Guest Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 Great pictures Redbone, it definitely looks like a squatch shadow, a big boy: I'm convinced. Now someone needs to break out the half inch rope and lasso that sucker. Don't worry; he won't bite I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coonbo Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Chuck Norris put 'em up there....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Gooda answer as any I spose..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 (edited) My serious thoughts are that at one point the trees were either cut or had a natural flat area in the branch network suitable to place a rock. In time, with certain species of tree they would grow UP. Also, the branches will grow around the rock making it nearly impossible to remove the rock. My grandfather used a tree to mount a light in the late 60's.....it was 7-8' up when mounted. Now it's at least 18' up there and has since snapped the supply feed line. Yah Aaron that makes some sense, a smaller tree could still support the boulders. Edited November 22, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Smaller, or if it were cut like the other picture earlier in this thread a fairly good sized goonie could have been placed on the stump; thereafter, the tree would have grown branches like fingers holding the rock in place. Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 My serious thoughts are that at one point the trees were either cut or had a natural flat area in the branch network suitable to place a rock. In time, with certain species of tree they would grow UP. Also, the branches will grow around the rock maiing it nearly impossible to remove the rock. My grandfather used a tree to mount a light in the late 60's.....it was 7-8' up when mounted. Now it's at least 18' up there and has since snapped the supply feed line. The most logical answer so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 You still have to block and tackle the boulder up there. Height would not be the biggest problem. IF your going to pull it up 15 feet, then 30 feet is just a few more pulls on the rope. No info on how long they have been up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 I build retaining walls out of boulders (we call it armor stone) by the ton. A 200 lb stone is quite manageable between two people. I like Aaron's theory of upward growth, but I think two or more people with leverage ropes would yield much more immediate 'rock in the tree' results. Use a natural fiber rope and you can just burn it away like a big fuse once the rock is secured in place. Just watch out for Smokey the Bear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 ^^ Yes, it would depend on how long the rock appears to have been in the tree. Like I said before, if you have branches growing around it with the rock clearly embedded in the trees body, then my theory is plausible. On the other hand, if the rock is just laying up in a fork of branches with no embedding in the tree's mass, then it was likely recent and not likely to have "grown" to the height. And elaborate effort, in the latter case, with pulleys, ropes atc could be done the neatest. It would still require 2 trips up the tree--one to install the hardware and two to maneuver the rock into a lodged place and remove the hardware. Simply throwing the rope over a higher branch would not work as well for several reasons: first, you would have no mechanical advantage to hoist the rock with only one "pulley" point although two or more people tugging on the rope might be able to accomplish it. Two, a rope over a tree limb would have considerable drag vs. a pulley which is free spinning. Three, i wouldn't trust this system because the rope would likely fray and break during the grinding it would be subjected to under such a load. Four, the branch used as the pulley would have significant bark damage, but maybe this isn't something that was observed(??) Just my thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 The boulder shown is heavier than 200lbs though. I'd say 500, even for sandstone. This would still be a huge effort for that kind of weight. And I'd like to see it done. The branches would be where they are anyway, they would just get thicker. Could the supporting branches support that kind of weight? If they are too small they would break. They would need to be sturdy enough to support 300+ lbs each. This is pretty wild. I like the helicopter theory better and better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 (edited) You still have to block and tackle the boulder up there. Height would not be the biggest problem. IF your going to pull it up 15 feet, then 30 feet is just a few more pulls on the rope. No info on how long they have been up there. There are numerous ways on getting the boulder up there without the use of heavy equipment. Levers, block and tackles, gantries, etc., or even laying the rock on a cut stump with the new branches coming out and cradling the rock as the tree grows taller. Edited November 23, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 There was a big boulder about 25 ft. up in a maple in forested land along the highway here for years. I always figured it was from blasting when the road was built. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 Terry that is entirely within the realm of possibility. If it's been there for years there's a chance it was placed there when its location in the tree was much lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 I agree with Wag; I thought this boulder in the picture looks bigger than 200 lbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) Terry that is entirely within the realm of possibility. If it's been there for years there's a chance it was placed there when its location in the tree was much lower. Aaron, no that wouldn't happen. If you nail a horseshoe to a tree it doesn't get higher as the tree grows. Branches are the same and stay at the same height as the tree matures and grows. Regarding the tree I was talking about, I always thought the boulder flew up in the air during blasting for the road and lodged into the crook of the branch on that maple. t. Edited November 25, 2013 by Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts