BFRO's Robert Leiterman's Sierra Snow Mounds Article, Late Spring 2005 Expedition comes upon enigma Options

[Hominid,WA]

The BFRO has just recently posted an article written by California State Park Ranger Robert Leiterman, which addresses the findings of two snow mounds covered in wood debris topping, which were composed of fir bark and fir heartwood. Bart Cutino, a regular poster here on the BFF, was also with Leiterman during these developments. (I'm sure Bart will add information, which will be appreciated)

As a preface to the above mentioned piece, Moneymaker added:

The content below describes something that may have been seen before by humans, but has never been described before in writing, as far as we can tell. Please do correct us if you can cite a previously published source describing snow mounds of the same description.

Being we have a large number of researchers here on the BFF, I thought it a productive enterprise to see if we could add any value in figuring out what these mounds may be.

My hope is, any latent denigration that may spring up concerning the BFRO is saved for another thread, and would like to avoid the hypercritical personals on this one.

Here's the link: http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/sierras_2...snow_mounds.asp

Let's get started shall we...

This post has been edited by Hominid,WA: Dec 2 2007, 05:48 AM

[Volsquatch]

This thread could go 50 pages, but in the end it's always going to come back to "Yeah, but you weren't there so your opinion doesn't count - it simply had to be bigfoot".

[dogu4]

At this stage, the phenomenon is genuinely interesting. Having hiked and winter camped in the Sierras I can't ever recall seing anything like it except for the middens that red-squirrels will make, but based on their description, it definitely isn't made by red-squirrells, so this is an excellent opportunity to watch the analysis as it progresses and perhaps learn something about nature, whether BF related or not, that reinforces the foundation of objectivity that is so often overshadowed or all-together absent in BF investigation.

[Bitter Monk]

...so this is an excellent opportunity to watch the analysis as it progresses and perhaps learn something about nature, whether BF related or not, that reinforces the foundation of objectivity that is so often overshadowed or all-together absent in BF investigation.

[Flashman]

I saw that yesterday and have been thinking about it. There's things I'd like to know about the situation though, that don't seem to be covered in the report. Firstly I'm wondering how deep the general snow cover was, and secondly I'm wondering if it rained any in the weeks before they found them.

Reason for those being significant I think, is that I am having a hard time seeing how that wood debris actually insulated the snow, unless it was very thick, several inches, doesn't seem to be that thick. Usually any thin layer of dark colored debris on top of snow would make it melt quicker, due to heating up more in sunlight, when the surface of the snow reflects much more. A thinner layer may however protect it more from rain. So I'm wondering if these were actually formed as mounds of snow in the first place, or whether the mound of snow is just an artifact of the wood debris being scattered on top of the regular fall of snow. i.e. if the snow was waist deep, and a thin layer of debris protected it from rain in that spot, it would melt down and look like a mound, and also if it was a thick layer on the surface, it could have protected it from sun and that also may have made it protect that depth of snow and then later made it look moundlike.

So. I dunno if we're asking so much "what made a snow mound and covered it with debris?" as, "What critter or process dumped a patch of debris on the snow?"

It could be possible that if there was a significant depth of snow here, that what that debris is, is actually the floor covering of a "snow hole". i.e. something lined a snow hole with it and slept on top of it. The snow melted off the top, and either the debris had insulating or weather protection properties that stopped the snow underneath melting as fast as the rest.

If this is the case, then what we're looking at has such a large number of co-incidental parameters that finding another one is very unlikely.

Flash

edit: might not necessarily have been so much of a snow cave type thing, as just a hollow in the snow. Potentially sufficient shelter if the weather wasn't hovering far from freezing at the time.

This post has been edited by Flashman: Dec 2 2007, 11:45 AM

[GuyInIndiana]

My hope is, any latent denigration that may spring up concerning the BFRO is saved for another thread, and would like to avoid the hypercritical personals on this one.

So then, to participate in this thread, are we to assume, or NOT assume : #1) the intentions of why the story was posted, and #2) whether or not, by including this story on a website exclusively designed and created "about" bigfoot, does it suggest or imply, THEY believe it's bigfoot related?

In other words, don't be "critical" of the BFRO, just because they posted something on their website like this? How do you seperate the article, from the author?

[longtabber PE]

My first observation is that they appear to be man made.

Secondly, if this was a BF, then it would indicate to me that "mound building" is in BF's skill set so logically you would expect to see them all over all the time ( whether a BF was sighted or not)- To my knowledge, this isnt occuring.

[Hominid,WA]

So then, to participate in this thread, are we to assume, or NOT assume : #1) the intentions of why the story was posted, and #2) whether or not, by including this story on a website exclusively designed and created "about" bigfoot, does it suggest or imply, THEY believe it's bigfoot related?

In other words, don't be "critical" of the BFRO, just because they posted something on their website like this? How do you seperate the article, from the author?

Good question. My thought this morning when I started this thread, was that I hoped to stick to the subject of the mounds, and try and come up with a reasonable explanation of what they were or could be. Many times when the name BFRO is involved, the thread, depending on it's subject matter of course, has the possibility of getting sidetracked off the topic. I think most who post here know the reasons why that occurs, but I understand your point Guy, and being that this is of course an open forum, and separating the article from the author as you mentioned, may be difficult to look through for some, I simply wanted to keep it civil and respond to the challenge brought up on the BFRO site regarding the mounds. I have no problem being critical of the BFRO. My interest is more along the lines of, does this find hold any merit concerning BF research?

This post has been edited by Hominid,WA: Dec 2 2007, 01:19 PM

[bartlojays]

Hey everybody-

These mounds were found by myself and Ranger Robert Leiterman in the Sierras in June 2005 (damn, time flys). Anyway, unfortuneatly I'm up to neck in Xmas parties from Friday until tomorrow night and will not have the time I want to spend answering questions, hearing opinions etc.. until likely Tuesday or Wednesday, maybe a little bit tomorrow. In the interim, please READ the article carefully and if it's OK with the moderators here (if not, I apologize in advance for even suggesting it) read through the BFRO discussion board thread on the subject as that might likely answer alot of your questions regarding these mounds as Leiterman's been answering questions there. If not, highlight some questions that come to mind here or that you may want to ask me and I'll get to them as soon as possible.
Just to let you know and to make it absolutely clear, neither R Leiterman or myself are suggesting these mounds are likely bigfoot-related, we're merely contending, based on the evidence, that they are not a natural occuring phenomenon. We're not alone either, as every member of our party who witnessed and inspected these mounds in person- including ********, Wildlife Conservation Society agree with that assessment. None of us will rule out a natural explanation of this phenomenon if someone can successfully explain in detail and/or diagrams how they can naturally form into the product seen and described.
Just to quickly get you familiar with Ranger Robert Leiterman, he's been a Park Ranger for approximately 20 years (State Park System for 27 years) has been a Curator with the BFRO since I believe 1999 when he investigated a eyewitness report from Humboldt Redwoods State Park (where he's employed). He's part of my "CA crew" and is probably the most skeptical and level-headed person I've met in this endeavor, not to mention, an "expert tracker."
I also want to quickly point out (because I don't think the pictures show this well) when I found that second mound across the pond, it was completely covered with various size-pieces of the decayed bark you see in the photo. Their was absolutely not even an inch of white snow visible. And I don't believe the article clarifies enough that for the second mound the source of the rotting bark material you see atop of it matches a rotted tree with the same material between 20-25 ft away from it (hope to be able to show you soon as I'm trying to retrieve footage from ex-wife's video camera) and yes their was a noticeable debris trail.
And if these mounds were done by human beings (which is a very real possibility) two interesting questions need to be answered- Why there? and what possible necessity or reasoning for these mounds justify the time in "human terms" to manufacture them?
So please, read the article carefully, weigh in and try to recall if you've seen or heard of anything with the same type of characteristics we've outlined. All we're doing here is trying is disclose facts of a strange anomaly that may or may not have anything to do with this subject or phenomenon. If you feel the need to respond critically, please feel free, but understand this, and I'm not going to repeat it again in this thread- No one is pushing this a "a sasquatch did this or a sasquatch did that" I'm emphasizing that now because neither Robert or I have ever embraced that conclusion-only that we feel they are not a natural occuring event, and they may or may not be relevant, period. If somebody here has a problem with us because we want to share something POSSIBLY relevant that we can't explain, my answer would be, I'm sorry but you can't make everybody happy and if you feel that way, don't share any of your potential evidence matters, as is your right. I encouraged the eventual release of this article as did Robert, to share and gain opinions that may answer some of our questions.

