Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?

[Rockape]

Interesting video WSA, thanks for posting.

 

Thanks for the photos too Woodland Bigfoot. Good stuff. 

[WSA]

http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2017/01/bigfoot_hunters_say_claw_marks.html#incart_river_home

[SWWASAS]

I hate to be sour grapes but most X structures are most likely to be natural wood fall.       To prove otherwise one needs to look at the bottom end.     If there is no broken off root end nearby then placement is possible.   The wood had to get there somehow.         Three or more in a tepee takes some explaining but even that could be natural wood fall if the root end is near and it was a blow down.        I have found some tepee like structures but at the same time nothing present indicates anything but the work of man or nature with wind storms.    A recent wind storm at my house provided a good example of that.     A 35 foot piece of Douglas Fir  fell on a neighbors fence.   Examining it we could not find a root end where it broke off.   Further examination showed that it was a top break off from a tree some distance away.    That thing flew for a considerable distance in the 50 some mile an hour wind gust.              Some structures I have found were even too small for a BF to get in or very close to a human trail.    I have to credit hunters or other humans for these.        Quite frankly I think some give more credence to this as evidence of BF activity than it deserves       When I had an active BF area with several footprint finds and some encounters,   I found no evidence what so ever of any of these structures or break offs which many tout as absolute evidence of BF activity.     Certainly such structures or behaviors could be some sort of regional BF behavior,  done some places and not others,   but if that is true then at the same time you cannot claim presence of structures is evidence of BF activity.    Areas could be active and BF not be making structures.     A creature that is so careful about revealing its presence that it goes to great trouble to avoid even leaving footprints seems unlikely to me to make structures that are a dead giveaway of BF presence.     However I suspect,   perhaps 50 miles away from the nearest road or human trail BF may be building structures for some unknown purpose because there is little likelihood it would ever be found by humans.     I would not be at all surprised that if you go deep into a remote forest away from human trails and logging roads,   that you actually could find some sort of  BF settlement with rudimentary structures.   However if such things exist, they might be protected or guarded.       Someone blundering into that might never make it out to tell about it.  The more sweat equity or greater threat to their safety and continued existence might ratchet up the measures they go to protect it.   

[WSA]

No doubt we are going to mistakenly attribute some tree naturally occurring "structures" to BF activity Randy, yep.  It is just that kind of field investigatory work like you did that helps us be able to call a ball from a strike. 

 

I for one don't view the animal as necessarily making an all-out effort, 24/7, to avoid human contact. There are too many accounts of them showing themselves, deliberately, for that to be the rule.  You also have to take into their account when they are "caught." What do almost all the accounts describe?  Yeah, a la Patty, they turn away calmly and walk deliberately away, no panic, no rush, no fear. Hardly the demeanor of an animal who avoids contact at all cost. Is almost like, "Meh..no bigee, but don't count on seeing me again, if I can help it." 

 

 As Bipto used to say, they are furtive, and careful. I also believe they want any observations to be on their own terms. There also is the reasonable conclusion that sometimes they just don't have a reason to care if you see them.  So, it is not as if seeing their structures (assuming they are not in them at the time) gives too much away.  

 

We also have to be open to the idea there is such thing as Bigfoot progress. The idea they are stuck in some kind of prehistoric time warp... never learning, never changing habits to suit their realities is problematic to me. I believe they are adapting to a changing world ever minute, and this is the only explanation of their extraordinary abilities.  And some may like to sleep under a roof, and some might not.     Takes all kinds.

[Guest DWA]

In other words:  they're animals, and behave just like the ones we know.

 

Chimps are making material progress; they've apparently advanced into their own Stone Age.  Then we have the wild orangutan who knows what a saw is, and how to use it.

 

All the evidence says:  there's really nothing remarkable about them, at least not any more remarkable than any other animal.  Our species - and its ability to deny what is right in front of it - that's what is remarkable here.

[WSA]

Yup. And I think of these tree structures as arboreal doodles, maybe. Some of them just don't seem adequate as a shelter. Some might be hunting blinds, as has been hypothesized here. Some might be mimicry of adult behavior by juveniles. Some might be boundary markers, probably a lot of them are. Some might be mating displays. Then there is the possibility they make these things because they can...like you making patterns in the beach sand with your feet, or stacking twigs while sitting waiting for a bus to come. The primate mind likes to satisfy itself by creating structures and patterns.  The scale of some of these things shouldn't make us consider the intent behind them is proportionally large. It might just be the way the Sasquatch mind passes a slow day in the woods. When they discover spray paint, it will be much easier to figure it out.

[Guest Seatco]

Evidence on hunting blinds/structures is weak to myself.Would not rule out the possibility.

