Jump to content
slabdog

Tree Structure?

Recommended Posts

slabdog

Found this on a hike around a lake. Doesn't appear to be cut. Thoughts?

post-395-0-98545900-1463256899_thumb.jpe

post-395-0-72368200-1463256919_thumb.jpe

post-395-0-75474600-1463256942_thumb.jpe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Tree and stick structures seem to be a regional thing with BF.    When my research area was active never saw one.    Others claim to see them all the time in active areas.    You see stuff like the pictures around all the time?     Twist off trees is supposed to be the gold standard of BF presence.    Yet in areas I have found footprints, I have never seen a twist off.    So it is either regional or just individual BF that are into some sort of display activity.    If twist offs are a sure sign if BF presence,   why would something that wants to avoid humans do it?    I guess one theory is that BF are doing it to warn other BF they are in someone else's active territory.    It could be that territorial disputes are higher priority for BF than human avoidance.    If they fight over territory that certainly could be true.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slabdog

Full disclosure-

I was being a tad feisty when I posted this.

Here's a true perspective of where this "structure" was found.

Obviously no BF activity here, but this is why I consider "tree structures" unremarkable.

post-395-0-41236600-1463286099_thumb.jpe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I see natural stuff that is very strange all the time.     A small tree can get damaged, heal, then end up growing around in a loop or something strange like that.     The teepee like structures attributed to BF can be perfectly natural.    Once a tree is down leaning against others,    then that acts as a collector of further trees because the normal state of things in the woods is strait up and growing or down flat on the ground and dead.   One tree leaning on another is a fork that will collect the next tree to fall.   For some people three trees leaning against each other is a BF teepee.  Maybe, but most likely it is something natural that is the result of blow down.   Throw in humans who like to do things like make hunting shelters with tarps and small trees,   and you never quite know what is going on.     This past winter we had a lot of strong wind storms in the PNW.    Abnormal amount of blowdown and while the usual direction of the strong winds are from the East or South, we had strong winds from other directions too.    That creates lots of broken off and leaning trees from different directions.   While it may not be any indication of BF activity, it certainly provides more to look at and wonder about.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cricket

After watching a number of videos on this interesting but enigmatic topic, I couldn't help but think about a course I had in field natural history and the kind of things we did in various habitats.  If someone was so inclined they could do a very thorough study of these hypothesized structures that would take it from a compilation of anecdotal videos to some kind of organized inquiry and quantification subject to true analysis, in other words, take it into science.  What it could generate is anyone's guess, but if one is concerned about meeting the threshold of science, it would seem to be necessary and some kind of meaningful patterns could very possibly come out of the effort.  My thoughts along these lines are the following, and this is probably not exhaustive:

 

observed tree/trunk/pole ‘structures’:

-are they ‘arborfacts’ (the result of natural causes) or deliberate design?

 

-get long term data collection in given specific area

-standardize methodology used from observation site to observation site, and standardize it between observers

 

-plot all the structures found within observation area

-quantify the spacing between structures

 

-for each structure: quantify the number of branches/poles/trunks, the pattern of structure,

trunk/pole/branch girths, height of branches/poles/trunks and other features, type of trees,

local species or ‘imports’, evaluate the weight of the trunks, branches

 

-conduct survey of tree species found throughout observation area to compare with those

species used in structures

 

-bark ‘peeling’

-conduct survey of branches, fallen tree trunks, bark litter occurring on the ground for naturally

occurring peeled poles/trunks (by decay, other animals), species types, quantify and plot what

is found

 

-collect weather data

-daily data

-track snowfalls and rain storms and survey for structures immediately after snow or rain

-record botanical data in observation area, species, distribution

Edited by Cricket
spacing was off
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

All good thoughts Cricket and welcome to the BFF.

 

  I think you first need to develop a hypothesis of what constitutes an arborfact versus an actual Bigfoot made structure.

 

You will face two problems. One is volumetric, these things are everywhere in any patch of woods. Hundreds upon hundreds. While initially this seems to be a good thing, you quickly realize that it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Two, there seems to be no way to distinguish between the two.