Bart Cutino

[longtabber PE]

Just a few Observations

These were 'discovered' in 2005, its now almost 2008- have there been any more found? ( If not, I smell a red herring)

Given the amount of media in the piles- it would have taken several dozen trips to make it, that would almost have to leave tracks, disturbance of the area- what were the results of the perimeter search?

How close was the available "supply" of media to the mounds?

Did anyone look for evidence of mechanical means such as saws, machetes etc?

Since it would be nearly impossible to estimate when they were made, were there any signs of human presence anywhere within say a 50-100 yard range?

I dont have an opinion on the BFRO ( pro or con) but they arent high on my credibility list because of some of their "postings". I see no reason for this article to be posted except as another "what if" or "maybe" teaser.

After almost 3 years- if there hasnt been other similar mounds found or any additional evidence of anything, I would believe any further time and energy spent attempting to ascertain the purpose is a complete waste of time.

[julio12]

Could these mounds be a form of making bedding.A nest that forms when the snow melts.I am sure that all that material will soften as time goes by.Well anyhow it is just a thought in case it does turn out to be B/F related .

[17x7]

I'm not an expert or anything, but I don't recall ever seeing anything like that before.

Did anyone 'disassemble' one of the mounds? Was there anything in it except snow?

17x7

[longtabber PE]

I'm not an expert or anything, but I don't recall ever seeing anything like that before.

Did anyone 'disassemble' one of the mounds? Was there anything in it except snow?

17x7

I got curious enough to go there and read the discussion board. The author responded to several questions and added additional commentary.

They did dig thru one of them- found nothing

They looked for evidence it might be a burial mound- but the ground was undisturbed

I think he said most of the source material was about 28 feet from the mounds

They also found 4" branches around the base.

Everything there ( at least to me) point to this being something man made.

[JayleeD]

Most, if not all, of the answers to the questions being asked are included in the article that is linked to in the opening post.

[Flashman]

Gah, read everything through very carefully again, article and BFRO discussion, and it's real short on facts and heavy on assertions which is real frustrating.

Did see it mentioned that it rained a few days before the expedition. Well, that implies to me that the "glazed surface smoothed down by hands" was a result of the rain. Also I doubt the assertions made about one being newer than the other, if it was in a sunnier spot, the "older" one could have deteriorated quicker.

Read the thing about the 4 inch chunks of log around the outside on top of the debris, thought the snow shelter and tent pad theory are interesting. However on both of those we are very short of facts that could determine whether either of these is likely.

Going solely on the photo evidence, the debris is thicker at the top and thins off round the sides. This practically screams at me "These were not mounds when formed" or at least they were not mounds that some one or thing tried to cover evenly with debris. When you pile loose debris on a mound it will fall off around the sides, you'll end up with more around the sides than on top, or at least a fairly even covering, whatever your intentions. I guess it's possible too that the mound was originally just a platform for a pile of that debris on top, a flatter topped mound, but it had melted down to distribute it.


I find the tree stump position interesting. This is highly suggestive to me that the snow in which the "mound" was formed, was originally a deep drift, formed behind the stump from the wind. A small object will make a drift tail behind it and as more and more snow falls it will just keep building up there. The other "mound" may have been in a deep drift caused by something less obvious.

Now, about the way the debris is thicker on top. I've got two suggestions, either the debris was just a debris pile on top of a larger maybe even flat drift of snow, and melted down that way. Remember it would have been loose when piled but after it got snow and thaw on it it would have been more "sticky" and tending to stay together, with just the outer layers thawing off and falling down.

Or... the debris was not put on a mound, it was packed into a hollow in a deep drift... it would have dropped to be thicker at the bottom as it was placed. The snow at the bottom would be more compressed. I think most people know that compressed snow does not melt as fast as loose snow. So as the snow melted it turned inside out, the thicker layer ended up sitting on top of a mound. The branches could have been reinforcing the lip of the hollow. This could have been an open hollow, or the bottom of a snow cave shelter made by snow campers.

More facts would have been very nice. For instance; site plan and layout indicating North, direction of prevailing winds, cross section of mound detailing depth of debris, relative compaction of snow through mound. Photographic detail of features suggesting it was "hand made" in that form would have been nice also rather than just assertions.


Anyhoo, the facts as presented thus far are strongly suggestive to me of that one main point, these weren't formed as debris coated mounds as observed, they looked a lot different when formed.


Flash.

[Scooby]

That looks a lot like what happens to some of the trees around here. They die, and then as they decompose, they crumble to the ground. Honey Locusts tend to do this a lot. Pines seem to give the reddish color that I see in the photos. Were there any sign around the area (footprints, scat, claw marks, etc)? Not saying what I am seeing here is what is in the photos, but just a thought.

[Sasquatched]

Were samples of the tree bark and heartwood taken and species of tree identified?

I don't know the particulars of 'bark for food' processing and preparation, but I do know that the is a rich history of native peoples in certain areas preparing/processing certain types of barks and heartwoods for food or medicinal purposes.

"The cambium of lodgepole pine, Pinus Contorta, was second in importance to hemlock cambium as a food source. It was used by the Wet’suwet’en and Gitksan tribes in the interior of north-western British Columbia. The inner bark was harvested from young standing trees in May and June, a time when the bark is of maximum sweetness and is loose and easy to harvest (Johnson Gottesfeld 1992)."

More general information on that HERE.

Could these mounds be remnants of some type of Native American bark harvesting process? I believe both Lodgepole Pine and Mountain Hemlock are fairly common in the area...

What are the local tribes in that area - Miwok or Washo? Do they have any bark harvesting practices that might account for the odd bark and snow mounds?

Certainly not my specialty... maybe Kathy S. could chime in with thoughts on that...

This post has been edited by Sasquatched: Dec 3 2007, 05:39 PM

[hopeful]

Gah, read everything through very carefully again, article and BFRO discussion, and it's real short on facts and heavy on assertions which is real frustrating.

