Stick Structures

[Guest TooRisky]

I have brought this over from a sister conv. shut down:

Seems to me that I am becoming more of a believer in stick structures and that ever present X pattern that comes up way to often... Now I know the argument of them being nature and or people going around with nothing better to do but make X patterns so ya all can tear this up if ya like...

The most recent where these 2 my partner's Mojo and John found about a month ago... we were about 6 miles off any beaten path and very rough to get into the camp site we named "Flat Tire" because we lost a tire the first time trying to get back there... This is also the spot of unknown vocals we recorded at our bait site.... Well these two went for a day hike even further into the forest going up the steep 6000' ridge. They found these 2 structures on a very desolate game trail that had no sign of humans at all (No trash, cig butts, cans, plastic)...

Resized to 84% (was 720 x 405) - Click image to enlarge

Resized to 84% (was 720 x 405) - Click image to enlarge

The video below was at a low altitude winter salmon camp... We had been approached at camp most every night about the same time, knowing that tell tale smell of wet urine soaked dog that rolled in rotten salmon smell... We were there for about a week and a few days into the expedition I found this behind the camp down the power line access trail...

http://www.youtube.c...u/2/X7voirnFC8A

2R

Edited September 23, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest walkabout]

These are interesting. I've read somewhere that some structures are described as possible markers too but that's another thread. Thanks Walkabout

Chris B.

Anytime Chris.

When you consider that that picture was taken in close proximity to where a class 'A' daytime sighting had taken place in August 2009 the same day the sighting happened, it makes it that much more compelling.

Edited September 24, 2010 by walkabout

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

I pretty much ignore the majority of tree breaks & limb formations. The only ones I give thought to are the ones that are located within the immediate area of a sighting/footprint find/vocalization report. These I will photograph, inspect, then move on to other tasks. If I photographed every one I came across, I would have several full 4GB camera cards & would have wasted time that I could have spent doing more productive things with. I am not one of the people that think all of these are created by Sasquatch, if they were then there are alot more of these creatures around than we think there are.

But...

To ignore them all is foolish, at least in my opinion. Just because we do not have definite proof that these creatures construct these things does not mean that they could not. A very good amount of the information we have on this creature is just done from guess work, so no one really has the authority to dismiss tree breaks & limb formations totally.

Great post Sean V, I think it's worth a shot to at least compare some notes on a few structures that are suspect. And speaking of which it looks to me like the pics TooRisky has added to the conversation fit Jodie's description of the missing log perch and its unfortunate rearrangement between some trees. I hope someone adds some pics that resemble a suspect large brush pile for comparison with what I'm finding in Ky.

Great Discussion and pics!

Chris B.

[Doc Holliday]

Your right Chris. It is very easy to dismiss this by people who see my pics as weather or other related. I was hesitant to even post them. But, I decided to throw them out there. The trees that were broke while we were there, I know 100% was not weather related whatsoever. The trees snapped and twisted were the only ones of many surrounding trees. I know that there is no wind that can select 1 or 2 trees from thousands and only damage those 2. You add to these the dead deer we found, the tracks, the many deer bones all located in the same area, the vocals we got here and all of the rest, of it is compelling.

I suppose I will catch it from many others that read this. Oh well, I know what to expect here anyway.

Funny how the back story on other potentially squatchy stuff can be used at debunking attempts,seems only fair to let the back story in this case help/ add to the potential BFness of these pics.

sticks alone = no big deal.sticks + vocals,tracks & other assorted goodies....well thats a lot more interesting IMHO.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Funny how the back story on other potentially squatchy stuff can be used at debunking attempts,seems only fair to let the back story in this case help/ add to the potential BFness of these pics.

sticks alone = no big deal.sticks + vocals,tracks & other assorted goodies....well thats a lot more interesting IMHO.

