Jump to content

Tree Manipulation/ Wood Structures: What Is The Evidence?


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
dmaker

How many sasquatch hairs, or other physical evidence, have been recovered from nests? You would think these nests would be a treasure trove of biological evidence. All those pointy sticks trapping hairs and all other sorts of goodies. 

 

Let me guess, no one bothered to actually recover anything of the sort from these nests? But we're just gonna go ahead and call them bigfoot nests anyway, because that is more fun?

 

Bears strip bark and make nests on the ground and in the trees. 

 

Example of a bald eagle ground nest. Looks familiar. 

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjY2-be94PUAhVp3IMKHcZWAPEQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpixnio.com%2Ffauna-animals%2Fbirds%2Feagle-birds-images%2Fbald-eagle-pictures%2Fbald-eagle-nest-on-ground&psig=AFQjCNEzeOkY6VcuMyspiIdRrMIneqW2fg&ust=1495557374909567

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
BigTreeWalker
6 hours ago, WSA said:

Idaho report: Unusual "stripped" tree. Witness is an experienced logger, which I think adds to his credibility on this point:

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=24693

He stated that there were no claw or tooth marks. Then he goes on to describe marks that could very well have been left by a porcupine. I can attest to the fact that they are very good at stripping bark from the bases of trees. Since we don't have any photos to look at I would go with the most likely. He doesn't mention porcupine in his list of possible culprits. So I would assume that he hasn't seen what they can do, or he didn't consider that possibility. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

He stated that there were no claw or tooth marks. Then he goes on to describe marks that could very well have been left by a porcupine. I can attest to the fact that they are very good at stripping bark from the bases of trees. Since we don't have any photos to look at I would go with the most likely. He doesn't mention porcupine in his list of possible culprits. So I would assume that he hasn't seen what they can do, or he didn't consider that possibility. 

Report says he considered it:  "The witness was a logger for thirty years and is very accustomed to seeing trees stripped by bears, both black and brown, and rodents [what a porcupine is]. This tree is like nothing he has ever seen before".

 

Then there is "Whether it is related to the rock bangs and footprints is unclear at this time."  I'd consider it highly interesting, to say the least, that all that is coinciding, and that the report I cite also describes, in addition to stripping just like this, evidence highly unlikely to be the work of a known species.
 

Edited by DWA
Link to post
Share on other sites
BigTreeWalker

Since he gave the description of the chisel-like marks and the size, porcupine seems to be the best fit. The rest that happened may just be coincidental to this. I could take anyone that wants to similarly stripped trees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, with similar markings that is porcupine damage. In this case a photo would have been very useful. Or if you want to find some yourself look for the individual brown trees in a closeup view. They are interspersed throughout the forest. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree that photos would be useful.  Given the concatenation of evidence here, however, I'm inclined to go with his account.

 

I also like to watch that "most likely."  If sasquatch is real, and evidence tends to tell me it is, it's as likely as anything else, unless there is clear evidence something else did this.  One thing that puzzles me is that in the case I cite the apparent use of the bark is pretty plain; that appears missing in this case. But I'd just chalk that up to "what we don't know, yet."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...