Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

[ShadowBorn]

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.

CM

 what is it that goes against natural science? When I hunt I see my self as a predator, being very selective at what I am hunting. I set up my ambush spot  since this what us hunters are doing especially if we are bow hunting. Just by its mere definition predator which means:

 

pred·a·tor

/ˈpredədər/

noun

noun: predator; plural noun: predators

1.

an animal that naturally preys on others.

"wolves are major predators of rodents"

 

2.

a person or group that ruthlessly exploits others.

"a website frequented by sexual predators

 

So who is to say that these structures do not have some thing to do with the way that they hunt, we do not know. This is the point of the thread to gain understanding as to why they create these structures. Some thing make them and there must be a purpose for them that we have not figured out. Maybe Wes is on the right track about what he believes that they might be used for. But how would we or how could we test this theory to see if he is right. If we cannot get a creature on a slab then why not test what is being found and see if it is true. If these structures are being used for ambushing, then it should work for us as human. We should be able to use these ideas during hunting season and see if they work. Will we get closer to game using their ideas and being primitive at ambushing. I have often thought about how still the creature must have been that was on this ledge, well hidden of this trail or bottle neck where deer would go into their bedding. They knew the deer patterns so all they had to do was sit still and wait and pounce them. I learned this when I was growled at and went back a month later I believe and found this ledge a dew feet away from this trail on a hill. You can lay low and no one could see you on that ledge, to me this was smart. No need for a tree stand and if the wind blew the scent was the soil coming from the hill. So yes I do see things differently then others and have often thought of hunting this ridge my self to see what would happen. Just to prove my theory on how they ambush deer except I would use my bow. 

[Guest WesT]

Blinds imply a more methodical and taught approach.

 

Oh my first reaction was, no way! It had me bumfuzzled for a long time, shook my head a lot. I hadn't ever heard of such a thing, can't be true. But then again, these things may have already been documented by a research group that doesn't share information. I don't know.

[BigTreeWalker]

We shouldn't rule out a lifetime of learned behavior either. If they tried something once they may remember and try it again.

Simply discarding the possibility that they could occasionally be ambush predators also throws out a lot of related evidence that goes along with it.

[ShadowBorn]

We shouldn't rule out a lifetime of learned behavior either. If they tried something once they may remember and try it again.

Simply discarding the possibility that they could occasionally be ambush predators also throws out a lot of related evidence that goes along with it.

Thank You BigTreeWalker

Those few words mean a lot ! it says a lot about research that is miss or maybe ignored, who knows?

[salubrious]

On a recent trip I encountered this near my campsite, which was pretty remote (Polebridge, in northwestern Montana being the closest town). It was easier to make a short movie than to just take photos. There is a lot going on here- glyphs, 'X's, hoops; the entire area was ringed. After spending so much time in the area, I had seen a lot of Xs and hoops (bent trees) but this site had all that plus the geometric patterns on the ground.

 

While in the area I heard woodknocks and rock clacks plus something that sounded a lot like drumming (which seemed to start up after the sun set). Its safe to say I was the only human for miles- I was in a National Forest campground called Tuchuck (http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/flathead/recreation/recarea/?recid=66272&actid=29), which is east of the Whitefish Divide a few miles. I had the entire campground to myself.

 

 

trees.MOV

[BigTreeWalker]

That's wild rugged country you're in there salubrious! I've been in Glacier NP, and around Hungryhorse and Flathead Lake several times. Great country there.

Those geometric shapes look like someone was really busy in the area. And I don't mean people! Thanks for sharing those.

It's great to have the whole place to yourself. We've recorded some stick drumming activity where we research in WA.

[Guest WesT]

I stopped it at the :22 mark and grinned. I've had a hunch for a while now that my avatar has something to do with hunting. My train of thought was, if it were scaled up, and game was corralled to run through it in a panic, they would break their leg. Lo and behold, there it is. If it's not an ambush set up, then it's missing out on a good opportunity to be one.

They are very easy to overlook and you have to look close to find evidence of their purpose.