slicktrick, I'm glad you pointed that out. That's part of the intrigue with some of these formations.KB posted some great pics he took not only because he found those structures interesting but also because there was some other evidence/activity in conjunction noted from his outing. That's exactly what I like to see, and what I try to do. Like everyone else that's spent any time backwoods trekking, I've seen my share of fallen trees and limbs too. Sometimes they can fall in an odd position and like most others I realize this and take it into account. But, the structures that I find suspect also tend to reveal some secondary evidence from time to time. The odd footprint found near or within the structure after some noticeable manipulation has been going on(limbs moved around or new evergreen limbs added). The suspect structures are also found in an area with multiple sightings and ongoing activity. Stuff like vocals, tracks and of course physical sightings of the creatures are common to the area. Something especially odd that I've noted and video documented is from time to time, there is alot of flying insect activity within the structures. The insects seem particularly attracted to the ground at the center (inside the structure). This to me, taken with the noticed manipulation of the structure, should not be ignored. At the least, I think it's worth a second look if someone happens upon something that looks odd to them, especially if the structures were noticed or found in conjuction with some other activity. And I'm going to add that although I do beleive secondary evidence is important, it's not important as any means to prove the existence of these creatures. Finding secondary evidence is mostly important to let you know you're on the right track and with that knowledge, possibly give you a chance at observation. My thoughts are if we think the creatures may go to point "A" at some time, and we keep watching point "A", sooner or later we're either gonna observe the creatures at point "A" or we're gonna find that we were wrong. When it comes to Bigfoot, you may be wrong a thousand times and be right only once, that once is worth the effort. Chris B.

[Guest Ambermae]

I find the stick structures thing quite interesting, i know there is no real evidence for any of it to be linked with Bigfoot but then there is no real evidence for Bigfoot yet either, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it all in the first place.

We know so little about the possible behaviour of Bigfoot i can't see how we can be absolutely sure that stick structures have nothing to do with them. Yes they happen naturally and humans could have made them but then nobody here has said that they are definitely made by Bigfoot or that they are evidence for Bigfoot's existence, just that it is possible that Bigfoot may have caused them, which for all we know, may be correct.

One of my dogs likes to collect sticks of all shapes and sizes and place them up against a log in the park, i'm sure many people who have walked past that log wonder why anyone would place so many sticks up against a log in the middle of a park and they would not even think for a minute it may have been a dog that did it, my point being, who knows who does what or why.

Might be Bigfoot, might not, who knows.

[bipedalist]

Now take that dog *err, uhm, BF* balancing every stick on a log in an inaccessible area that is off=limits to humans or some such thing and you've got something going.

Edited September 24, 2010 by bipedalist

[Guest vilnoori]

Great post Sean V, I think it's worth a shot to at least compare some notes on a few structures that are suspect. And speaking of which it looks to me like the pics TooRisky has added to the conversation fit Jodie's description of the missing log perch and its unfortunate rearrangement between some trees. I hope someone adds some pics that resemble a suspect large brush pile for comparison with what I'm finding in Ky.

Great Discussion and pics!

Chris B.

How about this one, submitted to WCS by one of my fellow lady researchers hereabouts.

[kbhunter]

Your right Chris. It is very easy to dismiss this by people who see my pics as weather or other related. I was hesitant to even post them. But, I decided to throw them out there. The trees that were broke while we were there, I know 100% was not weather related whatsoever. The trees snapped and twisted were the only ones of many surrounding trees. I know that there is no wind that can select 1 or 2 trees from thousands and only damage those 2. You add to these the dead deer we found, the tracks, the many deer bones all located in the same area, the vocals we got here and all of the rest, of it is compelling.

I suppose I will catch it from many others that read this. Oh well, I know what to expect here anyway.

For those who haven't read my journal, and as the late great Paul Harvey used to say, here is the reeesst of the story;

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

How about this one, submitted to WCS by one of my fellow lady researchers hereabouts.

Now that's a cool structure. Good scale pic too with the person inside. To my eye, there's one thing about this structure that does possibly look a little human related, it's the single horizontally placed pole at the center of the structure forming a center roof cap line. I'd check for tool marks on the poles used to make sure it's not related to human activity. If none are found, I'll say this is a pretty advanced looking shelter. The structures I'm watching don't have any sort of roof for protection against the elements, fairly primitive compared to the one in the pic. It does look like there was some sort of bough type side walls on yours as well (by looking at the smaller now leafless twigs around the sidewalls in the pic), and that fits with the structures I've been watching. Great Pic! Chris B.