Did see it mentioned that it rained a few days before the expedition. Well, that implies to me that the "glazed surface smoothed down by hands" was a result of the rain. Also I doubt the assertions made about one being newer than the other, if it was in a sunnier spot, the "older" one could have deteriorated quicker.

Read the thing about the 4 inch chunks of log around the outside on top of the debris, thought the snow shelter and tent pad theory are interesting. However on both of those we are very short of facts that could determine whether either of these is likely.

Going solely on the photo evidence, the debris is thicker at the top and thins off round the sides. This practically screams at me "These were not mounds when formed" or at least they were not mounds that some one or thing tried to cover evenly with debris. When you pile loose debris on a mound it will fall off around the sides, you'll end up with more around the sides than on top, or at least a fairly even covering, whatever your intentions. I guess it's possible too that the mound was originally just a platform for a pile of that debris on top, a flatter topped mound, but it had melted down to distribute it.
I find the tree stump position interesting. This is highly suggestive to me that the snow in which the "mound" was formed, was originally a deep drift, formed behind the stump from the wind. A small object will make a drift tail behind it and as more and more snow falls it will just keep building up there. The other "mound" may have been in a deep drift caused by something less obvious.

Now, about the way the debris is thicker on top. I've got two suggestions, either the debris was just a debris pile on top of a larger maybe even flat drift of snow, and melted down that way. Remember it would have been loose when piled but after it got snow and thaw on it it would have been more "sticky" and tending to stay together, with just the outer layers thawing off and falling down.

Or... the debris was not put on a mound, it was packed into a hollow in a deep drift... it would have dropped to be thicker at the bottom as it was placed. The snow at the bottom would be more compressed. I think most people know that compressed snow does not melt as fast as loose snow. So as the snow melted it turned inside out, the thicker layer ended up sitting on top of a mound. The branches could have been reinforcing the lip of the hollow. This could have been an open hollow, or the bottom of a snow cave shelter made by snow campers.

More facts would have been very nice. For instance; site plan and layout indicating North, direction of prevailing winds, cross section of mound detailing depth of debris, relative compaction of snow through mound. Photographic detail of features suggesting it was "hand made" in that form would have been nice also rather than just assertions.
Anyhoo, the facts as presented thus far are strongly suggestive to me of that one main point, these weren't formed as debris coated mounds as observed, they looked a lot different when formed.
Flash.

Flash,

This makes a lot of sense to me, even where you state you think they were made at the same time. You're saying the snow wasn't piled first and then covered in bark, but instead the bark was laid out flat (or in a hollow or possible snow cave) and then the surrounding snow melted away much faster than the covered snow. This most likely would have been for sleeping purposes either as a pad for a tent or a snow shelter, I think. I'm wondering why so far apart? Unless it was only one camper and decided the first spot was unacceptable for one reason or another and then chose the further location across the pond.

[bartlojays]

Hey guys-

I'm back temporarily as this was the worst two-week period this article could've came out for me personally between Xmas parties, studying for major career test and a 5-day vacation this Thur to Tuesday (likely won't have access to a computer), I apologize about that because I hate to leave anyone hanging, especially when they have some very good questions, and the whole purpose of this article from Robert and I's standpoint is to stimulate thought here, test our assessment (as well as that of others who saw the mounds shortly after finding them) that these mounds are not a product of nature, and see if anyone else may've stumbled across anything like this before because none of us have before or since. I'll try to give as many facts and details as possible now and am working on hopefully having some old footage available for you to see next week- when I get back, so bear with me.
If you found our investigation somewhat vague I apologize, but please understand that time was a huge factor in not only my decision to excavate the second mound and place a nearby trail cam facing it, but also in sufficient time for performing a more thorough investigation as darkness was quickly closing in and Robert and I having to leave very early in the morning, due to my extensive work schedule as a restaurant GM back then and I had to be back at work the following day. I was Robert's ride and to his chagrin we didn't even have time to check the mounds in the morning before departing. As is the life of an amateur "bigfoot" investigator, I'm sure most, if not all of you can relate.
Unfortuneatly and not surprisingly, I see from some comments here and some other threads that people are already huffing and puffing about this article, some for the simple fact that everything published from our BFRO website has a agenda and they want to insist we're pushing this as a bigfoot-related event when we have absolutely no verifiable evidence whatsoever associated with these mounds and "bigfoot" and have said so from the beginning. If you feel this way, and I'm the "horse" who participated in the find and it's coming straight from my mouth, your absolutely wrong in that "pushing bigfoot" sense and many people are interested in what we're sharing here. Like I said, feel free to criticize our limited investigation, hell, criticize us as researchers, especially me as I was pretty "raw" field-wise back in mid-2005. But don't make false statements that we're pushing this find as bigfoot-related when that clearly isn't the case, at least I wouldn't recommend it- especially if you haven't checked to make sure your "closet is fully clean." That's one thing about us bigfoot researchers that's unarguable and is always a good thing to remember, we leave a hell of alot more evidence of our existence online than these "things" leave of their existence in the forest.

Just for the record, I recall a few persons claimed to hear strange vocalizations on this particular expedition coming from an area near where we found the mounds. If I'm not mistaken, some people heard these purported vocalizations who are no longer in the BFRO. Robert and myself never heard anything on this trip and were actually joking about how quiet the trip was before stumbling into these mounds. A matter of fact, the only similiarities we see with these mounds and sasquatches at this point is that both are "rare" and not fully explained (figuratively speaking) and in our opinion (me more so than Robert because I've seen one) sasquatches have hands as do humans, so if these are "man-made" or manufactured with hands maybe their's a relationship there, maybe not. I do know this though, if sasquatches exist (again, I know they do only because I've seen one) I think we can collectively agree that SOME of these speculative or purported evidencial or behavioral matters- possible nest or bed sites, oddly twisted tree limbs, footprint evidence, various vocalizations, wood-knocks and tree-bashing etc.. are likely relevant. Which ones? I have know idea and either do you. All I can say is that they (the animals) exist, and my opinion as well as what I would confidently bet a majority here who are proponents would agree, some of these purported evidential matters have to be associated with these animals as I think we all agree that no flesh and blood animal can exist on this planet without leaving physical traces of its collective existence. Having said that, besides these two particular snow mounds and sasquatches being "anomalies" if you will, the similiarities stop there, so let's cut the crap and focus on the facts of the find, shall we.



FIRST MOUND:

Found by Leiterman, located on the southside of the pond, yet faced north (traditionally a cooler location?) Confirming that fact were several snowdrifts and the mound was also covered with more shade and vegetative cover overhead and was obviously exposed to less sunlight and posssibly less of a warmer breeze cooled by the shadows.
Looking at this particular mound as it's sitting under forest cover smuggled amongst a nearby snag and the downed log at its rear- Could some of the snow got caught in the tree tops, melted in the warmer rain, then continued to rain down on the mound with the melting sun well after the rain had subsided? Absolutely! The top of the first mound still had its top covered with debris and the lower bottom had been melted back-its covering sluffed away from the bottom portion. It should also be noted that the organic material covering on mound one, consisted of smaller and lighter particles collectively than mound two. Could these conditions have eroded the mound quicker then the second mound on the other side of the pond? I would assume it could if the climate conditions were exactly the same. the only difference was one having more water dumped on it then the next, but that's not the case. When the rain subsided on mound two, the drip continued on mound one. Based on the nearby snowdrifts which also suffer the same conditions, my guess is mound one is the older of the two mounds. With added organic topping, I would expect it to have protected the mound for a longer period of time.


