Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

[Rockape]

Seems more likely to me the wind caused it.

[Branco]

 

 

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

 

Yeah, me too; but we're discussing tree manipulations.

 

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.

 

Well, if the evidence shows that "something - with hands -grabbing it and twisting it" made the break; the break alone was NOT good enough, was it?

 

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

 

If it's a tree of any significant size (2 to 6 inches or so), and it shows the very typical bark abrasions above the break covering areas the size of a BF's hand(s), then it was likely done by a BF. In that case, the break would have been explained, but the break alone, unless it showed pronounced twisting of the wood fibers, would not carry much evidentiary weight. (A single tree broken by snow or ice loading, with it's fall being deflected and and the interior grain twisted by the limbs or trunk of a larger tree nearby during the process could be erroneously attributed to BF unless the observer had actually watched the tree falling. The twisted break itself would not be sufficient evidence to conclude it was felled and twisted by a BF. )

 

 

 

 

Branco, on 30 Oct 2015 - 9:07 PM, said:

 

It would have taken a heck of a strong man to have twisted off that limb, and if he did, the bark on the part of the limb his hands were placed to apply the torque would be worn smooth. The wider hands of a BF could have twisted off the limb with less noticeable damage simply because less grasping pressure per sq in would be required.  

 

My earlier point:  one isn't looking for evidence above and below the break; the break is enough...

 

The only real evidence would be ABOVE the break, that part of tree that is pulled to, or toward the ground, and on the ground where BF tracks or impressions would have been left when the breakage was done. (If BF was the cause of the break - and the break was fairly fresh - there would have tracks or impressions, unless of course the tree was growing through or beside bare-surfaced rock(s).  

 

and in fact it is MORE LIKELY! that a human would leave such evidence than a sasquatch.

 

 

Are you referring to tree or limb breaks? You gotta mean little limbs. :-)

 

Many, many times in the Ouachita Mountains I have - while walking or driving - noticed Black Cherry trees with ripened fruit and freshly broken limbs and/or parts of the trunk(s) lying on the ground. In the majority of those cases fresh bear claw marks on the trees indicated the source of the damages. In a very few cases, large cherry trees were found during the ripe season with fresh broken limbs in the tops of the trees, but those limbs were not thrown to the ground, but woven through the intact limbs. The black cherries were nearly stripped from the broken limbs and there was clear evidence on the intact limbs - now bent noticeably - that something heavy had sat on them, breaking and flatting the smaller limbs and twigs on those limbs. On those tree trunks there were no claw marks, but the bark and larger limbs near the trunks were abraded in numerous places. At each of the latter locations, the ground surrounding the trees was covered by rocks and small boulders, some of which were partial displaced, mostly near the tree trunks.

 

Bear often climb to the tops of White Oak trees when the acorns are ripe and break or bend large limbs, I believe they actually do that to shake the acorns loose and eat them on the ground. 

Edited November 1, 2015 by Branco

[Faenor]

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that a human could have broken this branch in the same way by hanging on the end of it? This is by far a more likely explanation.

I think everyone knows this and I think deep down they know it's not Bigfoot breaking these branches. But it's fun to pretend and suspend disbelief and with such scant evidence available broken branches can be exciting evidence of Bigfoot.

[hiflier]

Hello Nakani,

 

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that a human could have broken this branch in the same way by hanging on the end of it? This is by far a more likely explanation.

I don't think "everyone" is ignoring the fact at all.

@ Faenor,

Again with the "everyone" term? And how can anyone think they know what "everyone" knows "deep down"? Your post seems more like a not-very-well-veiled statement promoting non-existence. Hmmm, clever but not too. This is a discussion supposedly focused on the branch break- not the people in the discussion and what they believe. The physical evidence of the break is what is important.

Edited November 2, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

If it wasn't obvious what I meant, and sorry but I really thought it was:  of course a broken limb isn't enough.  How many things TWIST a limb in breaking it?

I thought that "unless it showed pronounced twisting of the wood fibers" was clearly implied.

ln fact it was *stated*:  "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."

[Guest]

Hiflier,

Ok, I wasn't referring to everyone in the world, "everyone" was the people in the current conversation, ie. DWA, Branco and WSA. I thought that was obvious.

[Branco]

Hiflier,

Ok, I wasn't referring to everyone in the world, "everyone" was the people in the current conversation, ie. DWA, Branco and WSA. I thought that was obvious.

Just to clear up something. When I wrote that "the limb" would be hard to break by a human, I had erroneously concluded the tree was a Saw-Toothed Oak because the leaves in the photo were all oval shaped. After the witness e-mailed me photos of random groups of the leaves it became obvious the tree was in fact a Sassafras, That being the case, I do not doubt that a human (or humans) could have twisted it into the shape that it was found, if they worked hard enough. 

