Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

[Guest DWA]

My brother once ran across a grove of saplings in the Monongahela NF that had been torn up by something big, pretty obviously, to him, an animal.  He presumed bear.

 

Bear don't do that, generally.

[ExTrumpet]

If someone/something is grabbing and twisting a tree--or pulling it down, there should be evidence of where the tree was grabbed.  Has anyone seen any marks above the twists/breaks?

[Guest]

DWA,

What about deer or elk fighting? I know a couple of moose can make a heck of a mess. Is there any chance it wasn't Bigfoot, and instead it was two elk in the rut?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Nakani

[Rockape]

Just how badly badly do you need to catch up in your reading and thinking?

 

 

If you disagree:

 

More than you can conceive.

 

And you, um, haven't been here long.  Hey...maybe *you're* my 15-y-o...

One more time gang!

 

If the break shows evidence that cannot be linked to any cause other than something - with hands - grabbing it and twisting it:  THE BREAK IS ENOUGH.

 

 

There you go, calling other members stupid again. Can you make a post that doesn't involve insulting members with a different opinion than yours?

[Guest WesT]

If someone/something is grabbing and twisting a tree--or pulling it down, there should be evidence of where the tree was grabbed. Has anyone seen any marks above the twists/breaks?

Says who?

Say's Branco a few pages back. And common sense. Checking for sign of wear is how I figured out the purpose of the structure I shared here. I can't stress enough how important it is to examine these things closely.

[Guest DWA]

Common sense says what *I* said:  I have broken many things for which the only evidence that I broke it ...was the break.

 

If the break shows evidence that cannot be linked to any cause other than something - with hands - grabbing it and twisting it:  THE BREAK IS ENOUGH.

 

If you cannot explain the break...THE BREAK IS ENOUGH to postulate an explanation ...scientists don't accept yet.

[ExTrumpet]

 

Common sense says what *I* said:  I have broken many things for which the only evidence that I broke it ...was the break.

 

If the break shows evidence that cannot be linked to any cause other than something - with hands - grabbing it and twisting it:  THE BREAK IS ENOUGH.

 

If you cannot explain the break...THE BREAK IS ENOUGH to postulate an explanation ...scientists don't accept yet.

 

 

Actually, the break only shows that it is broken.

[Guest DWA]

Not to people who, ya know, understand this stuff.  Stick around here, talk to folks, learn stuff.  There are a very limited number of ways a twisted break happens, the more limited the bigger the branch, and narrowing down not that difficult.

[Incorrigible1]

Oh, brother.

[Guest WesT]

Common sense says what *I* said: I have broken many things for which the only evidence that I broke it ...was the break.

Yes, I'm sure we all have. But that's not really what we're talking about here. Is it. This isn't the same as knocking the lamp over.

[Guest DWA]

What caused the break?  is the central question.  What is above or below the break doesn't matter.  Sometimes there will be evidence...and sometimes there will not.

It is allowed and in fact demanded by science to categorize the "we don't knows" on what we *do* know; rack and stack as we can; ...and if we need more evidence, keep looking.

If one has no other possible explanations than "something with hands...and we haven't met a human who can do it, nor is one likely to exist," one certainly has that pretext to keep looking.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,
 

...If you cannot explain the break...THE BREAK IS ENOUGH to postulate an explanation ...scientists don't accept yet.

(My bold and underline)

 

Key word here is "postulate". You can define that word if you wish but I don't think it means proof in anybody's dictionary, eh? We can leave it at that unless you want to bash some more scientists, or insult some more members, which I've seen you do both of for over two years now. In light of that I STILL say investigating the area is an extremely important thing to do before ANY conclusions are arrived at. It's very critical to maintain a strong "beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt" mindset or tree-break reports can just go on the pile of unsupported "evidence" no matter how much one thinks T/B's say Sasquatch.

 

There needs to be more- much more- at the scene to conclude that it was a Bigfoot. Bears climb trees which can break. Saying it's Sasquatch simply because it's broken is pie in the sky, my friend, no matter what. One needs to be sensible about such things. IOW.......THINK! Look at the area and look at the tree above and below the break  for evidence supporting a Sasquatch doing the damage. Can't stress that enough.....you wanna talk science? THAT"S science. 

[Incorrigible1]

Classic example that sometimes people default to a predetermined conclusion.

[Rockape]

Not to people who, ya know, understand this stuff.  Stick around here, talk to folks, learn stuff.  There are a very limited number of ways a twisted break happens, the more limited the bigger the branch, and narrowing down not that difficult.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50874-wellhmmmm-what-have-we-here/

[WSA]

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/ReportImages/21240twistedlimb.jpg

Getting back to this previously posted report, can anyone identify this species of tree? It looks familiar, but I'm not positive? Could it be a sourwood? 

 

When you look at the close-up of the broken sections, it becomes obvious it was a  torsion break, caused by the application of a twisting force. I don't believe I've ever seen any such kind of break in a limb of that size. You can of course do that on a smaller branch with a wringing motion applied by two hands. To do this with a branch this size would require a force of a magnitude greater, I would think.