Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

[WSA]

The idea of the omnipotent hoaxer: Proving people believe in things far more unrealistic and improbable than a Bigfoot, on way scantier evidence.

 

So Shadowborn, how does it feel to have your own personal hoaxer(s), just waiting to throw up a wood construct as soon as he/they realize you might come back there, at any time between then and, oh, the next five years? Or never. I'd like to get my own PA who could anticipate my needs to that extent, and expend that level of energy just to make sure my life was interesting, hmm? What would you pay?

[Guest Crowlogic]

^ It doesn't have to be a hoaxer although footers have a certain right to be paranoid about them.  It can and incredibly far more likely the work of humans as I demonstrated.  As with everything in bigfootism there is nothing to confirm things like structures being made by bigfoot.  No hair, not tracks, not nothing.  Fell free to post your evidence that run's counter to my argument.

[Guest WesT]

Wes

I that not the purpose? to raise awareness to what is happening in our wilderness and to tell the difference between what is made between man and beast. I also agree with what MIB is saying as well , that if it was not for the internet we would have not known about these stick formations.

 

I'll have to agree with what MIB was saying also. If the creature exists, it's reasonable to assume it manipulates it's environment. He is also correct that if it were not for the internet I would have never known about stick structures or environmental manipulation.

 

That we would have not even gone to investigate them and learned some thing from them that some could have been made by man and that some could have been made by these creatures. Our problem is learning to know the difference of who made them. 

 

Yes, knowing what to look for is the key. 

 

We just cannot go out and say that these structures were made by these creatures when man can make them as well.

 

I'm more interested in who or what hunts in the manner that I had found. Now anyways.

 

It depends on how we interpret the formations and our findings surrounding the formations. Like have there been encounters in these areas, or have there been prints found in these areas that cannot be explain ect. ect ect.... Even a upclose sighting would  do while staking out these structures  that confirm that these structure were meant by them. This type of clarification would be ideal  that shows that yes they were used by these creatures. Just my opinion.

 

All I can say is, whatever chattered at me on the way out one evening after taking some pics , didn't sound happy, or human.

[WSA]

I'm thinking there are those about here who don't get out to the woods all that often...and who would probably understand the distinctions of what we are discussing here if they did.

[ShadowBorn]

So Shadowborn, how does it feel to have your own personal hoaxer(s), just waiting to throw up a wood construct as soon as he/they realize you might come back there, at any time between then and, oh, the next five years? Or never. I'd like to get my own PA who could anticipate my needs to that extent, and expend that level of energy just to make sure my life was interesting, hmm? What would you pay?

WSA

Being hoaxed personally, well I just have to learn that yes that there are people out there trying to fool one senses. That they will do there best at working harder to destroying what could be leading one to the truth. But who is to say that these hoaxers have not had their own encounters in areas that I or we have been researching? That there own trickery is now back firing on them when they and if they do go and create these structures ?

 

This is why I like going in places where no one likes to travel. The thicker it is and the darker it is the better it works out for me. Why would anyone want to travel in these places just so that they can do their trickery. Why leave half prints  near these tree formations as though some thing real step there like what a human foot would do as if it walk through there. I mean is there such a thing as a professional hoaxer who travels around the US? If I see hoaxing I am going to call it hoax if that is what it is. If we find hoaxing then we should call it out, since there are many forms of hoaxing. It is knowing the difference and how to interpret.  I do not like to be hoaxed at all and when I find out I will do things to figure out if I am. Hidden camera on trails , my dog who will alert me of humans. Like most hoaxers they cannot resist to return so hiding out is not a bad idea either. But when you get the unexplained then what, what are we left with? some thing that is real, that we cannot explain why. 

 

I see blocked trails that force people to walk into the forest and around the block trail that was not done by wind damage. If one is not familiar with the forest it is very easy to get turned around and get lost. I see these knock downs on trails like they or some thing does not want people to enter that part of the forest. Now I can connect the dots but what about people who cannot , and see these structures on these trails. I mean these trees did not just fall  or were in that area but placed there as though they were meant to stop one from going further. They are weaved in such a way that it cost worked to do to create these blockage. I can not place a hoaxer doing this type of work just to fool some one, what purpose does it serve them to block trails. The skeptic will say it is because the hoaxer have seen this done in reports so why not fool people with this. But like I have said , it is to much work to carry these trees just to block these trails. To me it just does not make sense just like it does not make sense to what BigTreeWalker has said about his findings and as well as what Wes has said. To much trouble to go through all this work to perform these hoaxes around the US just so that they can get their kicks of with no reward.

[BigTreeWalker]

The OP was a question about 'structures' not 'shelters'. Sure I've seen the YouTube videos about shelters being attributed to bigfoot and I'm thinking that a lot of those wouldn't know the difference between a hatchet cut and a break. If bigfoot is responsible for stuctures (and I know the type WSA was referring to) none would provide the cover of a shelter. Showing a bunch of known human made shelters doesn't even come close to answering the questions of how and why some of these stuctures are made in remote areas, because as everyone knows context is important. I can understand the purpose of obvious trail obstructions. What I don't understand is the larger structures. Supposition is the best we can do. For all I know it could just be the adults playing with their kids.