Second Mound:

Found by me on northside, but south aspect of pond- a traditionally warmer location. Not surprisingly their weren't any snowdrifts nearby as they would've been expected to have been melted away by exposed sunlight,wind and warmer rains. This particular mound was also clearly exposed to sunlight and was absent of vegetative cover. Up until we discovered it, mound two was in better condition despite these exposure conditions and likely because the blanket-like organic cover protected it from the rain and sun.
So, if we are to assume the rains are erosive, why wasn't the mound in worse condition than mound one (which did have much better protection) and why less of an impact outside of the fact that it might not have been as old as mound one? Believe me, that whole second mound was completely covered with organic material (could not see white snow unless you lifted a piece of debris). There didn't appear to be more at the bottom then the top as Flashman suggested.
Now let's together speculate for one moment and say since the second mound was more exposed to "the conditions" due to the fact of less vegetative cover over it- could it of had a larger layer of snow over the organic layer (not stopped by upper branches), thereby protecting it more from the erosive elements so when we found them the outer layer of snow had been removed? As Leiterman stated in the article- the larger pieces had started to melt edges into the snow surface, the smaller ones were easily scraped free.

So if you were to ask me and most definitely Robert, I'd say if you feel it's relevant the first mound is likely and logically the oldest.

Flashman suggested- "I guess it's possible too that the mound was just a platform for a pile of debris on top, a flatter topped mound, but it had melted down to distribute it."

In a circle, Flash? Twice? Both mounds? What are the odds?

This platform idea doesn't sufficiently explain the circular dome shape of these mounds and why not melt back evenly? Also people don't normally make round beds (Austin Powers bed shouldn't be considered here)

Flashman suggested "the other mound may've been in a deep drift caused by something less obvious"

This is apples and oranges imo. Let's say for this scenario we stick to this theory. Let's assume the wind direction caused the formation of mound one (even though their wasn't any others formed leeward side of other similiar obstacles). Then wouldn't we expect to find an obstacle near or around that would've created mound two? There were none- no other mounds behind any other obstacle!

Flashman also suggested- "Remember it would've been loose when piled after it got snow and thaw on it it would've been more "sticky" and tending to stay together, with just the outer layers thawing off and falling down"

Yes, but remember the organic topping wasn't stuck together, it was spread evenly over the mound and easily removed. There weren't any smaller pieces under the larger pieces. How do you explain that? And these weren't "stick mounds"..........they were debris mounds! As I've said I located the source of decaying pith from a nearby snag (20-25ft away) with a noticeable debris trail. The snag appeared to be of a fir tree to answer Sasquatched and the local tribe is Miwok if I'm not mistaken.

Flashman stated- "Well, that implies to me that the glazed surface "smoothed down by hands" was a result of the rain."

Flashman, I concede you could in fact be right and it could be caused by rain, however, the surface was smooth- wouldn't direct rain have pot marked the surface and add freezing and thawing? I would assume this process would rough it up a bit and you certainly would get a pretty uneven surface- not what we witnessed. Say the entire surface was covered, protected by wood debris across its entire surface. Would that be enough to protect the surface? To make it look as if it had been "glazed surface smoothed down by hands." I know where your coming from, and it is an assertion by us based on what we felt and witnessed. To us it just should've been an uneven surface, it was exactly the opposite and that's why Robert likely used those descriptive words in the article.

Kathy Strain btw, is a good friend and someone I have a great deal of respect for as a researcher and as a person, but she's aware of these mounds, and myself, Leiterman, Dr. Leila Hadh-Chikh and the rest of our party who witnessed these mounds in the state they were in respectfully disagree with her contention that they could've been created naturally from a "frozen cedar stump." And if she wants, she'll come on and share the reasons why as well as the results of her investigation in which I believe she said she did make it out to see them. I respect her opinion and have gained quite a bit of knowledge about this endeavor, thanks to her. We just don't feel she's right on this one, that's all.

One thing I really want to add for you to chew on a bit until I'm able to respond again- Not only was their a noticeable debris trail coming from what we believe was the source of said material-the snag 20-25 ft away, but the covering on mound two (actually both mounds) contained no particles of outside bark material only the decayed guts of the snag in mound two and an undetermined source in mound one? So if this is a natural occuring phenomenon, I'd appreciate someone detailing to me how only selective matter (inside rotted material) falls into place, and the surrounding material (outside bark) is absent? We'd have to assume that outside bark material had been previously stripped or consumed if this bark "fell" on naturally-coincidentally from material found on both mounds.

So based on this insight and let's forget about who or what the suspects are. Your opinion with facts- Al- Natural- or Artificially manufactured?

I'm still in good graces with my ex-wife, LOL so I will be sharing the few minutes of footage (likely next week) I remember taking which will defintely give you a better visualization than the provided photos. In the interim, if I can't get to your questions in time because of all the crap going on these two weeks, try asking them at the BFRO forum where Leiterman is answering them. Very similiar to here in the sense, if you sign up and are immedietely combative your likely to get yanked (not so if you've been signed up and contributed to conversations previously). If you go there to share thoughts, opinions, facts and ask questions and you have a problem let me know and I'll try and take care of it as I'll be periodically checking my email.

Thanks for the questions so far Flashman and everybody else.

Bart

[longtabber PE]

Hey guys-

I'm back temporarily as this was the worst two-week period this article could've came out for me personally between Xmas parties, studying for major career test and a 5-day vacation this Thur to Tuesday (likely won't have access to a computer), I apologize about that because I hate to leave anyone hanging, especially when they have some very good questions, and the whole purpose of this article from Robert and I's standpoint is to stimulate thought here, test our assessment (as well as that of others who saw the mounds shortly after finding them) that these mounds are not a product of nature, and see if anyone else may've stumbled across anything like this before because none of us have before or since. I'll try to give as many facts and details as possible now and am working on hopefully having some old footage available for you to see next week- when I get back, so bear with me.
If you found our investigation somewhat vague I apologize, but please understand that time was a huge factor in not only my decision to excavate the second mound and place a nearby trail cam facing it, but also in sufficient time for performing a more thorough investigation as darkness was quickly closing in and Robert and I having to leave very early in the morning, due to my extensive work schedule as a restaurant GM back then and I had to be back at work the following day. I was Robert's ride and to his chagrin we didn't even have time to check the mounds in the morning before departing. As is the life of an amateur "bigfoot" investigator, I'm sure most, if not all of you can relate.
Unfortuneatly and not surprisingly, I see from some comments here and some other threads that people are already huffing and puffing about this article, some for the simple fact that everything published from our BFRO website has a agenda and they want to insist we're pushing this as a bigfoot-related event when we have absolutely no verifiable evidence whatsoever associated with these mounds and "bigfoot" and have said so from the beginning. If you feel this way, and I'm the "horse" who participated in the find and it's coming straight from my mouth, your absolutely wrong in that "pushing bigfoot" sense and many people are interested in what we're sharing here. Like I said, feel free to criticize our limited investigation, hell, criticize us as researchers, especially me as I was pretty "raw" field-wise back in mid-2005. But don't make false statements that we're pushing this find as bigfoot-related when that clearly isn't the case, at least I wouldn't recommend it- especially if you haven't checked to make sure your "closet is fully clean." That's one thing about us bigfoot researchers that's unarguable and is always a good thing to remember, we leave a hell of alot more evidence of our existence online than these "things" leave of their existence in the forest.

