Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

56 minutes ago, WesT said:

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

 

Gorillas don't shape stone tools.

I could kill a bear by punching it in the nose and then gnawing through its furry little hide to get to the meat that I can't tear off until it's rotted for several days (but I'm not about to) The energy invested would result in starvation before you got your first mouthful. If injuries from the encounter didn't do you in first.

I could use a sharp rock (did I SAY that Bigfoot didn't use tools? that was you) but again since Bigfoot is not a spear user (you were saying it killed by punching or twisting)? then that has no relevance either (spear use, like the chimps, you eliminated your own argument).

The point is without spears scavenging is the logical (but not sensational or interesting) assumption (on your part).

Birds use tools, but that injures your hypothesis.

It took us a million years to develope lithic and spear technologies past the point of an Australopithecine (Bigfoot like genera) so that we could predate on large animals.

Chimps don't hunt big game (Elk, Cape Buffalo, Gorillas). Maybe a smaller herbivore or two.

A large part of human tool use is social learning and social hunting as a result of our much bigger brain.

A bigger brain that Bigfoot lack judging by skull shape and dimensions.

All relevant to the discussion.

You seem to not want to answer those points that have no likely counter argument such as big cat attacks on Elk and a scavenging hypothesis. 

No doubt your idea is an interesting one but by not admitting scavenging as a prime behavior of hominids you're showing that you likely have not studied archaeological anthropology (which is a drawback regarding credibility, since why didn't you? ((my assumption)).

You also have not provided direct association between a Bigfoot and your evidence (unless you're concealing videos and footprints, teeth, or a body) so it is highly speculative, absent proofs. You would need to see a Bigfoot literally gnawing ribs or killing to create a scientifically acceptable association. And, no, eyewitness accounts and hearsay are meaningless for a scientific burden of proof.

The most simple explanation is also the most likely.

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest WesT]

3 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

 Bigfoot does not have tools or teeth for dealing with hide and the backbreaking scenario would be unlikely in the extreme.

 

No you said BF does not have tools. Can you prove that? No you can't, so it's speculation on YOUR part as well.

I was ready for your reply though. You have to understand that the field under discussion is very dynamic and in a constant state of flux. Everything you thought you knew to be true could go belly up with the latest discovery. You made some good points, I'll address the rest later, but for now......

Mystery of who made the world's oldest tools: 3.3-million-year-old stones predate Homo by 700,000 YEARS

The use of stone tools by our ancient ancestors was, until now, thought to have originated with the Homo genus around 2.6 million years ago. 

But the discovery of a collection of implements in Kenya, which predate this by a staggering 700,000 years, could rewrite what we know about early human history.

 

 

 

 

[BigTreeWalker]

7 hours 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).

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.

 

 

 

 

 

You tend to put down others for not reading the anthropology literature. But recent studies are finding that early man may have been more a predator than originally believed. And yes the study on tooth impressions is part of that. I've posted links to some of these more recent works in various threads in the forum.

What you point about the cougar supports what I was referring to as predators using what they have to get the job done. I have seen the atlas bone with large canine marks in it when a cougar goes for the back of the neck. Grizzlies happen to use their brute strength to take prey by breaking necks and backs. Even humans trained in the skill can take down full grown steers. Most evidence shows that bigfoot doesn't make tools, or is circumstantial at best. However, that doesn't rule out the possibilities of clubs, rocks or sharp sticks. We probably wouldn't recognized those tools of opportunity if they were used.

I was presenting found evidence but didn't suggest how it was done. But I guess it's okay when you surmise but no one else can. What's with that? 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

7 hours ago, WesT said:

No you said BF does not have tools. Can you prove that? No you can't, so it's speculation on YOUR part as well.

I was ready for your reply though. You have to understand that the field under discussion is very dynamic and in a constant state of flux. Everything you thought you knew to be true could go belly up with the latest discovery. You made some good points, I'll address the rest later, but for now......

Mystery of who made the world's oldest tools: 3.3-million-year-old stones predate Homo by 700,000 YEARS

The use of stone tools by our ancient ancestors was, until now, thought to have originated with the Homo genus around 2.6 million years ago. 

But the discovery of a collection of implements in Kenya, which predate this by a staggering 700,000 years, could rewrite what we know about early human history.

Your reply just makes me surer that you don't intend to read up so I have to assume you are going to continue to develop your understanding through secondary sources such as youtube, wikipedia, and half baked science articles. You can only understand the flux if you have a grounding in literature on the subject and not the opposite.

 

As far as proving or disproving Bigfoot having tools I don't think you understand word one of my response if you are replying with that type of dialectic.

 

Nothing goes belly up but isin a constant state of modification based on newer evidence.

 

I was already aware of everything you stated but you are not replying to my main points but trying to get off onto lateral arguments that are completely circular.