[ShadowBorn]

For all I know it could just be the adults playing with their kids.

 Or how about this idea since we are just speculating about these larger structures. But what if they use them as play pens for their kids to build their strengths as they grow to be adults. You know just pushing idea's , like a skill builder for their kids. lets say that they do have some type of ape in them, that they use the trees for cover. Lets say they have some caring by their human side so they will protect their young ones , so they build these structures as skill developers. It is stretching  but can it be doable? If they have human, then human hair does not shed or come of that easy does it? I have searched the structures that I have found and have never found a single hair, or even fur from any animal. But yet prints do not get found in that area but a few yards away from the structures and that is walking a radius with a gps and then marking.

 

Now I have only taken a few people there and I know that they are not hoaxers and no one knows where I will be hiking, since I hike off the trail and use a compass, but now know these woods . But I still carry my GPS and compass just to be safe. These structures can also be a show of force, by placing large logs and weaving them like pencils. They can mean to just stay out, this is my hunting area. I know that When I walked up on a deer ambush at sunset and was growled at I think these structures were started. I am talking about the tee's pee's and the X's .

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I would say that Bigfoot occasionally makes shelters but I would doubt other types of structures.

Trail markers would be the exception.

Radial breaks of twisted of cordage and saplings would be what I would be looking for.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

PS: here is the only logical evaluation of a possible structure I have seen.

http://www.bfro.net/ref/fieldres/sasquatchnest.asp

[BigTreeWalker]

It was a good review. Someone did take the time to do it right. But I did notice of all the nests mentioned, most were simple beds with material stacked up as the Olympic Project has found. Some were partially roofed. Meaning they didn't provide much protection from the elements. The one that was roofed and the one they spent the most time reviewing was interesting. They did take the time to do a thorough examination of the area. The rest were as they said unfinished, a few limbs leaning against the tree or roofless.

I shy away from broken twisted trees along roads. They didn't mention the context. As I said it is important. But in the majority of higher elevation areas along roads, the smaller trees are backed by larger trees and snow damage is the most likely culprit. Some even end up with great looking multiple twists from initial winter damage to more winter damage in following years.

[Guest WesT]

I would say that Bigfoot occasionally makes shelters but I would doubt other types of structures.

Trail markers would be the exception.

Radial breaks of twisted of cordage and saplings would be what I would be looking for.

Actually Thomas Steenberg made an appearance in this thread a while back and posted a video, looks like the same one you just posted. Anyways, I can believe he's never come across anything he couldn't explain regarding structures and such.

 

Those human made blinds are hilarious. I know of a much better way to get the job done than that.

 

While structures, trail markers, and radial beaks and twist are interesting, they pale in comparison to finding an ambush set up.imo.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Why an ambush set up if not a big game predator is the next logical progression, though.

 

Natural history would support scavenging of carcasses and an occasional opportunistic kill but mostly fawns, etc.

Blinds imply a more methodical and taught approach.

 

Not an implication I support, but it's a free world and if you're doing actual research, the more power to you.

Science has to accept negative posits as well, if the theory does not pan out (predator)

Edited June 3, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

Cryptic, you still have a problem with that word 'predator'. There are full time predators such as the big cats and wolves. Then there are the occasional predators such as bears, chimps, most scavengers and even some herbivores. If they needed to use primitive tools, clubs of wood or rocks, would we even be able to recognize them as such?

I have to wonder where in your own mind bigfoot fits in. One paragraph you are equating them with primitive humans. The next they must be North American gorillas. Because that seems to be the mental capabilities you want to fit them in with. If they were, they would have been 'discovered' years ago.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Cryptic, you still have a problem with that word 'predator'. There are full time predators such as the big cats and wolves. Then there are the occasional predators such as bears, chimps, most scavengers and even some herbivores. If they needed to use primitive tools, clubs of wood or rocks, would we even be able to recognize them as such?

I have to wonder where in your own mind bigfoot fits in. One paragraph you are equating them with primitive humans. The next they must be North American gorillas. Because that seems to be the mental capabilities you want to fit them in with. If they were, they would have been 'discovered' years ago.

Actually you are misquoting me as that isn't at all what I say.

I assume it is an honest misunderstanding. 

 

Predator is a pretty specific word, and applies to very specific species such as wolves, mountain lions, etc.

It does not apply to hominids or humans, as that is not what applies.

 

As applied by biologists it means an animal that has evolved primarily as a meat eater for it's primary (meat) food source.

 

Just because you want to make a case that Bigfoot is a predator does not make it so.

 

As I did state, it goes against natural science.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

Sorry, since my background is biology, the word you're looking for is carnivore. And yes if you use that word there is a difference between omnivores and carnivores. If that is the word you are wanting to use then I agree with you. Though bigfoot may occasionally be carnivorous, it's main diet is probably a mixture of herbs and meat in whatever form, an omnivore.