 

But why in the devil would any sane human do that just for the heck of it, especially between midnight and 7:30 am? (There are four published BF reports from Tipton County on the BFRO web site and three others that have not been investigated.) The west boundary of Tipton County (and TN) is the MS River. It is only about ten crow miles from the witness's home to the river and the Lower Hatchie Wildlife Refuge. I don't know what twisted that limb, but there are certainly two suspects, one not wearing clothes..

Edited November 2, 2015 by Branco

[WSA]

As tree breaks go, this is not the most astounding example, granted. I agree with Branco's  revised conclusion... Sassafras is not outside the realm of  human capabilities. Like so much of the evidence though, context is everything. Tossing out the context is a favorite tactic of many, and it does allow you bring the probabilities of non-human agency down to close to zero. I find there is not much in this life I can't explain if I get to tweak the realities in this way. That doesn't help provide answers though, at least not meaningful ones.

[Guest]

Hiflier,

Ok, I wasn't referring to everyone in the world, "everyone" was the people in the current conversation, ie. DWA, Branco and WSA. I thought that was obvious.

Just to clear up something. When I wrote that "the limb" would be hard to break by a human, I had erroneously concluded the tree was a Saw-Toothed Oak because the leaves in the photo were all oval shaped. After the witness e-mailed me photos of random groups of the leaves it became obvious the tree was in fact a Sassafras, That being the case, I do not doubt that a human (or humans) could have twisted it into the shape that it was found, if they worked hard enough. 

 

But why in the devil would any sane human do that just for the heck of it, especially between midnight and 7:30 am? (There are four published BF reports from Tipton County on the BFRO web site and three others that have not been investigated.) The west boundary of Tipton County (and TN) is the MS River. It is only about ten crow miles from the witness's home to the river and the Lower Hatchie Wildlife Refuge. I don't know what twisted that limb, but there are certainly two suspects, one not wearing clothes..

Teenage human males for the most part are not sane, especially when females are present. Have you visited the youtube website? There is a huge "lets do stupid stuff" culture started by MTV with shows like Jack***. I have two suspects as well, teenagers or teenagers without clothes.

[WSA]

I will just say the reason for my OP was to see how much of this stuff is out there, and what congruency might be evident when analyzed.  The fact that a tree somewhere had a broken limb, no matter the size, doesn't qualify as anything newsworthy, I would agree. That any one of us  could propose a plausible more mundane scenario for one branch being broken, on any given tree, at any given time, is also not really controversial. BUT, as I said, disregarding the context of evidence allows for lots of discussion that is not really helpful.  Treating each one of hundreds of examples as "isolated incidents" or "one-off" occurrences is a way to pass right over what is truly significant and intriguing about this body of evidence.

[Branco]

Nakani: OK, "stupid, insane human males - possibly without clothes and accompanied by females" may have twisted "the limb". NO, I haven't visited youtube web sites. 

[Guest]

I will just say the reason for my OP was to see how much of this stuff is out there, and what congruency might be evident when analyzed.  The fact that a tree somewhere had a broken limb, no matter the size, doesn't qualify as anything newsworthy, I would agree. That any one of us  could propose a plausible more mundane scenario for one branch being broken, on any given tree, at any given time, is also not really controversial. BUT, as I said, disregarding the context of evidence allows for lots of discussion that is not really helpful.  Treating each one of hundreds of examples as "isolated incidents" or "one-off" occurrences is a way to pass right over what is truly significant and intriguing about this body of evidence.

Treating each of of these breaks as an isolated incident is the only way to investigate. You can't say, look a thousand branches are broken, some must have been Bigfoot. Only by looking at each one individually, can you determine whether or not it's evidence of Bigfoot.

[WSA]

You may say you disagree, but saying it is the only way is patently incorrect.

I would also propose, as many have, that this myopia is probably one of the biggest obstacles for science in coming to grips with the evidence.

 

Let me also point out the law has no problems whatsoever with addressing evidence in this manner. It is called, "pattern and practice." It is merely the recognition that truth is evident in the number of recurring similar events. Only in this field does it seem to be treated like some kind of radical proposal. Quite the opposite. 

Edited November 2, 2015 by WSA

[Guest]

Nakani: OK, "stupid, insane human males - possibly without clothes and accompanied by females" may have twisted "the limb". NO, I haven't visited youtube web sites. 

I'm not saying its the only explanation but is a good possibility. Check out Youtube and type something like "teens acting stupid" into the search, you will be overwhelmed with videos. I'd bet if you examined some of the local youth's social media, a cell phone video of the incident would be there.

[dmaker]

You may say you disagree, but saying it is the only way is patently incorrect.

I would also propose, as many have, that this myopia is probably one of the biggest obstacles for science in coming to grips with the evidence.

 

Let me also point out the law has no problems whatsoever with addressing evidence in this manner. It is called, "pattern and practice." It is merely the recognition that truth is evident in the number of recurring similar events. Only in this field does it seem to be treated like some kind of radical proposal. Quite the opposite. 

Law approaches evidence different than science. This has been pointed out many, many times here.