Just for the record, I recall a few persons claimed to hear strange vocalizations on this particular expedition coming from an area near where we found the mounds. If I'm not mistaken, some people heard these purported vocalizations who are no longer in the BFRO. Robert and myself never heard anything on this trip and were actually joking about how quiet the trip was before stumbling into these mounds. A matter of fact, the only similiarities we see with these mounds and sasquatches at this point is that both are "rare" and not fully explained (figuratively speaking) and in our opinion (me more so than Robert because I've seen one) sasquatches have hands as do humans, so if these are "man-made" or manufactured with hands maybe their's a relationship there, maybe not. I do know this though, if sasquatches exist (again, I know they do only because I've seen one) I think we can collectively agree that SOME of these speculative or purported evidencial or behavioral matters- possible nest or bed sites, oddly twisted tree limbs, footprint evidence, various vocalizations, wood-knocks and tree-bashing etc.. are likely relevant. Which ones? I have know idea and either do you. All I can say is that they (the animals) exist, and my opinion as well as what I would confidently bet a majority here who are proponents would agree, some of these purported evidential matters have to be associated with these animals as I think we all agree that no flesh and blood animal can exist on this planet without leaving physical traces of its collective existence. Having said that, besides these two particular snow mounds and sasquatches being "anomalies" if you will, the similiarities stop there, so let's cut the crap and focus on the facts of the find, shall we.



FIRST MOUND:

Found by Leiterman, located on the southside of the pond, yet faced north (traditionally a cooler location?) Confirming that fact were several snowdrifts and the mound was also covered with more shade and vegetative cover overhead and was obviously exposed to less sunlight and posssibly less of a warmer breeze cooled by the shadows.
Looking at this particular mound as it's sitting under forest cover smuggled amongst a nearby snag and the downed log at its rear- Could some of the snow got caught in the tree tops, melted in the warmer rain, then continued to rain down on the mound with the melting sun well after the rain had subsided? Absolutely! The top of the first mound still had its top covered with debris and the lower bottom had been melted back-its covering sluffed away from the bottom portion. It should also be noted that the organic material covering on mound one, consisted of smaller and lighter particles collectively than mound two. Could these conditions have eroded the mound quicker then the second mound on the other side of the pond? I would assume it could if the climate conditions were exactly the same. the only difference was one having more water dumped on it then the next, but that's not the case. When the rain subsided on mound two, the drip continued on mound one. Based on the nearby snowdrifts which also suffer the same conditions, my guess is mound one is the older of the two mounds. With added organic topping, I would expect it to have protected the mound for a longer period of time.


Second Mound:

Found by me on northside, but south aspect of pond- a traditionally warmer location. Not surprisingly their weren't any snowdrifts nearby as they would've been expected to have been melted away by exposed sunlight,wind and warmer rains. This particular mound was also clearly exposed to sunlight and was absent of vegetative cover. Up until we discovered it, mound two was in better condition despite these exposure conditions and likely because the blanket-like organic cover protected it from the rain and sun.
So, if we are to assume the rains are erosive, why wasn't the mound in worse condition than mound one (which did have much better protection) and why less of an impact outside of the fact that it might not have been as old as mound one? Believe me, that whole second mound was completely covered with organic material (could not see white snow unless you lifted a piece of debris). There didn't appear to be more at the bottom then the top as Flashman suggested.
Now let's together speculate for one moment and say since the second mound was more exposed to "the conditions" due to the fact of less vegetative cover over it- could it of had a larger layer of snow over the organic layer (not stopped by upper branches), thereby protecting it more from the erosive elements so when we found them the outer layer of snow had been removed? As Leiterman stated in the article- the larger pieces had started to melt edges into the snow surface, the smaller ones were easily scraped free.

So if you were to ask me and most definitely Robert, I'd say if you feel it's relevant the first mound is likely and logically the oldest.

Flashman suggested- "I guess it's possible too that the mound was just a platform for a pile of debris on top, a flatter topped mound, but it had melted down to distribute it."

In a circle, Flash? Twice? Both mounds? What are the odds?

This platform idea doesn't sufficiently explain the circular dome shape of these mounds and why not melt back evenly? Also people don't normally make round beds (Austin Powers bed shouldn't be considered here)

Flashman suggested "the other mound may've been in a deep drift caused by something less obvious"

This is apples and oranges imo. Let's say for this scenario we stick to this theory. Let's assume the wind direction caused the formation of mound one (even though their wasn't any others formed leeward side of other similiar obstacles). Then wouldn't we expect to find an obstacle near or around that would've created mound two? There were none- no other mounds behind any other obstacle!

Flashman also suggested- "Remember it would've been loose when piled after it got snow and thaw on it it would've been more "sticky" and tending to stay together, with just the outer layers thawing off and falling down"

Yes, but remember the organic topping wasn't stuck together, it was spread evenly over the mound and easily removed. There weren't any smaller pieces under the larger pieces. How do you explain that? And these weren't "stick mounds"..........they were debris mounds! As I've said I located the source of decaying pith from a nearby snag (20-25ft away) with a noticeable debris trail. The snag appeared to be of a fir tree to answer Sasquatched and the local tribe is Miwok if I'm not mistaken.

Flashman stated- "Well, that implies to me that the glazed surface "smoothed down by hands" was a result of the rain."

Flashman, I concede you could in fact be right and it could be caused by rain, however, the surface was smooth- wouldn't direct rain have pot marked the surface and add freezing and thawing? I would assume this process would rough it up a bit and you certainly would get a pretty uneven surface- not what we witnessed. Say the entire surface was covered, protected by wood debris across its entire surface. Would that be enough to protect the surface? To make it look as if it had been "glazed surface smoothed down by hands." I know where your coming from, and it is an assertion by us based on what we felt and witnessed. To us it just should've been an uneven surface, it was exactly the opposite and that's why Robert likely used those descriptive words in the article.

Kathy Strain btw, is a good friend and someone I have a great deal of respect for as a researcher and as a person, but she's aware of these mounds, and myself, Leiterman, Dr. Leila Hadh-Chikh and the rest of our party who witnessed these mounds in the state they were in respectfully disagree with her contention that they could've been created naturally from a "frozen cedar stump." And if she wants, she'll come on and share the reasons why as well as the results of her investigation in which I believe she said she did make it out to see them. I respect her opinion and have gained quite a bit of knowledge about this endeavor, thanks to her. We just don't feel she's right on this one, that's all.

One thing I really want to add for you to chew on a bit until I'm able to respond again- Not only was their a noticeable debris trail coming from what we believe was the source of said material-the snag 20-25 ft away, but the covering on mound two (actually both mounds) contained no particles of outside bark material only the decayed guts of the snag in mound two and an undetermined source in mound one? So if this is a natural occuring phenomenon, I'd appreciate someone detailing to me how only selective matter (inside rotted material) falls into place, and the surrounding material (outside bark) is absent? We'd have to assume that outside bark material had been previously stripped or consumed if this bark "fell" on naturally-coincidentally from material found on both mounds.