 

As a hunter.I will spend countless hours over several trips to build the perfect place to hunt from.

 

More often then not.Without tools of the trade.

[hiflier]

9 hours ago, DWA said:

Then we have the wild orangutan who knows what a saw is, and how to use it.

 

I'm not trying to argue here DWA but as impressive as that may be it's a far, far cry from creating the saw itself. Think about the manufacturing facilities and processes needed to do that. Even the imagination to envision a saw and then think about how to go about making it? Imitation shows an intelligence capacity; and actually using the tool shows smarts. But getting from bare hands to fabricating a tool as simple to us as a saw? Well, let's just say it's just so beyond an Orangutan's scope of mind. It is also why as much "Humaness" as folks would like to bestow on a Sasquatch it is a mistake to think they are even close to our kind of brainpower. Close in DNA? sure.....but not nearly close enough- by a long shot.

Edited January 28, 2017 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

I could also ask how many of us know how to manufacture that saw,  let alone use it? Much of technology is that way it took all of us working together to come up with that saw. Most people don't have a clue about any of it. 

[hiflier]

Oh I agree and you could argue that most Humans would never be able to do that but we have the where with all within our species to make the saw, or a Lexus, or the Hadron Collider for that matter. An orangutan not so much. Could an army of Orangutans be taught to be the next generation of cheap labor in the food service industry? Perhaps but they will never think of it on their own. It could be argued that there is no motivation in themselves to do so. Or they just quite simply don't have the imagination and mental capacity to imagine the "what would happen if I were to"...... (fill in the blank). I think it may be all about the ability to get out of the moment.

Edited January 28, 2017 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

The point is and the reason why we can do the technology we have today is because we have a written language. That includes being able to draw blueprints. We can keep records. We do have creative individuals but without the ability to record that creativity we would be no further than to be able to make simple weapons or tools. Without it we would lose the great ideas that occasionally come along and not be able to build on those ideas. 

[FarArcher]

There are the equivalent of stone age humans in remote areas.  They're human, they have human intelligence - but they haven't done anything with it.

 

If you took a brand new Jeep, gassed up, keys in it - they wouldn't know what to do with it - but even if eventually they figured out how to get it to run, they couldn't sustain it.  They don't have the technology to make a compressor to inflate a tire, or plug a flat - charge a depleted battery even if they could figure out what the battery was and what it does.

 

It would be of any use the moment the gas tank ran dry.  They have no oil, refining capabilities - nothing.  

 

Intelligence, and what one does with it are not to be automatically equated.  I recall in 1969, the same year we put a man on the moon, there was a NatGeo article of an expedition into a remote area - where cannibalism was still being practiced - and they were the equivalent of stone age humans.  Same year!  Two sets of humans.  So different.

 

So when folks say these things are not very bright - because they don't have the wheels, or maybe they don't use fire - well, there's some humans likely still on this planet with just about the same degree of advancement.  And both groups are doing fine.  What we consider necessities - aren't.

 

Even if one has winter quarters in an impression, a cave, or a dugout - to reside closer to the summer herds - it's much easier to construct temporary structures to meet whatever structural needs one may find comforting.

 

And it's easy to differentiate between a construction or nature.  It's even relatively easy to differentiate between nature and "pointers," or "indicators," or trail markers, or warning constructs.

 

Something that's clearly been manipulated - isn't nature.

[Guest DWA]

23 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

I'm not trying to argue here DWA but as impressive as that may be it's a far, far cry from creating the saw itself. Think about the manufacturing facilities and processes needed to do that. Even the imagination to envision a saw and then think about how to go about making it? Imitation shows an intelligence capacity; and actually using the tool shows smarts. But getting from bare hands to fabricating a tool as simple to us as a saw? Well, let's just say it's just so beyond an Orangutan's scope of mind. It is also why as much "Humaness" as folks would like to bestow on a Sasquatch it is a mistake to think they are even close to our kind of brainpower. Close in DNA? sure.....but not nearly close enough- by a long shot.

That doesn't change WSA's point, which I was backing up.  They don't need to have smarts precisely our way to have more than smarts enough.

[Guest WesT]

On 1/27/2017 at 5:51 PM, Seatco said:

Evidence on hunting blinds/structures is weak to myself

 

Good grief don't get me started lol

[Guest Seatco]

21 hours ago, WesT said:

Good grief don't get me started lol

 

Please enlighten me.I am all ears.

 

Since a young boy i noticed these so called structures/blinds.There in almost every woods i have been in of this tri state area.

 

Very few could not be directly related to humans in my mind.Like wise tree manipulation naturally encoring.Ill give you the large trees with root balls in the air.