 

I think if you can solve problem number two, you would be hailed as a great contributor to the subject matter.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JKH

Welcome, Cricket. I can think of ways to distinguish the BFs work from other causes. Many have been discussed and one is contained in the title of this old favorite thread that is still documenting many interesting discoveries in this area. Manipulation means to control skillfully with hands, clue number one. Somewhere in there I and others have posted about discovering unnatural changes in wood/materials over time, number two. Enjoy!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

That's awesome JHK. However, some of us don't have the time to read through all 65+ pages.

 

Could you please post the factors which distinguish between the two?  If they have been identified already, it should be a short summary.

 

Thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cricket

Thanks, gigantor & JKH!  I started looking through the post you recommended, JKH, but as gigantor noted, it is very long and it's taking a while.  If you could summarize as gigantor suggested, that would be greatly appreciated! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacemonkeymafia

We've had so many severe thunderstorms (and one small tornado ) this spring I would be hesitant to decipher a tree structure. Active area or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Art1972

Slab...   groan...   ya had me wondering with the first post, then brought me quickly back to reality with the 2nd. 

 

I personally do not see/find twisted or bent over trees as being remarkable at all. Nor do i find them a sign of "bigfoot presence" in the area.   At least up here in the Northeast, there's so many trees bent over by snow, twisted by wind, you'd be hard pressed to notice one done by a bigfoot.   Ive posted similar photos in the past and divulged right away they were taken in the backyard / right near a home in a suburban neighborhood, where I'm 99.999% sure the tree being bent or broken was a result of nature.  Some will just not accept this though, and refuse to be told anything other than "its obviously from bigfoot".  

So it goes.... 

 

Art 

Edited by Art1972
grammatical repair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JKH

^That avatar is totally cool btw, but I think the eyes need to be bigger.

 

Nothing about backyard, suburban, humanly constructed trails, buildings, etc. precludes at least occasional BF presence, in fact such is not infrequently observed. WSA is right, as usual. I'd tailor my observations of "tree structures" according to the geography. I wouldn't think much of bent or broken trees in areas with heavy snow or tornadoes or the like. I know even in my temperate climate that branches can break under wind stress against the weight of rain-soaked foliage. However, I've seen tree stuff that is highly suspicious due to the context. BFs breaking and moving the environmental elements in their surroundings are commonly reported.

 

I can't provide a comprehensive list of everything that could rule out other causes, but I noted two such examples. Use of hands in a non-human fashion, ie. beyond our strength or in unusual places. Another is something out of place that people can pinpoint timewise, for instance trees or limbs conspicuously placed over hunters' back trails and the like. Anyhow, it's educational to read about others' experiences and ideas so I thought the link might be of interest. Perhaps I should not go off-topic in a thread dedicated to the relative unimportance of tree "stuff". Oops, carry on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker
On 6/13/2017 at 4:58 PM, JKH said:

.....Nothing about backyard, suburban, humanly constructed trails, buildings, etc. precludes at least occasional BF presence, in fact such is not infrequently observed.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes!!!!!

 

.....I've seen tree stuff that is highly suspicious due to the context. BFs breaking and moving the environmental elements in their surroundings are commonly reported.

I love this. Context is really important!

 

And sometimes, the context will not be immediately obvious. Sometimes, you can only understand what's happening over time. And often, after you start to understand that there IS a context for what you're seeing, you can understand the context much more quickly in subsequent encounters/experiences/observations and come to your determinations much more quickly.

 

What I'm trying to say is, context can help you understand that a particular structure, for example, is significant. But once you understand that a particular structure is significant, you may start to study that structure closely as a result. And once you start to study that structure carefully, you notice all its features, which often means its complexities and intricacies (although BF make simple structures, too). So the next time (or times) you see a structure, you notice the structure itself, and its complexities -- and it's those features you observe that start to be the "tells" that what you're looking at is significant. You no longer necessarily need the context to affirm for yourself that what you're looking at is made by a BF.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×