So based on this insight and let's forget about who or what the suspects are. Your opinion with facts- Al- Natural- or Artificially manufactured?

I'm still in good graces with my ex-wife, LOL so I will be sharing the few minutes of footage (likely next week) I remember taking which will defintely give you a better visualization than the provided photos. In the interim, if I can't get to your questions in time because of all the crap going on these two weeks, try asking them at the BFRO forum where Leiterman is answering them. Very similiar to here in the sense, if you sign up and are immedietely combative your likely to get yanked (not so if you've been signed up and contributed to conversations previously). If you go there to share thoughts, opinions, facts and ask questions and you have a problem let me know and I'll try and take care of it as I'll be periodically checking my email.

Thanks for the questions so far Flashman and everybody else.

Bart

>>>So based on this insight and let's forget about who or what the suspects are. Your opinion with facts- Al- Natural- or Artificially manufactured?

Speaking for me personally- I'm not addressing anyones person or whatever- just the observations in the article.

If all you found were 2 and none since

I would write them off for the following reasons

1) no repeats
2) no reliable evidence it was done by a BF

It could have been a satanic ritual or who knows what- if theres nothing else, i just dont see the value in pursuing it further

[bartlojays]

>>>So based on this insight and let's forget about who or what the suspects are. Your opinion with facts- Al- Natural- or Artificially manufactured?

Speaking for me personally- I'm not addressing anyones person or whatever- just the observations in the article.

If all you found were 2 and none since

I would write them off for the following reasons

1) no repeats
2) no reliable evidence it was done by a BF

It could have been a satanic ritual or who knows what- if theres nothing else, i just dont see the value in pursuing it further

No offense Longtabber, if that's how you feel that will make way for the people who may find value in pursuing or discussing it further or maybe want to share something we're missing, overlooking etc... And I think the point that we did find two and none since says something because to an untrained eye these mounds blend in quite nicely in a forest setting and wouldn't be surprised if they were overlooked every so often. Your absolutely right, no reliable bigfoot evidence but nonetheless a anomaly. I find your comments interesting, would finding dozens of these over the years make them more likely bigfoot-related? I certainly wouldn't think so, personally.
Anyway, thanks for weighing in and I appreciate your opinion.

[dogu4]

Most dome shaped tents regardless of their specific geometries will create a circular footprint...and they are VERY popular. Creating a thermal layer our of slabs of bark and other debris is a great way to minimize the heat loss from the floor and those thicker branches would function very nicely to keep the edges from lifting. Of course, when it melts it will melt from the exposed edges first, resulting in a dome as well as the spreading reported on the spacing of the debris.

[bartlojays]

Most dome shaped tents regardless of their specific geometries will create a circular footprint...and they are VERY popular. Creating a thermal layer our of slabs of bark and other debris is a great way to minimize the heat loss from the floor and those thicker branches would function very nicely to keep the edges from lifting. Of course, when it melts it will melt from the exposed edges first, resulting in a dome as well as the spreading reported on the spacing of the debris.

I know the article emphasizes this, but I hope everyone knows their was no hollow inside- just pure "white" compressed snow. We excavated the second snow mound and that was my call. Their were no accumulation layers as well, meaning no layers of dirty snow inside the mound. Furthermore, their was no spreading on mound two, as I said, it looked like a stacked wood-pile from a distance and had Leiterman not caught the first one (which did have exposed snow among the debris), I may've not caught the second, which didn't have an inch of exposed snow.

[longtabber PE]

No offense Longtabber, if that's how you feel that will make way for the people who may find value in pursuing or discussing it further or maybe want to share something we're missing, overlooking etc... And I think the point that we did find two and none since says something because to an untrained eye these mounds blend in quite nicely in a forest setting and wouldn't be surprised if they were overlooked every so often. Your absolutely right, no reliable bigfoot evidence but nonetheless a anomaly. I find your comments interesting, would finding dozens of these over the years make them more likely bigfoot-related? I certainly wouldn't think so, personally.
Anyway, thanks for weighing in and I appreciate your opinion.

Dont take anything I say as negative ( its not meant that way) I'm just looking at this as an engineer.

You obviously found 'something" and its obvious that "something" is out of the ordinary.

Whether this is worth further investigation isnt my decision to make- its your groups

It could have hundreds of probable sources but in the end- there will only be one. ( whatever actually caused it)

I tend to think in a "file and folder' mindset and look at things from a standpoint of what value it is ( which determines resource allocation) to the subject at hand.- On this forum, being Bigfoot.

With that said ( this is nothing more than my personal recommendation)

If this single anomoly hasnt been seen before or since, and since it hasnt been reported ( to my knowledge) as purported BF behavior- its probably not.

That doesnt mean it shouldnt be studied and it doesnt mean it shouldnt be cataloged should future events be discovered- it just means i wouldnt devote too much resource to it at this time.

[bartlojays]

Dont take anything I say as negative ( its not meant that way) I'm just looking at this as an engineer.

You obviously found 'something" and its obvious that "something" is out of the ordinary.

Whether this is worth further investigation isnt my decision to make- its your groups

It could have hundreds of probable sources but in the end- there will only be one. ( whatever actually caused it)

I tend to think in a "file and folder' mindset and look at things from a standpoint of what value it is ( which determines resource allocation) to the subject at hand.- On this forum, being Bigfoot.

With that said ( this is nothing more than my personal recommendation)

If this single anomoly hasnt been seen before or since, and since it hasnt been reported ( to my knowledge) as purported BF behavior- its probably not.

That doesnt mean it shouldnt be studied and it doesnt mean it shouldnt be cataloged should future events be discovered- it just means i wouldnt devote too much resource to it at this time.

I agree with just about everything you just said here. That's exactly how we've looked at it (catalogued for future events) hence their was no emergency to release this article seeing it's been 2 1/2 years since we bumped into these and we wanted to keep our eyes open. We just wanted to share the find, gather feedback and I'm certainly not ruling out a "natural" (not artificially developed) explanation if someone can provide an in-depth explanation addressing the countless problems of them having the appearance and apparent characteristics of being "unnatural." if these are natural, I would expect dozens of them to be around and the countless outdoorsmen who frequent this forum should be finding them around in the next few months and I want to encourage them to look. Furthermore, their should be pictures previously taken and shared throughout the internet showing similiar mounds rather natural or "man-made"- in 2 1/2 years all I've found pictures of online are bare natural mounds (little or no debris) and slash piles in the snow.
Furthermore, if our assessment is proven wrong (that they were constructed), I certainly won't go cower in a corner and either will Leiterman or anyone else. I've personally got no problem being the guinea pig (if you will) and being fooled, it's part of a learning process in something I've found great joy in doing (being part of the search and being in the field) and others will learn from those mistakes in this field, which comforts me just fine.
And I really do appreciate you weighing in Longtabber, because your posts have proven your a pretty darn knowledgeable person who has great insight into many facets concerning this overall subject.

[Hairy Man]

Kathy Strain btw, is a good friend and someone I have a great deal of respect for as a researcher and as a person, but she's aware of these mounds, and myself, Leiterman, Dr. Leila Hadh-Chikh and the rest of our party who witnessed these mounds in the state they were in respectfully disagree with her contention that they could've been created naturally from a "frozen cedar stump." And if she wants, she'll come on and share the reasons why as well as the results of her investigation in which I believe she said she did make it out to see them. I respect her opinion and have gained quite a bit of knowledge about this endeavor, thanks to her. We just don't feel she's right on this one, that's all.