 

If no tools then how? if then tools then how? If not scavenging then how? If not a cat then how?

What is the behavior and why does it satisfy any logic whatsoever and how is that contraindicated by any other explanations or why.

 

You say I say no tools (which was not what I said but merely your own understanding)

I say no tools no predation, do you understand why I said that last sentence?

 

But as far as no tools (which is not the point and yes I am already aware for many years of what you included) but that you have not proved a Bigfoot exists so that is the first problem (of course at this point after some discussion with you I don't think you intend to get taken seriously by any science body but just want the notoriety of asserting that Bigfoot is a predator)

 

The only interesting assertion you have, however, is that there are teeth marks on the bones consistent with fla teeth and that the kill (scavenged remains) are modified in an interesting way.

 

Scavenging helps your hypothesis, most of your other arguments you are just shooting yourself in the foot, so to speak. Arguing with me isn't helping much unless it helps your understanding which is not seeming likely at this point.

 

If you are wedded to a particular interpretation then I think you will find that out.

The fact even that you cannot admit it may be scavenging is significant as it indicates a lack of flexibility which means you are forcing fact to fit the outcome you are seeking.

 

You should not start out by thinking BF is a predator that chew through hides and does not use tools and eats meat raw with vegetable grinding molars and a lack of a full set of canine incisors such as cats, bears, and other have. But, only be forced to the conclusion by incontrovertible evidence which is not what you have at this point.

 

I will probably leave it at that and let you have the last word, I can rest assured you will try and have one, or even a few? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigTreeWalker]

Sorry WesT,  I'm thinking most of Cryptic's last post was directed at me although he quoted you. What I see in all that is a lack of background in biology. But if bigfoot kills a mouse or a moose, that makes them a predator. It doesn't at all change the fact that they are probably omnivores, and teeth or lack of claws has nothing to do with that one way or another. 

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I have seen several very distinct blinds on wood lines along farm fields, it would make you think they were of a human origin the ones I have seen. If they are not the work of the owner or someone nearby, well they defy natural cause. Likewise near me I have found tee pee structures. I also have found a natural blind area in my marsh and it seems to have sticks of similar sizes laid out as a floor of sorts, generally all in one direction. Then I usually find broken branches in and around it defying what it going on elsewhere naturally.

[Guest WesT]

No worries BTW. It's like this. The first person I took out to see ambush setup #1 was an eyewitness turned bf researcher, and even with the evidence staring him square in the face, he went straight into denial. Got all bent out of shape and whatnot, said some smart remarks. After he cooled off a couple of weeks later he asked me why I thought it was a hunting blind and not just a shelter. I told him that that's where the evidence led me, you saw it yourself, and hell no I've never heard of such a thing either. People really do inherently dislike change as I learned from the git go. The usual tactic used when one can't debunk the evidence is to attack the source.. so he's not the first and certainly won't be the last. So all is good.

Hey LCB, anywhere that you see an open field with woods behind it is a good place to look. Open fields attract deer and the ambush setups are usually at, or about 25-50 ft. inside, the tree line.

Anyone game for an experiment? I'll not task you to do anything physically challenging, I just want to see something I discovered repeated. Any takers out there?

[ShadowBorn]

8 hours ago, WesT said:

No worries BTW. It's like this. The first person I took out to see ambush setup #1 was an eyewitness turned bf researcher, and even with the evidence staring him square in the face, he went straight into denial. Got all bent out of shape and whatnot, said some smart remarks. After he cooled off a couple of weeks later he asked me why I thought it was a hunting blind and not just a shelter. I told him that that's where the evidence led me, you saw it yourself, and hell no I've never heard of such a thing either. People really do inherently dislike change as I learned from the git go. The usual tactic used when one can't debunk the evidence is to attack the source.. so he's not the first and certainly won't be the last. So all is good.

Hey LCB, anywhere that you see an open field with woods behind it is a good place to look. Open fields attract deer and the ambush setups are usually at, or about 25-50 ft. inside, the tree line.

Anyone game for an experiment? I'll not task you to do anything physically challenging, I just want to see something I discovered repeated. Any takers out there?

Wes

I will try your experiment if you want. What I would like to know is if when you find these teepee structures if there are game trails. The ones that I have found have always been where I have traveled and they wanted me to find them. The ones structures that I have found that are on the ground  that are built like blinds are man built. You know the ones that are fifty feet out from fields. You can not miss these and I just do not waste my camera on these since you can tell that they are man made.

Every structure that I have found was like they wanted me to find it. They might have been in odd places , but they were there as though they knew I would find them. Like this one that shows a light and what looks likes a figure inside.

What I can say about this structure is that there was no game trail anywhere near it. The light source to the left I cannot explain, this is not debris that just landed together as you can see. It was built and placed that way. You all can make your own judgments It does not matter to me. You can all deny that there is a living entity in our forest but I am not. I know and my son knows. This is all I need.