[Guest cag1961]

I'm curious if any of you have ever seen anything like this, that is located in water? This photo was taken by myself back in the spring on a lake here in north west Alabama. Its located in the back of a slough off the main lake that has no houses and is about 80 yards off the main lake. The structure is surrounded by a log jam and should be in about four feet of water at summer pool and about one to two feet at winter pool. The vertical stakes are made from driftwood and as far as I can tell so is the rest of the structure. I've asked other fisherman if they knew any reason someone would build something like this and they all told me they'd never seen anything like it before. I at first thought it might be a stake bed for crappie, but I've never seen one made of driftwood before. Back before I found this I was fishing out on the main lake about 100 yards from this slough and something came out of the trees and hit the motor on my bass boat, leaving a scratch, but other than that nothing else heard or seen

[Guest magnum peditum]

Hopefully I don't repeat a thought. But it would be interesting to consider heavy/dense forest areas that are very likely NOT bigfoot sustainable areas and see the same phenomenon. This would be dense forest areas isolated by highways for instance, that are relatively small and very unlikely to have a BF or BF activity.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 6/4/2016 at 3:06 PM, BigTreeWalker said:

We shouldn't rule out a lifetime of learned behavior either. If they tried something once they may remember and try it again.

Simply discarding the possibility that they could occasionally be ambush predators also throws out a lot of related evidence that goes along with it.

Our pre homo Australopithecines relaties probably occasionally did ambush hunt.

My guess is they wouldn't go head to head with an elk though.

Probably prefered an easier kill such as a fawn.

I read somewhere that Bigfoot kills by suffocation such as a bear hug or pressing the wind out of you with his paws.

The first rule for a predator is not to hunt prey that will injure it.

Cause animals have no hospitals so a serious wound, broken leg, gouged eye can wind up being fatal which really is not what you want when going out to dine.

 

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 6/3/2016 at 11:04 PM, ShadowBorn said:

CM

 what is it that goes against natural science? When I hunt I see my self as a predator, being very selective at what I am hunting. I set up my ambush spot  since this what us hunters are doing especially if we are bow hunting. Just by its mere definition predator which means:

 

pred·a·tor

/ˈpredədər/

noun

noun: predator; plural noun: predators

1.

an animal that naturally preys on others.

"wolves are major predators of rodents"

 

2.

a person or group that ruthlessly exploits others.

"a website frequented by sexual predators

 

So who is to say that these structures do not have some thing to do with the way that they hunt, we do not know. This is the point of the thread to gain understanding as to why they create these structures. Some thing make them and there must be a purpose for them that we have not figured out. Maybe Wes is on the right track about what he believes that they might be used for. But how would we or how could we test this theory to see if he is right. If we cannot get a creature on a slab then why not test what is being found and see if it is true. If these structures are being used for ambushing, then it should work for us as human. We should be able to use these ideas during hunting season and see if they work. Will we get closer to game using their ideas and being primitive at ambushing. I have often thought about how still the creature must have been that was on this ledge, well hidden of this trail or bottle neck where deer would go into their bedding. They knew the deer patterns so all they had to do was sit still and wait and pounce them. I learned this when I was growled at and went back a month later I believe and found this ledge a dew feet away from this trail on a hill. You can lay low and no one could see you on that ledge, to me this was smart. No need for a tree stand and if the wind blew the scent was the soil coming from the hill. So yes I do see things differently then others and have often thought of hunting this ridge my self to see what would happen. Just to prove my theory on how they ambush deer except I would use my bow. 

You're mixing up the semantics of predator versus predation.

You can act in a predatory fashion but are not classified as a predator by natural science. Do some research on that.

The reason man is becoming much more predatory than the rest of the family tree is the recent invention of spears.

Before that you would have had to kill your meat with your hands and since hominids were primarily scavengers of predator kills and not the source of the kill, of course we killed small game, birds, fish, small animals but till we evolved a killing technology we had no way to kill a large mammal.

If you doubt it go grab a moose, it will stomp you to death in about 10 seconds.

Then you are faced with dismembering the carcass, your fruit and vegetation adapted teeth are not even able to chew through the hide.

So you wait for it to rot and get torn up by other scavengers and then go grab a ham hock, bang it off with a sharp stone, and book it before big daddy predator returns to his kill.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

46 minutes ago, magnum peditum said:

Hopefully I don't repeat a thought. But it would be interesting to consider heavy/dense forest areas that are very likely NOT bigfoot sustainable areas and see the same phenomenon. This would be dense forest areas isolated by highways for instance, that are relatively small and very unlikely to have a BF or BF activity.

Yea, BF is thought to need an extensive range of many hundreds of square miles.