Hey Bart!

In case anyone may be curious why my name is even being mentioned about this, it's only because these were found on the Stanislaus National Forest on the expedition that RB and I planned. Bart - I know you are seeking additional information to determine what these are, so some of the following might be useful:

--These aren't related to Native Americans (Miwok) because the area had been surveyed by archaeologists prior to 2005.

--The area also have been undergoing a fuels reduction project (where fire crews clean up the forest of dead and downed logs, brush, limbs, etc. and put them into pile for burning in early spring or late fall) as well as a project aimed at reducing the conifer encroachment on the meadow and pond (which was killing the aspen). Crews had been working in there in 2003, 2004, and 2005 piling and burning materials.

--It isn't uncommon to find dead trees with no bark (only the insides left) and piles of bark (because the insides already decayed) and everything in between. Forests are dynamic and alive with insects and animals.

--Snow that freezes, thaws, and refreezes gets a shinny glossy look (see any snow pile on the side of the road left by plows).

Personally, after having seen the first one (I think...it's the one mentioned with the stump?), my opinion is that are natural or related to the mentioned Forest Service projects. I didn't see the second one but based on the picture, it is a bit odd.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Dec 4 2007, 04:16 PM

[hopeful]

...
So based on this insight and let's forget about who or what the suspects are. Your opinion with facts- Al- Natural- or Artificially manufactured?
...

My guess as to the mounds being 1) naturally formed or 2) artificially formed is 'a combination of both.'

IMO, as Flashman said, the mounds weren't actually made into mounds by the same thing that placed the debris. The debris was placed on top of the naturally occurring lay of the snow covered land or perhaps inside a snow shelter. Then as the surrounding snow melted away, the covered snow was protected and stayed around much longer.

Dogu4 is correct about dome shaped tents, and they are very popular. They are round or octagonal and would benefit from a round shaped pad of soft debris which would have been intentionally chosen by the maker.

If not a tent pad, then to line a snow shelter. Again, it makes sense that the softer debris would have been chosen for this purpose. The same melting procedure would have taken place with the surrounding snow as well as the top of the shelter melting away to expose the debris which would prolong the melting of the underlying snow.

This post has been edited by hopeful: Dec 4 2007, 04:13 PM

[Gunnison]

After doing a bit of head scratching on this one I came up with one possible function of the mounds, but it doesn’t answer who built them.

Fungi (mushrooms) grow where the ground is moist and fertile which often include growing from and around decayed tree and other plant matter. The decayed matter provided nutrients and the mulch effect also helps hold ground moisture while allowing easy growth from the soft ground.

Is it possible these mounds of snow were made to provide a garden for fungi? The snow mound providing moisture for plant growth, with the decayed wood debris on top serving several functions such as insulation to slow snow meltage and once the snow is, melted provides nutrition and a mulch to foster growth?

This might be a possible use/reason/function of the mounds but still leaves the question unanswered as the builder! Maybe serious fungi hunters?

[bartlojays]

Hey Bart!

In case anyone may be curious why my name is even being mentioned about this, it's only because these were found on the Stanislaus National Forest on the expedition that RB and I planned. Bart - I know you are seeking additional information to determine what these are, so some of the following might be useful:

--These aren't related to Native Americans (Miwok) because the area had been surveyed by archaeologists prior to 2005.

--The area also have been undergoing a fuels reduction project (where fire crews clean up the forest of dead and downed logs, brush, limbs, etc. and put them into pile for burning in early spring or late fall) as well as a project aimed at reducing the conifer encroachment on the meadow and pond (which was killing the aspen). Crews had been working in there in 2003, 2004, and 2005 piling and burning materials.

--It isn't uncommon to find dead trees with no bark (only the insides left) and piles of bark (because the insides already decayed) and everything in between. Forests are dynamic and alive with insects and animals.

--Snow that freezes, thaws, and refreezes gets a shinny glossy look (see any snow pile on the side of the road left by plows).

Personally, after having seen the first one (I think...it's the one mentioned with the stump?), my opinion is that are natural or related to the mentioned Forest Service projects. I didn't see the second one but based on the picture, it is a bit odd.

Hey sweetie,
Thanks for weighing in, this is your backyard afterall, and you know the topography as good or better than anybody, especially where we were in June 2005. I've got a million questions for you so please bear with me, maybe together we can get to the bottom of these damn "mounds," literally.
You mentioned the fire crews working and cleaning up the forest near the "meadow" from 2003-2005 that piled and burned materials as well as the conifer encroachment problem on the meadow and pond (which killed aspen). They don't typically burn the type of rotted, decaying material on the mounds in the pictures though, correct?
These are some of my contentions with a relationship from this particular program with the snow mounds themselves- not taking into account the organic debris which was found and photographed on both mounds- if I remember correctly, (please correct me if I'm wrong) but the area where the mounds were found was about a mile (maybe a little bit less) or so from the main road coming into the meadow. It's my understanding that the area of eradication and fire management is typically much closer to the road areas, shoulders, public structural facilities, campgrounds etc... under the umbrella and emphasis of fire management.
Also I wouldn't expect them to be back (fire man. crew) or near where these mounds were located (including the fact that their was no sign left of any brush crew) for two reasons, one- the pond in between the mounds appeared to be seasonal and appeared to be dried up by the time the "melted" mound pictures were taken with good ole "Dave J posing like a cowboy." When you found the first mound (unfortuneatly you missed the second, dammit) was their any water left in the pond? The reason I'm asking is that I would just expect a seasonal pond wouldn't take priority with brush crews over other riparian areas I think I remember seeing near there.
Two- I wouldn't expect them to worry about problems with aspen trees "there" because in that particular side of the meadow, it's such a shaded location. I know these aspens can grow like weeds in a colony, but they traditionally don't do well and are not usually found in areas lacking sun in which the mounds were found. A matter of fact I remember a big congregation of aspen trees on the eastside (in the open) of the meadow that some of us negotiated through on our way to spycamp on a large outcropping almost a mile away. I think their may've also been a few little scattered aspen bunches-maybe in the large meadow center which of course are exposed to more sunlight.
And I also agree 110% with you here- "Snow that freezes, thaws, and refreezes gets a shinny glossy look (see any snow pile on the side of the road left by plows)." because this is how glaciers are formed as the snow melts together it "crystalizes" and becomes more dense, is that what you were referring to?
Also Kath, I was going to ask you how long after we left did you head out to the mound location (I think Robert verbally told you where they were, someone may've given you GPS but I don't know which person because I didn't have the coordinates myself). But were you able to get any photos of mound one for comparison shots when you were there, because I'm still trying to find some other angled photos I may've taken? It'd be cool to compare them, I just wish it was mound two because I would've loved to see how long that sucker held up.
Also Kath, were you there when someone claimed to see a dark silohouetted figure on the edge of the meadow I think on Sat night, near the snow mound location? Apparently everyone was accounted for and Robert, myself, *****, Bradley and Kyle had already headed for our spycamp destination, so I missed it. I also failed to hear any of the vocalizations that weekend but a few others had mentioned possible knocks and vocs.
And last but not least, I'm dying to know from your standpoint after now seeing the photos of mound two and hearing our descriptions, what seems "odd" about it to you? After hearing and seeing everything on these threads regarding the mounds and what we noted and observed, has it changed or had an effect on your initial opinion that they were "natural," and could they be man-made?
Thanks hon! I appreciate your feedback and although we didn't agree with your initial assessment, in fairness to you, you'd already headed back home (damn kids and animals, LOL) and you didn't have the opportunity to see them in person at the stage we did. But I did try to ask you guys (RB) to stay every night, had more fun with you guys there .