[Guest vilnoori]

Well, that was the main concern about this one over at the WCS forum, it looked so well constructed that they thought people made it, and there was quite a discussion about that. I haven't seen it myself, been meaning to get up that way some time soon before snow flies but life is busy. Plus it was off the beaten track somewhere, as you can see, not so easy to find, and very dense forest too. The possible thing is it could have been a makeshift hunter's blind, even without tool marks. The area does have a reputation for possible sasquatch activity though but it is also not within a park so hunters could be responsible. It wouldn't take a couple of guys much effort to get one of these up, and then throw some evergreen boughs around it. Time and weather would probably get rid of those, but the frame and some stuff would still remain just as you can see.

I did see another such large teepee like structure over near the Archibald Mt. sighting on the North side of the same mountain complex (in the Cascades) very close to two well documented sightings which happened on the same night, by different parties but it had less protection from the elements. Same dimensions though, made in a similar way.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Well, that was the main concern about this one over at the WCS forum, it looked so well constructed that they thought people made it, and there was quite a discussion about that. I haven't seen it myself, been meaning to get up that way some time soon before snow flies but life is busy. Plus it was off the beaten track somewhere, as you can see, not so easy to find, and very dense forest too. The possible thing is it could have been a makeshift hunter's blind, even without tool marks. The area does have a reputation for possible sasquatch activity though but it is also not within a park so hunters could be responsible. It wouldn't take a couple of guys much effort to get one of these up, and then throw some evergreen boughs around it. Time and weather would probably get rid of those, but the frame and some stuff would still remain just as you can see.

I did see another such large teepee like structure over near the Archibald Mt. sighting on the North side of the same mountain complex (in the Cascades) very close to two well documented sightings which happened on the same night, by different parties but it had less protection from the elements. Same dimensions though, made in a similar way.

It would definitely warrant some monitoring if the researcher is able. The distance back in the woods that some of these suspect structures are found makes for a good trek. One of the structures I've been watching is about 3.5 miles back in the woods. So that's a 7 mile round trip. I must admit, my heart is willing but since I'm approaching 44 years now the body is not what it was 20 years ago.

I find the structure you posted particularly interesting because it's more advanced than what I've seen. That's why I'd give it a closer look for any secondary evidence of old hairy. Who knows, one day we may be several miles back in the bush and walk up on a condo built from sticks logs and leaves. Chris B.

[Guest]

Who knows, one day we may be several miles back in the bush and walk up on a condo built from sticks logs and leaves. Chris B.

I think my condo already fits that description

[Guest vilnoori]

Well I do know that the area is about a 4 hour hike from a main road. It is some ways off of a popular hiking trail, but you do have to hike in quite a ways. I guess that makes it less likely to be a hunter's blind since if they got their deer they'd have to pack it out, passing grossed out hikers all the way. LOL

I've been wanting to get into that area for a weekend or something, but been too busy. And its getting colder all the time, sigh.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Well I do know that the area is about a 4 hour hike from a main road. It is some ways off of a popular hiking trail, but you do have to hike in quite a ways. I guess that makes it less likely to be a hunter's blind since if they got their deer they'd have to pack it out, passing grossed out hikers all the way. LOL

I've been wanting to get into that area for a weekend or something, but been too busy. And its getting colder all the time, sigh.

I kinda like the cooler weather, it takes care of the ticks and snakes. Here we have a good supply of rattlesnakes and copperheads and both are extremely active until the cold weather hits. I wear snake boots but those things are uncomfortable (and a little dangerous) for climbing. I agree that a 4 hour hike is unlikely to be made by most hunters. Most usually won't get more than a few hundred yards away from their vehicles and I can understand part of that. Dragging a big buck out of the woods gets old after the first 50 yards. I love to watch the hunting shows. I get a kick out of watching the guys riding 4 wheelers to their tree stands. It seems like hunting is becoming less of a trekking adventure and more of a switching between vehicles ride with the hunter's butt planted in a soft seat most of the time. Chris B.