Bigfoot ripping up trees in the winter?

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Shooter said:

I don't have a lot of faith in tree breaks in the woods. Mother nature can be pretty violent, that said now twists get my attention. Find a two to three inch tree all twisted up and I'm  like whoa, what does that?

 

I think Moose can..... they like saplings and scrub alder, etc.

 

But! They get my attention as well.

[bipedalist]

Tornados

[Doug]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

I think Moose can..... they like saplings and scrub alder, etc.

 

But! They get my attention as well.

 

As can bull Roosevelt elk.

[MIB]

Elk can, even a really big buck deer can, but the characteristics are different than a bigfoot "tree twist."    Look at the bark ... it tells the story.    You won't find antler gouges in the bark above or below a bigfoot twist but elk and deer tend to rip up the bark above and below the eventual break.    Typically deer and elk don't twist the trunk, either, it's a sort of "push over" break.

 

The best "almost a break" I ever found was caused by snow.     The location is around 6000 feet and gets deep snow.    The break was about 5-1/2 feet above the ground.    The tree was in a little opening on a fairly steep slope.    What appeared to have happened was snow built up, then melted and refroze on top creating a significant layer of ice, then it began snowing again.   The ice layer acted as a fulcrum.   As the snow on top of the ice (think mini-avalanche) moved downhill, all the force was focused where the ice was against the tree top and it snapped off cleanly with just a little tearing of bark.    The bigger trees surrounding the small opening were not affected.   It was pretty cool .. took a couple days puzzling out what happened.   I'd have loved for it to have been a tree twist but it just wasn't.

 

MIB

 

 

[SWWASAS]

I don't give much credence to the universal significance of snap offs,  twist offs, or pole structures because when my research area was the hottest with BF activity,  I saw no evidence of that stuff happening there.      What I did find fairly often was footprints,   game trail activity without indication of use by hooved animals, and rock stacks on tree stumps.    Only the footprints could be ascribed to BF and not possibly something else.        I found one lean too structure but since it was too small for most BF, just off a human trail and road,  I thought it most likely was something like a boy scout project than some BF construct.     The rock stacks on stumps were suspicious in that they also seemed to mark some sort of game trails.    It was almost always three rocks on the stump separated by many yards from the next stump.    I puzzled over that because in the daylight the trails were plainly visible and not needed.     However I noticed the markers started after something like a road crossing,   and in dim or star light,  might be visible enough to mark the trail because they sat on top of stumps.    BF activities like twist off and pole structures may be regional in nature and what is done in one area may not be done in others.    While the PNW may be the exception because of BF population density,   I think that BF likely exist in isolated pockets for the most part, and each pocket my have their own unique behaviors related to the individual BF involved.     Mostly conjecture on my part but people in other areas might keep watch for this kind of thing.     

 

I looked for some pictures I had of these tree rock stumps but I lost them when my computer was hacked.        I should go back to the area and they are likely still there to photograph again.   In some areas they defined trails about a half mile long.   

[Doug]

One afternoon while bow hunting in the Oregon coast mountains, My brother and I came across a structure that was vine maple twisted and weaved into a wigwam type structure. No human evidence was found. A couple of hundred yards away, we were walking down an old cat road that had over grown until there was just an elk trail. It was lined with young fur and alder trees that were about 12 to 15 feet tall. All the tops were twisted and left hanging down at about 8 to 12 feet high. They went on for a long ways. No other trees were damaged. Just the ones lining the trail on the old road. The whole time we were following the trail we heard constant wood knocks. Two or three at a time.

[NatFoot]

16 hours ago, Doug said:

One afternoon while bow hunting in the Oregon coast mountains, My brother and I came across a structure that was vine maple twisted and weaved into a wigwam type structure. No human evidence was found. A couple of hundred yards away, we were walking down an old cat road that had over grown until there was just an elk trail. It was lined with young fur and alder trees that were about 12 to 15 feet tall. All the tops were twisted and left hanging down at about 8 to 12 feet high. They went on for a long ways. No other trees were damaged. Just the ones lining the trail on the old road. The whole time we were following the trail we heard constant wood knocks. Two or three at a time.

 

Pics would have been great...

[Doug]

They sure would! It was the early 90s, so, no cell phones and I didn't start carrying a camera until the late 90s. I never remotely associated the woven vine maple "nest", twisted trees or wood knocks with Sasquatch. They all were just mysterious things in the woods. It was fairly recent that I found out that these things have been associated with them.

[MIB]

^^^^ A common story, I think.   Seems like a generational difference.    My first sighting was fail extended, 3-5 minutes minimum, but in those days, 1976, 12-13 year old kids did not carry cameras around ... NOBODY did except some of the photography geeks.   My first camera came in '82 and it was the first 35mm in my immediate family.  

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

23 minutes ago, MIB said:

^^^^ A common story, I think.   Seems like a generational difference.    My first sighting was fail extended, 3-5 minutes minimum, but in those days, 1976, 12-13 year old kids did not carry cameras around ... NOBODY did except some of the photography geeks.   My first camera came in '82 and it was the first 35mm in my immediate family.  

 

MIB

I must have been a photograpy geek.    I had a 35mm camera in high school in the early 60s.   I also processed my own film.    

[Shooter]

Back in the 60s everyone I knew in the military including me bought a 35mm camera. My first was a Yashica I think. I have a suitcase full of slides from back then!!!

[SWWASAS]

I almost hate to say it because we do have people who claim to see BF in nearly every photograph they take.    But in the 60s and 70s many slides were taken but the BF was not common knowledge.   The population of BF had to be higher and it therefore more likely that people unknowingly took BF photos.     Throw in the factor that unless you were a photography hobbyist or paid a photography studio money to blow up images,  not many people had pictures blown up beyond the cheapest blow up ratio of the mass photo processing.       A 4 X 5 was bigger and more expensive than standard processing.     No one has really looked at all the nature slides out there.      Now we can take our digital images and at home on the computer blow them up a great deal.    A 35 MM slide digitized with a good quality digitizer produces a far better quality image than anything other than a very expensive DSLR at high image resolutions.      If someone has hundreds of nature slides,   maybe a good project would be get a good digitizer and start looking for the peeping BF in the tree line or on the ridge.    Some might even be real and not pareidolia.     Now and then someone discovers what looks like a BF in a modern picture.  PS don't bother to do this if all you have to view the digital results is an IPad or your IPhone.     You need something with a larger screen to see details.  

Edited March 31, 2019 by SWWASAS

[MIB]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

I must have been a photograpy geek.    I had a 35mm camera in high school in the early 60s.   I also processed my own film.    

My cousin was.   But he lived in town.   (I don't think he did his own development.   I've done B&W development in HS, but not color.)

 

Out where we were, I think the nicest camera in the community (can't really call it "town") was mom's 126.

[ShadowBorn]

Mib

126 That's my squadron

[SWWASAS]

I never did color.     I hated the smell of the chemicals for film and print processing and since I did not process all that much film,   I found it cheaper to have my 35MM commercially processed so I could take color slides too.    The chemicals did not last very long once they were mixed up.      My camera was totally manual focus and exposure.   You set the distance to the subject,   the exposure time, and the aperture.   I had a separate light meter.     That camera would be very good for BF photography in brush and heavy forest.     No autofocus issues at all.   Not sure what happened to my darkroom equipment, which included the enlarger.    My younger brother must have inherited it.