Has anyone ever tried dismantling one of these to see if there is anything underneath? It occured to me this morning that these structures, if they are indeed Bigfoot related, may be where a Bigfoot has died & been covered by debris by other Bigfoots. Any thoughts?

I always thought tee pee's were made by the native americans? But I guess anything is possible? If u get anymore info on this please let me know.

Does anyone have any photos of these things?

I think he might mean these things


http://www.bigfootlady.net/may22.html (You click that )

I'm not sure what you mean wvbig. If you mean the simple (what appears natural) teepee shown in the picture posted by P.J., I'm don't know what dismantling it would prove. The formation is easily visible. If you mean something more substantial, like a nest, then yes, I found one and took it apart...you can find the article here!

Trees fall down and make tee-pee shapes. I see them all over the place. Unless you find something else to indicate a large animal used it for shelter, you're looking at a mundane natural phenomenon.

I have to agree with Bipto. I've seen similar looking things before.

Have seen plenty of these in Oz, nothing unusual about them, just mother natures art work

I have never been a big believer that the tepee things are Bigfoot related. Like others have said I have seen to many things close to them that you could tell was just the way things fell.
Now I have to admit I have seen some pictures on some of the sites that would be hard to explain as nature. They was made by something or someone I would say. But Bigfoot I am just not sure that would be the answer.

Now with that said some of the lets call them nest pictures I have seen I believe could be Bigfoot related. A lot of the large apes make some sort of nest every night.

Micahn
Did you read my description of the beds and the location of them in my post, if not take a look and let me know if the beds in USA are similar in appearanvce and the location of them.

http://sasquatchwatchofvafield.blogspot.com/



When trees fall down, they either break off & leave a stump or fall out roots & all & leave a hole in the ground.

They also very often fall into one another and get caught on each other's branches. If more than one do that and are leaning towards each other, you have a basic tee-pee shape.

Are you saying all those trees I see leaning into one another are that way because bigfoot are pushing them all over?

If that is the case we are in trouble, there are obviusly a lot more BF's than first suggested as there are a lot of of these structures around the world

My point exactly. There would be massive herds of bigfoot thundering across the plains...

What makes you think this type of tree entanglement is the work of Bigfoot?
What would be its purpose to a Bigfoot?
Am I suppose to believe these formations constitute some kind of shelter, the upright formation of a few twigs? If thats the case I would think it not very effective, why make anything at all?
The lack of definition in these formations make me think that nothing more than weather is to blame.

If you have another theory as to why Bigfoot would make these things, please enlighten me.

Yea they look a lot alike I would say from pictures.

Thanks HM that's the first time I've seen this good info!!!!

Of course I'm not suggesting that. But there are some of these structures found that obviously didn't just fall into each other because there is no stump or hole in the ground where they fell out by the roots.

These are not just "twigs" piled together. Some of these are made up of large pieces of trees. I've heard discussed on various Bigfoot forums & radio programs that they may be Bigfoot territory boundary markers, and they may be. But it occured to me that they may be where a Bigfoot has died & been covered by other Bigfoots in the family group. The reason these are believed to be Bigfoot related is that they are often found in the middle of nowhere & therefore must've been placed there by someone or something because the obvious signs of them occuring naturally(just falling into each other, wind, lightning strikes)are missing. I'm surprised these haven't been discussed on here before. They are hardly a new phenomenon on other discussion boards, websites, or radio programs.

I think when we find a structure that shows signs of a large animal bedding down in it and the proper site investigation is done (like that described in HM's link earlier in this thread) and that investigation comes up with something interesting, then we've got something. The problem with this area of research is there are so many naturally occurring formations out there that simple cursory examination of them won't tell us anything.

I think Billy and Tom found some interesting structures in the Virginia article but I would agree a more in-depth site investigation would be the thing to do. They both have the brain power to do that. I never have run into anything I would call a t-pee or a nest. These just seem natural to me. I have run into other tree/limb formations that are way more interesting and didn't have readily natural explanations. What caused them...who knows?

I'd like to see that article Mike!

You know what would be helpful, if under this Forum, we had areas categorized by "evidence" (notice the quotes) so that all tree break material is lumped together, call blasting, etc. so that info is easier to find. Just a suggestion, but I think I miss a lot of things because I can't find them (and yes I know about search, but it needs to be dumbed down even further for me.... )

Well one easy way to answer one of the questions. Someone that knows where some of the tepees are go dig some under one and see just what you find. Who knows you just might get real lucky and find where one was buried and get the real proof that is needed in this whole thing.

This one is easy HM...click the link in post #11 above.

Any plans to return to site with a shovel?




Middle of no where that you were able to access?