Gunnison- Awsome thinking out of the box, I just don't know if that makes sense seasonally however. I'd ask my brother who hunts mushrooms, but by the time I do, I'm sure someone here will have an answer.

[julio12]

bartlojays
does snow in that area stay deep until june or has it melted before june?

[bartlojays]

bartlojays
does snow in that area stay deep until june or has it melted before june?

Hairyman would know better than me in that area in an average year. But I can tell you when we found those mounds they were the biggest snow patches I remember seeing anywhere on that trip except for the main roadway into the undisclosed "meadow" which the truck I was using got stuck in. Besides that general area, I don't recall seeing much snow on that trip (except for patches) and Robert and myself hiked alot of acreage.

[Hairy Man]

You mentioned the fire crews working and cleaning up the forest near the "meadow" from 2003-2005 that piled and burned materials as well as the conifer encroachment problem on the meadow and pond (which killed aspen). They don't typically burn the type of rotted, decaying material on the mounds in the pictures though, correct?

Oh hon, fireman burn everything! There are two ways the typically do it...they will pile slash in piles away from trees and burn it in place. Then, after scratching a firebreak around the perimeter, the set that on fire to get everything else.

These are some of my contentions with a relationship from this particular program with the snow mounds themselves- not taking into account the organic debris which was found and photographed on both mounds- if I remember correctly, (please correct me if I'm wrong) but the area where the mounds were found was about a mile (maybe a little bit less) or so from the main road coming into the meadow. It's my understanding that the area of eradication and fire management is typically much closer to the road areas, shoulders, public structural facilities, campgrounds etc... under the umbrella and emphasis of fire management.
Also I wouldn't expect them to be back (fire man. crew) or near where these mounds were located (including the fact that their was no sign left of any brush crew) for two reasons, one- the pond in between the mounds appeared to be seasonal and appeared to be dried up by the time the "melted" mound pictures were taken with good ole "Dave J posing like a cowboy." When you found the first mound (unfortuneatly you missed the second, dammit) was their any water left in the pond? The reason I'm asking is that I would just expect a seasonal pond wouldn't take priority with brush crews over other riparian areas I think I remember seeing near there.

We have fuel reductions projects (the special PC word of the day) all over the place. How far from a road or structure it will be depends on the purpose of the project. In the urban interface, landowners themselves are supposed to clear up to 300 feet and we are to clear about a mile more. For forest health projects, we do what is necessary to enhance/maintain/restore the habitat/environment. In that area, the goal was to reduce the conifer encroachment into the meadow to help the aspen rejuvenate. The pond (because it's red-legged frog habitat) was part of the project. I think it was about a mile from the road. I don't remember if there was water in the pond but I do remember it smelled bad.

Two- I wouldn't expect them to worry about problems with aspen trees "there" because in that particular side of the meadow, it's such a shaded location. I know these aspens can grow like weeds in a colony, but they traditionally don't do well and are not usually found in areas lacking sun in which the mounds were found. A matter of fact I remember a big congregation of aspen trees on the eastside (in the open) of the meadow that some of us negotiated through on our way to spycamp on a large outcropping almost a mile away. I think their may've also been a few little scattered aspen bunches-maybe in the large meadow center which of course are exposed to more sunlight.

I think what they were after was to help the seedlings. Conifers, because their roots are deeper, hog all the water and cause the aspens to die. It actually looks quite good now...and it won some sort of restoration award.

And I also agree 110% with you here- "Snow that freezes, thaws, and refreezes gets a shinny glossy look (see any snow pile on the side of the road left by plows)." because this is how glaciers are formed as the snow melts together it "crystalizes" and becomes more dense, is that what you were referring to?

I don't know if that is how glacier form. All I know is when I drive on snow after it has melt and refrozen it is shinny and hard to drive on!

Also Kath, I was going to ask you how long after we left did you head out to the mound location (I think Robert verbally told you where they were, someone may've given you GPS but I don't know which person because I didn't have the coordinates myself). But were you able to get any photos of mound one for comparison shots when you were there, because I'm still trying to find some other angled photos I may've taken? It'd be cool to compare them, I just wish it was mound two because I would've loved to see how long that sucker held up.

I have a bunch of photos...Dave gave them and the GPS coordinates to me. If you don't have those, let me know and I'll send them to you. To be honest, I wasn't going to go out to see them because Dave had provided such excellent photographs to me ...but he made me feel guilty. I got married about three weeks after the expedition (Dave came to my wedding after picking up the camera traps) so I am not particular sure when in there I went (but it would have been the week before the wedding or a week after). I couldn't find the second mound because it had already melted...but the other one was present (although I wouldn't have been able to find it without the GPS coordinates).

Also Kath, were you there when someone claimed to see a dark silohouetted figure on the edge of the meadow I think on Sat night, near the snow mound location? Apparently everyone was accounted for and Robert, myself, ***, Bradley and Kyle had already headed for our spycamp destination, so I missed it. I also failed to hear any of the vocalizations that weekend but a few others had mentioned possible knocks and vocs.

Yeah, that was Fuzzy who thought he saw two figures by the pond during the day on Saturday. I have his email if you want to talk to him. I know there were vocalizations (heard them and Cliff has at least one on tape). I don't remember knocks.

And last but not least, I'm dying to know from your standpoint after now seeing the photos of mound two and hearing our descriptions, what seems "odd" about it to you? After hearing and seeing everything on these threads regarding the mounds and what we noted and observed, has it changed or had an effect on your initial opinion that they were "natural," and could they be man-made?

I knew you were going to ask that! I remember thinking it was odd then too, but I think a lot of natural things are odd (oh and us women folk prefer the term "human-made" lol!). I guess my reasoning that it's not human-made is because it doesn't look to be organized in any fashion. Bark structures (such as acorn grainaries and the such) maintain their structure even in collapsed form. Neither one looks to have bark carefully placed and obviously with the second one melted, it looks like a random flat pile of bark...nothing more. It should have held some form going down.

Thanks hon! I appreciate your feedback and although we didn't agree with your initial assessment, in fairness to you, you'd already headed back home (damn kids and animals, LOL) and you didn't have the opportunity to see them in person at the stage we did. But I did try to ask you guys (RB) to stay every night, had more fun with you guys there .

Yeah but we were warmer than you guys! And it's always fun driving dark forest roads at two in the morning! But you know, I don't know everything...I'm just tell you my opinion and that with $5.00 may get you a venti vanilla latte!

[Hairy Man]

bartlojays
does snow in that area stay deep until june or has it melted before june?

It done all of the above because it depends on how much snow has fallen, the last time it did, and the weather. I've been in places in May without snow; in July with snow; and snowed on in May, June, and July!

All I do know is that the area is very good bigfoot habitat...and if I find that big bottle of cherry flavoring (to go with the snow"cone" mounds, I'm snagging it)!