In the upland rainforest mountains you will not get many roads except for logging and those tend to be abandoned or seldom used once the logging is accomplished. If the Forest Service does not restrict the area completely...

[BigTreeWalker]

4 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Our pre homo Australopithecines relaties probably occasionally did ambush hunt.

My guess is they wouldn't go head to head with an elk though.

Probably prefered an easier kill such as a fawn.

I read somewhere that Bigfoot kills by suffocation such as a bear hug or pressing the wind out of you with his paws.

The first rule for a predator is not to hunt prey that will injure it.

Cause animals have no hospitals so a serious wound, broken leg, gouged eye can wind up being fatal which really is not what you want when going out to dine.

 

 

Do you know what the most likely predator of elk in this part of the country is? Happens to be the cougar. Size wise to a mature elk your maybe talking half. The reason cougars are effective is because they know how to utilize what they have. I wouldn't be amiss to think that bigfoot also know how to utilize what they have; a strength and weight advantage. I wonder if whoever suggested suffocation has actually seen it happen? The one elk kill that we were pretty certain was a bigfoot kill had a broken back. I could speculate as to how that was done. But however, it is definitely a show of strength. You yourself mentioned them as being opportunistic and I have also seen evidence that they do take over cougar kills. But I am sure that as with any accomplished hunter they are cognizant of their abilities and limitations, and know how to utilize them to the fullest. Remember, they are not some small puny human who requires tools to survive. 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

7 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

Do you know what the most likely predator of elk in this part of the country is? Happens to be the cougar. Size wise to a mature elk your maybe talking half. The reason cougars are effective is because they know how to utilize what they have. I wouldn't be amiss to think that bigfoot also know how to utilize what they have; a strength and weight advantage. I wonder if whoever suggested suffocation has actually seen it happen? The one elk kill that we were pretty certain was a bigfoot kill had a broken back. I could speculate as to how that was done. But however, it is definitely a show of strength. You yourself mentioned them as being opportunistic and I have also seen evidence that they do take over cougar kills. But I am sure that as with any accomplished hunter they are cognizant of their abilities and limitations, and know how to utilize them to the fullest. Remember, they are not some small puny human who requires tools to survive. 

Once again, hominids did not evolve as a predators, Bigfoot does not have tools or teeth for dealing with hide and the backbreaking scenario would be unlikely in the extreme.

Your assertion about bigfoot kills is speculation, as I assume you know, since you seem to be logical.

Natural history does not support your hypothesis. Only man evolved the tools for big game predation and man to some extent defies natural history (by big game I refer to Elk, Moose, Buffalo, etc).

Scavenging is what makes sense but if you want to insist on back breaking you're ultimately going to be disappointed is my guess.

You thesis is interesting otherwise, you're just not doing yourself a favor by insisting on a straight kill scenario.

Cougar target the neck and back, for instance, and a Bigfoot (if they exist) could mooch of the kill as the cat would leave the ribs.

This is a strategy that the Homo genus employed as well, so is supported by the natural record.

Predators do don't use strength alone to overpower prey but a mouth adapted for choking of airways and attacking from the back so they are not exposed to hoof strikes or antlers.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest WesT]

1 hour ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Once again, hominids did not evolve as a predators, Bigfoot does not have tools or teeth for dealing with hide and the backbreaking scenario would be unlikely in the extreme.

Your assertion about bigfoot kills is speculation, as I assume you know, since you seem to be logical.

Natural history does not support your hypothesis. Only man evolved the tools for big game predation and man to some extent defies natural history (by big game I refer to Elk, Moose, Buffalo, etc).

 

The first thing you need to ask yourself is, what is the purpose of using a tool?  And the answer is to make a job easier, or to do something not possible without it. You seem logical also, but at the same time you ignore, or don't know, that many animals employ tool use, not just the Great Apes. So what your saying here is, even though many animals use tools, including the Great Apes, a potential relic hominid does not. How is that logical?

I'm posting some links for people who want to know more about tool use in the animal kingdom.

Incredible tool use in the animal kingdom

Chimps hunting with spears. Dolphins using sponges to protect their noses. And gorillas building “bridges”. Tool use among animals is more diverse and widespread than you might think. But which species are the masters of this extraordinary craft?

10 Animals That Use Tools

Myth Busting: The Truth About Animals And Tools