Jump to content
starchunk

Stick Structures are not evidence

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

Funny how the government only wants to get involved in BF related issues when it is looking for someone to fine or charge with a crime for building stick structures in the woods.    I want to be there when they try to arrest a 10 foot BF.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

WSA, you claim we are blaming the data but IMO the data is clearly inconclusive. Maybe saying we are interpreting the data differently is a better statement?   Both sides need to acknowledge they could be mistaken.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ioyza

The data indicates a builder with hands (and without tools!) that builds structures that primarily could not serve as practical shelters, and are primarily built from dead wood stripped of bark, and which form recognizable identifiable archetypes across the country. That's not a conclusion about the data, that's what the data is; I think the implication behind "blaming the data" is really that you're just not looking at it closely enough to see what it actually looks like.

 

The notion that no one has seen a sasquatch building a structure somehow places the theory in epistemological purgatory is a colossal cop-out; they are encountered in the vicinity of structures, and structures are found in the vicinity of encounters, connect the dots. That may not be universally true, perhaps it is a regional behavior, I don't know, but speaking from personal findings and experience in Colorado and the Midwest, they are the builders. Plenty more examples from all across the country are out there, I recommend spending some time on Youtube.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I think your reasoning behind your belief is sound based off your personal experiences.  Not everyone has had the same experiences so it’s natural to look at more mundane reasons for tree structures.   Like it or not but an undocumented ape man is the outlier as the reason for things like this for most.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

When my area was active and I was finding footprints every few months I never found any structures other than rock stacks on stumps and that was some distance from the most active part of the research area.    So I am guessing that structures are regional.     While many of the lean to structures would not do anything to keep out rain,   if covered with snow, they would become snow cave like structures and provide some warmth.    We were taught to build similar stuff in Air Force Survival school.    I wonder if the structures are above the snow line more often than not?     My research area was about 2000 feet and in and out of snow all winter without much in the way of accumulation.   

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

I think Ioyza summed it up perfectly. What bedevils the BF field is this pernicious idea that only personal experiences count as data to be examined. And we b. & moan about the lack of Scientific validation? This is what Science is...drawing conclusions from the reported experiences of others when and if the data is coherent, credible and consistent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ioyza
1 hour ago, Twist said:

Like it or not but an undocumented ape man is the outlier as the reason for things like this for most.

 

For most outside the BF community with no notion that the subject is real, that makes sense of course. For those with exposure and a level of understanding of the phenomenon, it's one of those topics where I simply don't understand the reticence. 

 

SWWASAS was your area in the PNW? I wonder if they don't build these things up there so much because of how wet the wood is, it's impossible to get that dried wood stripped of bark they like to use? But on the other hand, there's for example Brown Dwarf who I think is in N. California for the most part... but I actually haven't been up to OR/WA so I don't know if there's a sharp change in climate that could account for it. I was thinking LeeAnn Carnegie was in British Columbia which would shoot that down, but I was wrong, she's in Southern Ontario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
28 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

For most outside the BF community with no notion that the subject is real, that makes sense of course. For those with exposure and a level of understanding of the phenomenon, it's one of those topics where I simply don't understand the reticence. 

 

SWWASAS was your area in the PNW? I wonder if they don't build these things up there so much because of how wet the wood is, it's impossible to get that dried wood stripped of bark they like to use? But on the other hand, there's for example Brown Dwarf who I think is in N. California for the most part... but I actually haven't been up to OR/WA so I don't know if there's a sharp change in climate that could account for it. I was thinking LeeAnn Carnegie was in British Columbia which would shoot that down, but I was wrong, she's in Southern Ontario. 

Yes it is in SW WA.      Northern California is much drier than the PNW by a significant amount.     West of the Cascades in Washington is basically a rain forest only topped by places in the tropics for annual rainfall.    The big change in climate happens as you go inland.    100 miles from the coast only gets a fraction of the rain in the west and native plants are grasslands with forests limited to mountainous areas in the Eastern part of Oregon and Washington.    Wood looses bark mostly because of rot in the PNW.  

