Jump to content
starchunk

Stick Structures are not evidence

Recommended Posts

Catmandoo
BFF Donor

^^^^ Have you compared 'stick glyphs' to the 'line glyphs' in the prehistoric art caves of France and Africa?  In France, the Chauvet Cave.

Edited by Catmandoo
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

This one is difficult to explain, for me.  It's two saplings twisted 3 times,  bent over a game trail and then lodged in front of a tree, preventing it from moving. I dont know how this could occur naturally. How do you think this happened? I can say with 99.9% certainty that there has not been anyone to that spot for the last 30 years (?) since it was last logged. It was very odd to find, and it looks manipulated.  I have seen things way out in the woods now, that just didnt happen by accident.  I find it all very interesting. 

20190511_132125.jpg

Edited by Madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorthWind

I found it interesting that it was almost like blocking that little game trail, too. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I think rather than something obvious like a tepee structure BF are fully capable of leaving something far more subtle as signs for each other.    After all they live in the woods and know what is normal and what is not.    If they build a tepee at all, I think it likely because it gets us excited.    For all we know their juveniles do it and just sit and watch us humans get all excited.    I cannot believe that something as allusive as BF does anything that would lead humans to them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Franco

I dont have much faith in them... Here We have Forrest preserves. I have seen tree breaks, Teepees, Saplings snapped at 7 feet up.  Seen trees bent over and one side looks like it is Pushed into the Ground [ Heavy rains will do that.] 

 

Nest are interesting, but I have also seen similar bunches of debris in the woods. 

I doubt they would build nest on the ground. They would look for shelter, A Cave, over hang. 

 

I find it hard to reconcile, the structure stuff . But that is me

 

Edited by Franco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
40 minutes ago, Franco said:

I doubt they would build nest on the ground. They would look for shelter, A Cave, over hang.

 

Perhaps you have already researched cave bears. During prehistoric times, the cave bears in France scraped out large depressions as 'nests'.  The cave environment preserved them. The depressions have been dated to tens of thousands of years ago. Smarter than the average bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
14 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

^^^^ Have you compared 'stick glyphs' to the 'line glyphs' in the prehistoric art caves of France and Africa?  In France, the Chauvet Cave.

You brought up a good point.     Mankind has been scratching weathering off rocks or painting with pigments in caves,   displaying animals and humans for many tens of thousands of years.    One would think if BF and humans are related, BF would be doing the same thing someplace.      They seem to be missing an essential creative gene that human ancestors have displayed for nearly a million years.   Either that or they are playing dumb for our benefit.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

I  consider the premise to be flawed, as the evidence is not as the premise summarizes.  We kept a thread going for months that pulled in scores of examples of tree manipulations, structures and other "stuff" that is difficult to explain otherwise. Moreover, there have been many accounts of these things in the context of a Class A sighting,  a number of eyewitnesses to contemporaneous creation, and at least one or two witnesses to the actual creation of them.

 

I also disagree with the premise that these structures are easily explained as being caused by natural forces/occurrences. That is a handy thought stopper, but when pressed to explain something truly extraordinary and puzzling, and are asked to give the mechanical details of how something like this could be formed, they wave their hands and mumble "ice storm, snow storm, wind...." As if those wouldn't be the first things any rational person would consider and rule out. Plenty of what you encounter in the woods is the result of natural processes, and many of the things attributed to Sasquatch manipulations undoubtedly are too. What that leaves you with though are the tougher nuts to crack and unless you can plausibly say, "THIS was caused by THIS, and this is HOW", you have as much uncertainty as the rest of us and you are going to lack a definitive explanation. For those things in that last category, the choice narrows down to "Something very strong, with a big reach, and with hands". The long list of possible causes, at that point, only has one candidate on it.

Edited by WSA
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Care to share with us class A sightings with these events occurring?  I don’t recall reading of such events. 

 

Edit: I don’t mean for that to come off as snarky, I’m just curious about the class A’s.   

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Like Twist, I do not recall reading any Class A  reports of anything but BF breaking off trees and branches in some sort of intimidation tantrum.       I did have a glyph created for me but that did not involve a sighting.    Many things could be pinned on BF.   The problem is proving it, even in the case of my glyph.   I agree the premise of this thread is problematic.    It is an absolute and most absolutes are proven to be wrong.    All it takes is one event and an absolute is wrong.    

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Travis

Really can’t attribute stick structures to sasquatch. I may be wrong but

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Upon my many hikes in the woods. 

I have seen breaks and nothing that defines stick structure. 

I agree they are not tangible evidence  ,but agree with MIB 

Anything submitted is evidence no matter how ridiculous it may seem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

If Sasquatch is real? I’m sure they mess with trees.... the question then becomes how to decipher it.

 

Bears mess with trees.

 

https://www.bear-tracker.com/blackbearscentmarkingttrees.html

 

So do Elk, Deer, Moose, etc.

 

 

 

Not everything seen in the woods is a natural occurrence like snow, lightning, wind, etc.

 

Ive seen both obvious signs of known animal tree damage. And signs that were not obvious but still fit the parameters of a Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks for sharing and of course you know my answer is it has nothing to do with Sasquatch. 

Which is Indian folklore, camp fire stories, misidentification, and last but not least lies. 

Oh,and of course the powers of imagination also known as bigfoot on the brain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Twist...I'd have to go back through that thread to locate those, but I do recall a few. One was related by the poster of seeing a large figure near a tree on the edge of his yard and found and photographed a twisted limb...hickory,  as I recall. One of our members from S. Va. made a very plausible case for a Squatch  constructed hunting blind, if you tend to believe they operate at that level of cognition. We have the infamous tree break in Area X, documented by the NAWAC members. You comb through the reports on the BFRO database and they crop up here and there.... an account of an encounter on a logging road and then returning the following day to two large trees crossed, blocking the way... twisted off limbs... isolated clean breaks of trunks in climates where snow or ice doesn't happen, etc...trees that have clearly been moved from their original locations and stacked without any sign of mechanical assistance.  Not overwhelming evidence, I grant you, but not nothing.

 

I think the points made up-thread about the variety of animals that mess around with trees is very valid, and I would flip the premise to ask: Why wouldn't an animal, especially a bipedal one with hands that lives in wooded habitat, NOT tend to manipulate trees? The fact that the reasoning and intent behind this activity is not clear to us should not detract from the evidence that it is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×