstrate that for us … By the way I plussed your post because it brought up a fair point about foot tracks.

I'll just say this about that....I started the thread to try and accumulate evidence of tree manipulations and wood structures. To the extent I contributed to derailing that, I atone. Gumshoe's contribution is evidence to me. If some don't consider it to be, that is their prerogative. Let's move on please. 

 

 

@WSA, you continue to do a remarkable job of keeping the thread on point which is feat of engineering lost on many us including me these days. Thanks!

Edited April 13, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

Clearly not the best photo but this was found and noted outside the location about 50 yards from the tree stump in a transition point from an agricultural field to the woods. This particular woods is located between two swampy lakes with a soy field and a grassy knoll fashioned in a “L†shape.  The week or two before the photos were taken we experienced heavy summer rains and I would guess the impression was at least week old perhaps two. The impression measured approximately 17 inches or thereabout.

Information and remarks above in previous post.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[WSA]

Gigantor, obviously I would disagree with your dismissal of this stuff. While it is the kind of evidence that can't be hard-linked (as much) to putative Sasquatch activity, what makes it so compelling to me is the durability of some of it, the number of documented instances, and (most importantly) the lack of any plausible or coherent explanation for it.  For me, it falls here on the list of compelling evidence:

 

1. PGF

2. Track evidence (excluding known and obvious fakes)

3. Congruency and duration of sighting reports

4. Wood assemblages/structures/manipulations

 

As more and more attempts to explain these things fall short of satisfying me, it continues to rise in importance.

 

Behind my curiosity is the fact that I've lived almost six decades in wooded environments (N.,S.,W. and S.E. N.A.) I don't hold myself out as some kind of tree-whisper, but some of my earliest and best memories involved time spent around and in trees. I could describe for you in detail the trees I knew as a child, their species, their height, their other peculiarities, how they grew over the years, how they sounded in the wind, how they smelled,  how weather and time changed them...the list of things I know about them is endless. When I go outside, to this day, I usually spend as much time looking up at trees as I do at the ground.  I've cut trees my whole life too, for fuel, to clear land, to maintain foot trails, in my grandfather's sawmill, and this doesn't even include time spent making sawdust in my woodshop building furniture and learning to be intimate with wood movement and grains of all species. Whenever I see a tree that has been unthinkingly  and unnecessarily felled, especially those cut to satisfy human convenience or vanity, it pushes all my buttons.  This just by way of saying I have more than a normal (I think) appreciation of what trees do on their own, and don't do, and what weather and time can do to a tree, or not.

 

And what I've concluded from all I've seen and heard about is that what is being documented is something truly beyond my experience. I want to know as much about it as I can, and see if somebody can either tell me what is going on, or I can figure it out on my own.  So far, the theory of non-H.S. agency is leading the pack of contenders...by a couple of lengths. 

 

I'd also "second" Gumshoe's observation about track evidence. If you believe it is that simple, it tells me you are probably not qualified to pass judgment on many things that happen, or don't happen, under a forest canopy. I don't mean this as any kind of personal jab...we all have our weaknesses and blind spots, and this might be one of yours, I don't know. If I misunderstood your comment, please just let me know. His photo though tells me he is looking for everything he can, and possibly finding the kind of verification you think should be there, but I have to say it looks more like he just got lucky that there was a medium around that would take a print. The vast expanse of forest floor is not so well pre-disposed.  The far likelier circumstance is there would have been nothing else to help document what was going on.

Edited April 13, 2015 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

I just wish that skeptics of all stripes would start recognizing the breadth and depth of real-world skills and knowledge and plain old bootsole verification the proponents bring to this area of study.

 

Not picking on anyone in particular.  (Far as gigantor is concerned:  if you are investing in camera traps, for this purpose, and going on field trips to serve and place cams...and furthermore acknowledging a rather anomalous thing that happened to you on one such trip, that squares well with a lot of encounter reports...you are aces in my book.  Never mind being a techsleuth on this site, mind you.)

 

WSA and I were in-country sometime around this time last year.  We noticed a number of tree breaks that didn't seem accountable by The Usual Suspects.  I will take a back seat to WSA on practically every aspect of tree knowledge other than my feeling that trees are wilder than pretty much anything else; but even I could see that the usual explanations didn't, well, *explain* what I was seeing.  Bonobos use vegetation for similar purposes to those alleged here; they just have more pithy as opposed to woody stuff to do it with.  It's not like we don't know primates do this.

 

I'd want to be open to curiosity; and to remember that one of two things is keeping us from the truth here:  either its ability to fool us...or just our ignorance, take your pick.

The only reason ignoramuses like Homo sapiens got tangled in something like science in the first place is that science is fun; it pushes our happy buttons and drives and serves one of our most important traits:  our curiosity about the world.

 

Which abandons many of us at the funniest times.

To answer your question though RF, let me ask you one back: Why wouldn't it?  But that answer doesn't disguise the reality of it being equally inconclusive, as it is only one report. The evidence is cumulative, and if there is a scratched record being played here by me and some others, that is probably it.  Endlessly chasing after the next hoax perpetrator is certainly exhilarating for some of us, but it accomplishes exactly bupkiss for advancing the general knowledge in this field. You won't see any serious researcher spending much time doing it. They are too busy looking at the much bigger picture. Try it, it is pretty fun. Instead, if you want to burn up your time staffing the Hoax Police, by all means go with your flow, but my point was only it serves mostly to keep those from sharing interesting stuff on this site.  

 

...and I had to go up there and cite this.  

 

Science *does not work and never has and thank Frigga never will from the presumption that people lie or are stupid and stuff is fakey fakey fake until proven.*  Did I really really really have to say that here?

 

People that are constantly hounding the proponents for proof proof proof, while chasing clouds in their coffee that they proclaim fact fact fact because they haven't put any air vents in that box lately seem to be forgetting something:  as to proof, the proponents are doing far, far better than you.  And that's why they're the only people in this field that smart people should listen to.

Edited April 13, 2015 by DWA