 

I have wondered if the structures are BF artwork intended to mimic human tents since they seem to have no real function but have that tent form.      In the human world, form without function is art.  Perhaps stick structures are the best BF can do creating anything.  As with humans perhaps some BF have interest in creating art and some do not.     Some suggest the structures are like cribs to corral small juveniles but most do not seem sturdy enough for that.    Bears would be their most dangerous predator and would go right through most of the structures I have seen in photos.   I think juveniles are encouraged to climb trees to escape predators like bears do.  

 

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
1 hour ago, ioyza said:

For most outside the BF community with no notion that the subject is real, that makes sense of course. For those with exposure and a level of understanding of the phenomenon, it's one of those topics where I simply don't understand the reticence. 

 

Just because many here are like minded does not guarantee we interpret the data the same.  I personally think that’s a benefit to the field.   Approaching the subject from different angles will be crucial to discovery.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ioyza

SW WA... SAS... I get it now haha :rolleyes:

 

33 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Wood looses bark mostly because of rot in the PNW.

 

That's basically my thinking, structures would rot there. Maybe it's the same story in much of Florida. I can't think of examples of structures from either place, and both are BF hotspots. However, regarding Eastern WA I definitely remember watching somebody's vids in the panhandle of Idaho that was really get out there and finding some incredible stuff, let me see if I can find him again - nope no luck darn. But so I wonder if the situation changes as you go East?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

In what world is the default conclusion to purposeless, ramshackle, haphazard assemblages somehow "giant, undiscovered, hirsute apemen" are responsible?

 

It fairly boggles the mind.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Like everything about BF Incorrigible1, it is not a conclusion at all. What it is, is the most viable hypothesis because nobody in opposition has any coherent, credible or consistent theory to explain it otherwise. No, really you don't.  Dismissive handwaving is something I presumed only the scoffers engaged in around here. Guess not so. Explain the data, or don't, but please don't dismiss it as something not there. It is.  

 

There are recurring and congruent structures that exist across wildlands in N.A. They lack any sign or indication they were built by humans or natural processes. I say the weight of the evidentiary probabilities tips to the creatures that have been sighted in and around these structures, and which have left footprints in their vicinity. What have you got besides, "Nuh-Uhhhhh!" ?  

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
39 minutes ago, WSA said:

What have you got besides, "Nuh-Uhhhhh!" ?  

Fairies, perhaps. Gnomes, little people.

 

All have as much corroborating evidence as your default, confirmation-biased conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
1 hour ago, ioyza said:

SW WA... SAS... I get it now haha :rolleyes:

 

 

That's basically my thinking, structures would rot there. Maybe it's the same story in much of Florida. I can't think of examples of structures from either place, and both are BF hotspots. However, regarding Eastern WA I definitely remember watching somebody's vids in the panhandle of Idaho that was really get out there and finding some incredible stuff, let me see if I can find him again - nope no luck darn. But so I wonder if the situation changes as you go East?

The rainfall in Eastern Washington is a fraction of that in the West.     The Eastern mountains  get more thunderstorm action in the summer months which are pretty dry June through September in the West.    But thunderstorms dump rain then dry quickly in the low humidity of the Eastern Mountains.    So the climates are very different.       Idaho panhandle and Eastern WA and Oregon Mountains are very similar.  

 

I think BF are intelligent enough that they might have religious practices.      If so, perhaps the structures have some religious significance?     Shrines to dead ancestors and that sort of thing?    Perhaps the bare wood devoid of bark signifies bare bones?     Speaking of that,   I wonder if anyone has taken the trouble to dig under some of the big TeePee structures?    Maybe in some areas they bury the dead then build the structure over the grave?    Would be good to find a structure on private land and dig under it with a backhoe.    Anything humans do it some parts of the world should be compared with what we think BF is doing here.    After all like us, they came here from someplace else in the world, and may have brought customs with them.     

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Have you ever found freshly disturbed soil under a tree structure?  Why have you not already dug under one?   Certainly if a BF dug a grave it would not be to deep for a spade shovel to find.   

 

Once you start attributing burial sites and memorials to BF you are implying culture.   For me personally, I do not see BF having culture as we know it.  I believe they are an animal.  I’m open to being wrong but nothing I’ve read, seen, or believe point to culture.   

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...