[ShadowBorn]

So am I to be ignored? Should I change my profile to the person most ignored  with evidence that shows an entity that creates structures in our forest.... How far does one have to go to prove that they are out there? Does one need to risk their life to prove how real they are. I am more then willing too, but like my son say's they have not done us no harm. My view it is strictly self defense or a rogue Bigfoot that is doing harm.

[Guest WesT]

Hey shadowborn, I hit an interesting snag but I'll have to come back later to explain. Its hot here, I'm off work today, and I'm drinking beer.  I'll return at a better time, just wanted to give you a heads up.  We're still on for the experiment. And thanks for volunteering!

[Guest WesT]

On 7/9/2016 at 11:30 PM, ShadowBorn said:

Wes

I will try your experiment if you want. What I would like to know is if when you find these teepee structures if there are game trails.

I've only seen 2 myself. One was near the river, game trails were close by but not directly adjacent to it. The other was out in the bush, no trails, game or otherwise.

As far as the teepee type of hunting blind that used the living 8 ft tall pine sapling, that was stripped of it's branches and pinned down at the top with a log with evidence it was used as a bracing mechanism,..... that's a different story altogether.

That pic is interesting for sure. Do you have any more pics of it from different perspectives? Is that an X formation on the bottom left?. I also noticed that none of the trees involved in the structure have limbs. The little sapling in the foreground looks like the bark has been stripped off about 2 ft. down from the top, no limbs on it either. The light is curious, but not beyond a logical explanation, as is the figure inside.

Yeah, the human made flea/tick nests, err I mean hunting blinds, are easy to spot and identify.

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

That pic is interesting for sure. Do you have any more pics of it from different perspectives? Is that an X formation on the bottom left?. I also noticed that none of the trees involved in the structure have limbs. The little sapling in the foreground looks like the bark has been stripped off about 2 ft. down from the top, no limbs on it either. The light is curious, but not beyond a logical explanation, as is the figure inside.

WesT

Yes, this picture is strange and no I did not take more pictures of it.  What happen is that I was getting more sign from them and this tree formation did not mean much to me. I was interested in making contact with them . Does this make sense? It is just like this one that my dog found , it was only two feet high. Here is the picture of it:

This was well hidden and if it was not for my dog I would have never have found it. Again Strange ! Did I make contact with an entity? Was it trying to make contact with me? I have a good friend that hunts with me that knows the truth. He carries everytime he is with me so some thing scared him out there while hunting, yet he still hunts with me. Either these creatures are humans hoaxing me or they are real with the complex of f*ck*ng with people.

Modelo is a great beer on my off time and great to reflect on past encounters. I will never forget, just like certain things that one has seen in life. But you have to place those on the back burner and move on. But I know my encounters and I am not afraid to show it. Hey flesh and blood right ! like the movie predator " if it bleeds then it can die" some times I am not sure about that. These are pictures that I have posted before so they are just updates.

[Guest WesT]

Yep, I found a similar small teepee structure and I posted it up thread somewhere. The only reason I found it was because there were formations that were following a line directly adjacent to the suspected hunting blind. Otherwise it would have not been found. Your dog is a good squatcher lol.

If your wanting to communicate with whatever it is that's out there, a combination of ground glyphs and salted peanuts got a reaction for me. The small burlap sack the peanuts came in disappeared also. The best I can guess is I accidently asked them who they were with the ground glyph. Hard to say when you're in uncharted territory with no point of reference.

[ShadowBorn]

WesT

Sorry for not answering right away. What do you mean by ground glyphs? They seem to know when one is around or in a area and they will let you know when the time is right. I happen to believe that these tree markers are meant for us.  It is their post card that they leave when we have invaded their area. Do I have proof of this ,off course not but the only way to prove it is to go into in a area where there are no tree formations and find out.

 

I do know that when I found my first one my heart was pounding out of my chest. It felt like that this tree formation was meant for me and that is the strangeness about them. As much as I try to understand them I cannot and nor will I. So they are not us, or think like us, or behave like us. They are a totally different animal from what we came from. We cannot process their thoughts on why they do what they do. All we can do is share our findings and learn from what we ourselves have learned as individuals. To see if there is a pattern that we can pick up on them . But we cannot fight amongst our selves in order to find out about discovery.

[MIB]

I messed with "ground glyphs" a little a couple years ago.    They were basically arrangements which I constructed, which had some meaning to me, and photographed so I could record any subsequent changes.    I also attempted gifting at the same location.   

 

The results I got back were suggestive of squirrels or chipmunks, nothing more interesting, and I've mostly abandoned that effort.   It's still something to keep in the tool box, however.   A single failure with these guys does not invalidate an idea.

 

MIB