If thats true, then I must have a whole CITY of bigfoots living in the area around my house. But I've never seen one... or seen footprints... or crap....

Those are natural.

Hell how do you know that someone didn't come through there 10-20 years ago and build a shelter to stay the night? I do it all the time, there must be 5-6 'teepee' structures in New Gloucester, Maine from me.



Some of those logs look like they were cut with a saw a long time ago. Maybe they have saws? Or maybe they found them on the ground, you find them all the time around here. I'm still not convinced about the nests. I see similar 'structures' in the woods all the time that I just thought were natural.

Did you take a look at the photos of the beds I posted on the Yowie thread.

Mike, thanks for the comment. We are in NO WAY saying that these are CONCRETE EVIDENCE of Bigfoot. There could be other explanations, we are just offering this information as a POSSIBLE. Until we actually see a Bigfoot constructing one of these structures, we just don't know. However, I also believe that it is wrong to simply DISMISS the findings. What harm is done by simply making a note of these findings, take some measurements, take some photos, come up with possible reasons or theories, etc. That's what science is all about. We document these findings on a GPS so we can go back, place them on a map and look at it from a larger standpoint. For the 5-10 minutes it takes to make some of these simple documentations, whats the harm? Maybe, just maybe, one day we will figure out they are or are not related to Bigfoot. If they are, then we already have documented information to help us.

By the way, Tom and I both spend several hours in the woods carefully looking at the surrounding trees and ground for evidence of natural falls and so forth.

I have found the teepee structures in a very remote area of Idaho. I didn't think anything about them at the time but I did report it to BFRO to which they never did post it. The three I found were in a triangle shape in formation of three and they were in a stream. I couldn't say for sure who or what made them but it seemed like a presence could be felt. I would like to know why they set these up as well and why would they choose that location.

It was interesting to say the least.

RB

If in fact they were placed there by a Bigfoot. Maybe it was to mark a spot with alot of fish.

I have found Tee Pee structures in active bigfoot areas before. I have taken a closer look at them and have found some interesting things. My research is conducted in Texas and food sources vary from state to state. I have found the branches that the smaller tee pee structures are made of consist of branches from different types of food source trees found in active areas. Some are pecan, black walnut, plum, red mulberry, and hickory. On some occasions you may find grapevines inertwined in these structures which is another food source. I find this interesting considering these trees and vines produce fruits and nuts that have a high in nutritional value.

It would be interesting to see what type of trees these branches belong to that are found in structures from other states.

Luke Gross

One area comes to mind, where I found a number of them, made primarily out of sweetgum, red maple, and mountain laurel (!). I can't imagine any nutritional value from any of them. I think those were used because they were what was present.

In another area I saw some teepee structures made from Loblolly pines. I can't imagine there to be any nutritional value to them, either.

Hi, Over the years I have seen some beds, but not the teepee type, That would be to easy for us to find and there not that dumb, They dont want to leave any evidence like that, Here is one pic I took of a bed up in the mountains, and there was a few more the same in other valleys.Click to view attachment

Can you positively rule out it being a deer or bear bed?

Me too, and there definitely isn't a bigfoot in the forest near where I live!

Funny how some researchers keep ignoring the fact that teepees and 'x' formations are also found in forests where there is no possibility of bigfoot activity?

Don't ruin it, Paul. Isn't more fun to think you've found a bigfoot teepee?

New question. Did the bigfoot teach the Native Americans to build teepees or vice versa?

I would rule out deer and bear, because there was no sign of there tracks or scat anywere around, I found big 16 inch tracks by two other beds like this.



I would rule out deer and bear, because there was no sign of there tracks or scat anywere around, I found big 16 inch tracks by two other beds like this.

That doesn't sound right - was there bigfoot scat? If not, then then you should look at ruling it out in the same way you rule out bear or deer due to lack of scat.

Why would you rule it out, I dont know of any human or animal that craps were it sleeps, most go aways away from it and Im sure bf does not want more stink around his bed, he is bad enough already, They might crap a mile away who knows, and also they bury it, There not going to leave a pile of it so we can come and get it. There not dumb like a deer and crap all over the bush so you can follow them.

Why rule it out? Because you can't have double standards. You said this "I would rule out deer and bear, because there was no sign of there tracks or scat anywere around". So, if you have ruled out bear and deer on the basis of no scat, then you should do the same for bigfoot.

In other words, you are ruling *in* bigfoot solely on the basis of tracks, so why mention scat at all?

You also said this: "and also they bury it" how do you know this?

I dont think I would rule out bigfoot because there is no crap around, If there is 16 inch tracks there, thats good enough for me, also you mentioned big foot scat not me, I said no deer or bear scat around. Anyway how do I know they bury there scat, trust me I know, there not going to eat it or put it in trees, They also crap in fast running streams so it dissapears, if they didnt do this with 5 or 6 thousand supposed bigfoot running around out there, Im sure there would be piles of it out there to get. Thats why there always around rivers and streams.

There
Their
They're

Three separate words three separate meanings.
Learn them, love them, use them.

Bigfoot hangs around streams because they need a public sewer system to dispose of their poop? Huh...never heard that one before. I thought maybe it was because they just might require water like every other living thing.
I guess that answers the old rhetorical question, "Does a bigfoot poop in the woods?" Nope he uses a loo.

I had no idea there were BPE's (Bigfoot Poop Experts) but I guess we have to trust you because you said we have to.

I needed that this morning, BD! Thanks!

Please stop being facetious

Again, HOW do you know this? Where is the evidence that they either bury their scat or deposit it in streams?

Do you really expect anyone to accept this 'fact' just because you tell them to trust you? Really?





Yes, and you ruled them out because of it, but don't apply the same rule to bigfoot.


You explain the nest because of print(s) only - just how close were the tracks to the "nest"? Was it a track or a print? If a track, then how many prints? Photos? Casts?

Now Paul and BD...don't go confusing the issue with logic. That is just plain unfair!

There, Their, They're, You guys crack me up, Maby you will learn somthing new about bigfoot, if you pay attention and can read, I said 16 inch tracks not prints, You never heard of bigfoot crapping in rivers, were have you been, You seem to always try a twist things around on these forums, Like I said before on my Sighting, I have alot more that I have not said, or shown on here, I have already put pics, and pics of tracks, on these forums, more than most do. most just talk and thats all they do, And yes I have more pics of tracks in and around those beds, or I would not have mentioned it to begin with, You guys went from beds to poop, Whats next how bigfoot trims his nails in his bed, Some people know alot more about BF than there saying on here, And I am not the only one. who would belive you anyway.

There

countdown to sighting implosion commencing

5, 4, 3, 2, 1.............................


dav

I know of at least four species and oddly enough they are the four most closely related to humans.

Apeman

HikerII:


I've been paying attention to this thread since the first post and I have been reading about sasquatch for(like most here) years......most everything gets recycled, but occasionally you find something new. Unfortunately, I haven't found that in this thread. Typically that happens when someone makes a statement such as the one above. Unfortunately again, those promises fall short. I don't claim to be a know all guru of squatchdom but I have picked up a few things over the years and all of it deals more with humans than squatch.



Can you elaborate on the difference between "tracks" and "Prints"? I can.



I can't say that I have. I know hippos do. I know fish do. I know other critters do, but I can't say a sasquatch does. In the grand scheme of things, I cannot fathom an animal supposedly smart enough to hide it's own footprints, defecating in it's drinking supply...but I'm human...I always thought creeks and waterways were drinking sources, possible hunting areas and even highways through dense growth areas. Kinda gives you a whole other reason to boil your water before you drink it.




People usually claim that when they are getting asked questions here.





Aaa yeah....people say that alot here also. Why not say everything? Let it all hang out instead of trying to give it to us in piecemeal? This never makes sense to me. "Hey! I got a sighting! I'm only going to tell you bits and pieces of it though! Not all of it at once. You can't handle all of it once! If you get rowdy I'll dangle out other bits and tempt you until you calm down." Sorry, but I hate that and to me it detracts from the account.



Once again see above. Also, how do you know what most people do an this forum or have done? Could be that alot of the people who you think do the least or just flap their gums, have actually done a good bit.



As Paul Harvey says.."And now the rest of the story."

You brough up the scat thing:



Paul asked you:


That seems a reasonable statement. Why not rule it out? Oh... the prints/tracks. Are you sure they are prints/tracks of a sasquatch? If this is the case then you need to be contacting some people with some nice degrees on their walls to look at them. That would be a good find! What about tracks of other animals? Why wouldn't you rule out other animals on the lack of tracks instead of lack of scat?



You ruled out other animals.....once again, are they bigfoot prints? Do you know how long a pile of scat would last out in the woods? It is going to depend on a number of factors, but over all, not a long length of time. Especially, if there is food remenants present. Those pesky little things called insects like stuff like that.
5-6 thousand??? We cannot prove one, so why throw out population numbers?

Reminds me of a bad joke...A big sasquatch and a little white rabbit was headed to the bathroom in the woods. The big sasquatch said; "Hey little white rabbit, does crap stick to your fur?" The little white rabbit replied, " I don't think so, why?" The sasquatch answered, " No reason..you mind coming down to the creek with me?"..........

Oooo, I know. It's terrible.

You have no idea how many times I wanted to say that (not towards you Hiker)

Thank You